Lies About Blowjobs, Bad.... Wars? Not So Much

[RedEarth]

Lies About Blowjobs, Bad. Wars? Not So Much.


At a recent conference on the Clinton Administration at Hofstra University, ex-press secretary Jake Siewart made a point that had previously eluded me: It was during the early days of Clinton's presidency that the democratization of instant information made the insider press corps obsolete. To retain their importance and self-regard, these journalists had to invent a new function for themselves, and they did: interpreting, not reporting, the news. But instead of doing the hard work of researching the historical, economic, sociological and political contexts of a given story and then finding a way to explain these in lay terms, they preferred to rely on what came most easily to them: cocktail party gossip, green room small talk, semiofficial leaks and unconfirmed rumor, almost always offered up as if the source had no interest in pushing a point of view.

It soon became clear that the insider press corps had developed a set of values almost completely antithetical to those of the majority of the American people. This disjunction is frequently misinterpreted--often deliberately--as one of snooty liberal elitists versus God-fearing, Darwin-disbelieving, upright common folk. It's almost impossible to find reliable evidence for this characterization, either in what the press corps believes or what the public does. Ironically, the media elite are attacking themselves when they embrace this myth, which is purposely stoked by the far right, as I've demonstrated ad nauseam.

A true dichotomy between the public and the elite media can be found, on the other hand, on the subject of presidential lying. Excluding George Washington and perhaps Jimmy Carter, just about all Presidents have found it necessary to lie to the American people. And with those two exceptions, and possibly a few others, many have also found it necessary--or at least desirable--to fool around with women other than their wives. For reasons of culture and history, the mainstream media decided that both of these longstanding traditions had to end with Bill Clinton.

When Bill Clinton lied about a few blowjobs, the Washington press corps treated his actions as a threat to the Republic. As John Harris observes in his history of the period, The Survivor, on the night Clinton offered his prime-time, post-testimony national apology, network commentary was overwhelmingly negative. Calls for Clinton to resign reigned on pundit television and on the op-ed pages throughout the ordeal--often couched in terms of doing so "for the children." But Clinton pollster Mark Penn would soon find, Harris explains, that "a clear majority of viewers thought Clinton's remarks were fine.... It was only hard-core Republicans and political 'elites'--the kind of people quoted by the networks--who were dissatisfied with the speech." This would prove, Harris observes, "a vivid example of the dichotomy in public opinion that had existed all year." Indeed, Clinton's approval rating hovered between the mid-sixties and the low seventies through the entire ordeal.

http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20060220&s=alterman

[CheshireCat]

1. Great article

Giving this post a well deserved bump!

[Karenina]

5. The visual...

[JeffR]

2. kick

:kick:

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Uncle Joe]

4. It is difficult for the corpwhorate owned MSM

to cover Bush with any integrity because they are complicit, they are basically taking the fifth in their reporting.

Kicked and recommended

:kick:

[Pacifist Patriot]

6. My husband, a reformed Republican and now avowed moderate, just sent me...

this editorial in an email. His comment above the link said, "Interesting article, makes a lot of sense."

I'm still reeling over the fact he stumbled upon something in The Nation.

[otohara]

7. Pundits, Clear Sign Media is NOT Liberal

they are disgusting blowhards for the right-wing, determined to dumb down citizenry.