The truth in print

[ProSense]

THE TRIANGLE: Matthews, Moore, Murtha, and the Media

What's the common thread running through the past half-decade of Bush's presidency? What's the nexus between the Swift-boating of Kerry, the Swift-boating of Murtha, and the guilt-by-association between Democrats and terrorists? Why has a seemingly endless string of administration scandals faded into oblivion? Why do Democrats keep losing elections? It's this: the traditional media, the trusted media, the "neutral" media, have become the chief delivery mechanism of potent anti-Democratic and pro-Bush storylines.

And the Democratic establishment appears to be either ignorant of this political quandary or unwilling to fight it.

Snip...

You've heard the narratives: Bush is likable, Bush is a regular guy, Bush is firm, Bush is a religious man, Bush relishes a fight, Democrats are muddled, Democrats have no message, national security is Bush's strength, terror attacks and terror threats help Bush (even though he presided over the worst attack ever on American soil), Democrats are weak on security, Democrats need to learn how to talk about values, Republicans favor a "strict interpretation" of the Constitution, and on and on.

A single storyline is more effective than a thousand stories. And a single storyline delivered by a "neutral" reporter is a hundred times more dangerous than a storyline delivered by an avowed partisan. Rightwingers can attack the media for criticizing Bush, can slam the New York Times for being liberal, but when the Times and the Post and CNN and MSNBC echo the 'Bush stands firm' mantra, it adds one more brick to a powerful pro-Bush edifice.

These narratives are woven so deeply into the fabric of news coverage that they have become second nature and have permeated the public psyche and are regurgitated in polls. (The polls are then used to strengthen the narratives.) They are delivered as affirmative statements, interrogatives, hypotheticals; they are discussed as fact and accepted as conventional wisdom; they are twisted, turned, shaped, reshaped, and fed to the American public in millions of little soundbites, captions, articles, editorials, news stories, and opinion pieces. They are inserted into the national dialogue as contagious memes that imprint the idea of Bush=strong/Dems=weak. And they are false.


Snip...

To understand the methodology of the story-telling media, look no further than two situations currently occupying the energy of netroots activists: Chris Matthews' equating of bin Laden and Michael Moore and Tim Russert's racially-tinged, guilt-by-association line of questioning in a recent interview with Barack Obama. In each instance, the meta-theme is that Democrats are terrorist-lite traitors, and the subtext is that Bush and Republicans are the true patriots. But while the netroots is blasting away at Matthews and Russert, the Democratic establishment is petrified at the thought of offending the Gang of 500. So far, only John Kerry and Louise Slaughter have weighed in on either scandal.

more...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-daou/the-triangle-matthews-m_b_14431.html

Read it in full.

[TayTay]

1. Peter does tell it like it is

doesn't he. I really like him. He makes these wonderful, cogent and compelling cases for why Dems need to be more forceful and try harder to connect with Dem voters. He is truly wonderful.

[karynnj]

2. Very interesting article - thanks for posting it

One observation, he says:
"the Kerry campaign should have known that their enemy wasn't a vindictive crackpot like John O'Neill, but the many 'journalists' and media outlets who rammed the story down our collective gullets."

Kerry did say in Rolling Stone, that he didn't expect the cable shows to "play with" the SBVT charges for a couple of weeks after they were proven false. Although the media was unfair to Gore, it never rose to this level. They did show him in an unflattering light, but they did not give equal time to people accusing him of things he didn't do. (The worst was the repeat of comments like he said he invented the internet which equate more with Dowd's NASCAR statement).

The problem is what should (or could) Kerry have done even if he knew a year in advance that the media would do something like that. At the Kennedy Center he admitted a few months after the election that he didn't yet know how to counter this. In NJ, for Corzine, he asked everyone in attendance to be grassroots and said that there would be bad things said about Corzine - because that was what Republicans do - but if we found out the facts and spoke to our friends, neighbors, relatives etc we could counter any lies they tell. He also was very strong in countering the swiftboating of Murtha. It looks like at least part of his view now is to counter things by trying to reach beyond the media.

I would assume that Kerry recognized that he was being treated unfairly as it was pretty obvious - but it's not clear what he really could have done.

[ProSense]

3. You're right.

But that's a hindsight assessment, and I'll take it. More and more people are becoming aware (this piece will help) that the media is completely biased and there is no easy remedy. It has to be a concerted effort. Otherwise, the piece is spot on. And it accurately reflects Kerry's efforts and points out that he is one of the few (one of only two in the recent instances) countering the media in any significant way. It also calls out those who repeat the spin as fact.

Great article!

It's posted in GD:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x236723

[MH1]

4. Kos posted this too

With very appreciative comments.

[blm]

5. Please post in GD. We really need to start rallying more against the media

Because NOTHING will change, and no issue can be won until we expose the media's tactics against Democrats.

[ProSense]

6. See post 3 for the link. n/t

[blm]

7. Thanks. Pete always says it way better than me, that's for sure.

.