Program Note
I had fully intended to write a column today on the sale of the Washington Post to Amazon's Jeff Bezos, but the more I pondered the matter, the less sure I was of drawing any kind of conclusions. Will it be a good thing or a bad thing? Well, the only real answer is that it's too soon to tell. I mean, if they decided to revamp their op-ed page and hire an outside-the-Beltway blogger to provide snarky political commentary, well, that might be a good thing (ahem). Kidding aside, though, the real reason I'm so fuzzy-headed on the issue might just be that I was up past 4:00 in the morning dealing with site maintenance. Which is why I decided to punt today, and just run this program note instead.
User purge complete
As I mentioned last week, ChrisWeigant.com has been overwhelmed by bogus users of late. Users register, and then attempt to post "comment spam" to get some useless link posted. My spam filter catches all of these (I don't think in the six years this site has been active that a single one of these has ever been seen publicly), so in the end it is a pointless exercise for the spammers, but try telling them that.
In any case, to clean up our database, I've personally gone through each and every user login and email and deleted a whopping 1,400-1,500 of them, finishing up last night. Because of this purge, I may have inadvertently deleted valid users. I apologize if this is the case, for anyone. But this presents a problem, if you have been affected. Since to use my "Email Chris" page you must be a valid user and logged in, this is now impossible if your login has been deleted.
If you have been deleted, you have two options. You can either create a new login and use the new name here, or if you'd like me to attempt to reinstate your older account, you can contact me and ask me to do so. You can contact me on Twitter, or by writing to the following email address:
iexist ("at" symbol) chrisweigant (dot) com
This address is temporary -- it will only remain active for another few weeks -- so please contact me soon if you got inadvertently deleted from the site. And, again, my apologies -- deciding who is a spammer and who is real is more of an art form than a hard science, so I'm sure I made a few mistakes.
Columns will resume their normal schedule tomorrow.
-- Chris Weigant
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
Whew! My login still works.
I will follow this up with a useless spam link:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/08/07/1229087/-15-things-everyone-would-know-if-there-were-a-liberal-media
Ok, ok. Let me explain. I made the top of the Rec list this morning at Daily Kos with a post inspired by 2 things:
1. Mark Bezos' purchase of Amazon
2. Discussions on here with Michale
It's called: 15 things everyone would know if there were a liberal media.
Hope you enjoy!
And CW ... hope you don't mind a little horn tooting :)
It's getting mad hits and Markos just said "best Daily Kos diary of the year"
-David
I wish I had the time and the inclination.... Well, I certainly have the inclination, but not the time.. :D .. to do a corresponding list of what the American people would know if the majority of the MSM *WASN'T* Leftist bent..
For example, we would know for an absolute fact that race had NOTHING to do the Zimmerman shooting. That it was only racists from the *BLACK* community that created a racial issue where none existed..
We would also know the severe and incompetent shortcomings of the Obama Administration that lead to the Benghazi debacle where our Ambassador and 3 other Americans were killed.
We would know all about the disgusting and perverted cover-up initiated by the Obama Administration so as not to make waves during Obama's re-election campaign..
We would have actually had a presidential candidate that was VETTED and wasn't carried solely and completely by the fact that he was part black..
All of these things and much much more we would know ALL about, if the majority of the MSM wasn't in the bag for Obama, Democrats and the Left...
Incidentally, your list David??
The reason we don't know all about what you list is because the MSM is protecting Obama...
Your list simply re-enforces and provides factual evidence that the MSM is in the bag for Obama...
To be fair, the MSM being in the bag for Obama *IS* slowly changing..
Once Obama actually and actively started persecuting reporters and got caught listening in on American's phone calls and intercepting American's 'Net activities, they MSM *IS* slowly playing catchup...
Time will tell if it's simply a hiccup in the Obama Derangement Syndrome or if it reflects a real shift in MSM policy...
I don't hold out much hope, however...
Was talking with a friend, Michale, and he said:
"The left is actually pretty pissed with Obama. They wanted more action on gay rights, climate change, single payer health care, legalized marijuana, and so forth and have gotten none of it. They feel betrayed by Obama yet the "liberal" media is hardly out there criticizing Obama for all this."
So in many respects, I'd agree with you about the media not pressing the President enough.
But this isn't because they're liberal.
The mainstream media treated Bush with kid gloves too. I mean for chrissakes the NY Times helped lead us into Iraq.
Part of the reason for this I think is access. The big outlets want access to the President and scoops.
It's sure not because it's 'liberal'. I rarely see anything I like covered by the 'liberal media'.
For instance ... a documentary about Hillary Clinton
*snooze*
-David
The left is actually pretty pissed with Obama.
And the example of this in the MSM is..... where exactly???
The only people who are "pissed" at Obama are the professionally Pissed Off.
Those who make their living at being pissed off.. About something..
But we're not talking about them.
We're talking about the MSM..
You know.. The ones who conspire to accuse anyone that disagrees with Obama of being a racist...
The mainstream media treated Bush with kid gloves too. I mean for chrissakes the NY Times helped lead us into Iraq.
Which is exactly why the MSM savaged Bush so much AFTER the Iraq War.. They were pissed that they looked like chumps.
THAT, coupled with the racist angle, is why the MSM is going all in with ODS (Obama Derangement Syndrome)..
It's sure not because it's 'liberal'. I rarely see anything I like covered by the 'liberal media'.
That's because the order of protection is OBAMA, DEMOCRATS and THEN the Liberals...
Ya'all are third fiddle to the Great And Powerful Emperor Barack The First...
But what frustrates me so much is that, by and large, ya'all don't care...
The fact of the NSA revelations that Obama defends and no one relatively speaking, said "boo" should be an indication of how far off the reservation ya'all have gone..
Seriously, David..
If we were back in 2006-2007 and I outlined all of the NSA info, the IRS info, the targeting of reporters info, the domestic surveillance info, the torture and rendition info and I told you ALL of that was going to be committed under a DEM POTUS and, I further told ya that the Left en masse wouldn't oppose it as strenuously as they opposed it under Bush.....
You would have told me I was frak'in nutz!!!
And yet.... Here we are...
Yea, I know, I know.. The Left says, "We don't support it, but we do support the man who is ordering it because he gives us SOME of what we want and a half loaf is better than none..."
Which is, in effect, saying, "Yea, we don't say 'boo' at something we find morally abhorrent because we get SOME of what we want..."
Now, what does that sound like to you???
Sounds to me like a pact with the devil..
But maybe that's just me...
And the example of this in the MSM is..... where exactly???
My point exactly ... Where is it in the MSM?
I couldn't have said it better myself. Where are the liberals in the 'liberal media'?
Hint: Not there.
Because the media isn't liberal.
-David
David -
Some quick thoughts.
- your photo is awesome. Love the tie. Heh.
- Prince Reibus? Heh heh. I like his name sans vowels, personally: RNC PR BS. Self-explanatory, really!
- Kidding aside, the rest of that article is pretty downright stupendous. I especially love the graphics, but then you knew I would say that, didn't you? Heh.
Seriously, well done. And congratulations, praise from Markos is well-earned!
I heartily encourage everyone to read this link, which is not spam in any way, shape, or form.
-CW
I couldn't have said it better myself. Where are the liberals in the 'liberal media'?
Spooning with Obama...
Because the media isn't liberal.
No. Because the media is more ODS than liberal..
No other explanation fits ALL the facts.. A fact you yourself have, either by commission or omission, acknowledge..
No other explanation fits ALL the facts..
To be more accurate, no explanation fits the vast majority of facts...
I am sure you can find an outlier or two might dispute the conclusion..
But I have listed time and time again dozens of examples of how the MSM is in the bag for Obama, Democrats and the Left in general.. In that order...
Examples, I might add, that no one here could come up with any reasonable explanation other than that the MSM was in the bag for Obama, Democrats or the Left...
I would be happy to go thru them all again.. :D
Here is a prime example of what I am talking about..
Obama said on Jay Leno the other night...
As you know, for the last three years, I’ve said, let’s work together. Let’s find a financing mechanism and let’s go ahead and fix our bridges, fix our roads, sewer systems, our ports. The Panama is being widened so that these big supertankers can come in. Now, that will be finished in 2015. If we don't deepen our ports all along the Gulf — places like Charleston, South Carolina, or Savannah, Georgia, or Jacksonville, Florida — if we don't do that, those ships are going to go someplace else. And we’ll lose jobs. Businesses won’t locate here.
Who knew that Charleston, Savannah and Jacksonville were on the Gulf Coast??
The AP covered for Obama.... Here is how the AP reported it..
"If we don't deepen our ports all along the Gulf — (and in) places like Charleston, S.C., or Savannah, Ga., or Jacksonville, Fla. — if we don't do that, these ships are going to go someplace else and we'll lose jobs," Obama said.
Now, can you think of ANY other reason that the AP would cover for Obama??
Other than being in the bag for Obama??
I can't...
One also has to wonder how the MSM would have reported these statements if they had come from Romney or Bush or anyone else with a '-R' after their name...
It's far more likely, Michale, that the media has a bias towards power.
This is how you can explain a deference to both Bush & Obama.
- your photo is awesome. Love the tie. Heh.
Love that you saw this, CW. This is one of those inside jokes that only a very few people (who know me in person) actually get. All I'll say is, it's great to have friends who are graphic artists!
I especially love the graphics, but then you knew I would say that, didn't you? Heh.
Yes! It's kind of funny because several people I know (who tend to come from more academic backgrounds) hit me right away for taking a Buzzfeed or Cracked.com approach to the article.
Example:
Do you find it disconcerting that your top story so far follows the "cracked.com" template of "[short number easy to digest] about [emotional topic]"?
I'm ok with that though if it helps people to read & understand. In my opinion, the graphics convey more information faster and in a more interesting way. Wish I could do visual communication better myself.
Thanks for the recommend and letting me post in your comments!
-David
Part of the reason for this I think is access. The big outlets want access to the President and scoops.
Why wasn't the MSM worried about "access" when they savaged Bush on a daily basis??
Maybe they knew that Bush wasn't a vindictive and petulant jackass who would pull access.
In other words, they knew that Bush has honor and Obama has none..
I guess that's a possibility..
This is how you can explain a deference to both Bush & Obama.
Post Iraq War, there WAS no "deference" to Bush whatsoever.
That's what makes such deference to Obama stand out..
The vast majority of the MSM went from Attack Dog to Lap Dog in the blink of an eye...
Further, I am constrained to point out that the MSM didn't JUST follow the lead of Bush and the GOP in the run-up to the Iraq war..
Ya'all seem to ALWAYS forget that Democrats (as a whole) were fully, completely and unequivocally on board with the Second Iraq War..
So, it COULD be said that, even back then, the MSM was in the bag for the Democrats.. :D Granted, that would be a harder case to make... :D
Why wasn't the MSM worried about "access" when they savaged Bush on a daily basis?
You're kidding, right?
Bush was treated with kid gloves by the MSM. They rarely questioned his decisions and tried to build him up as some kind of war hero after 9/11.
Except he kept messing up. Iraq, WMDs, 'mission accomplished,' Katrina, etc, etc.
-David
David -
I strongly disagree with your other critics. The general public hears numbers thrown at them and they discount them ("lies, damned lies, statistics" sort of thing), but when you can graphically represent them (the map of the US and ownership is my favorite, really) in a way that is easy to comprehend, then the stats get remembered. The hardest thing in writing is to take tough subjects and boil them down to their essence -- which I think your article does masterfully. I mean, I might have added to your list a few things or rated a few higher, but that's mere quibbling. Overall, this is one of the best articles on the subject I've EVER seen -- and I've seen a lot!
Michale -
The MSM is biased. Towards corporations. This corporate bias is pervasive, and stretches across the spectrum. Luckily, there are blogs (heh).
The MSM is biased towards itself, as well. How often do you hear "Congress' approval rating is only 8 percent" versus how often do you hear "the media's approval rating (or trustworthiness) is a dismal 14 percent"? They do indeed poll on this subject, but the poll results are almost NEVER discussed on the news. Also, when have you heard "Full disclosure, on this story on tax rates for the ultra-wealthy, my own salary puts me in this tax bracket." There's another one you almost NEVER hear, aside from nervous jokes about "well, this affects us here at this table." But NEVER a "full disclosure" which, after all, the rules of journalism are supposed to demand.
The Beltway chattering class has a bunch of problems, the largest being groupthink. Or "cocktail party chatter being seen as reality," to put it another way. These guys all belong to the same clique, they all hobnob with each other, and they all decide after a few martinis that "the statement 'X' best describes 'what America thinks' on the subject" and then that is what you hear ad nauseam for weeks. That, truly, is their biggest problem.
Another problem they've got is access, as mentioned. They know if they say anything too harsh, they'll be shunned by the politicos and lose their precious "access" to sources. So they hold back, no matter who is in power. The MSM was (along with most Democrats, as you point out) heavily in favor of the Iraq War for YEARS after it started. It wasn't until public opinion turned overwhelmingly against it that they started to revise their opinions. Some never did (see: Tom Friedman and the "Freidman Unit" or "FU").
There is also the "dogpile" problem. When a politician is "up" with the public, the media tends to give them more deference. But when they head "down" (ESPECIALLY when sex is involved), the media gleefully piles on.
Example (which proves you wrong, by the way): Anthony Weiner, a friend of the Clintons (Bubba presided at his wedding, his wife's Hillary's top aide), has been SAVAGED by the MSM for the past few weeks. He's a Democrat. So, according to you, the only place you would have heard a bad word about him would have been on Fox News and Rush and BillO. That is obviously not the case. Because he's "down" everyone piles on. As always.
And, after all, aren't Fox and talk radio part of the MSM anyway? How do you explain that one?
-CW
Bush was treated with kid gloves by the MSM. They rarely questioned his decisions and tried to build him up as some kind of war hero after 9/11.
Post Second Iraq War??
Sheeya right....
Except he kept messing up. Iraq, WMDs, 'mission accomplished,' Katrina, etc, etc.
And Obama with his Al QAEDA is on the ropes (IE Mission Accomplished) and Hurricane Sandy, etc etc..
You just can't admit that Obama is a worse loser than Bush.
Bush had (and has) honor and integrity.
Obama has none of both...
CW,
Yes, the MSM is savaging Weiner. But so is practically every Democrat on the planet..
So, in effect, the MSM is just doing what Democrats are doing.
I see no conflict with the theory..
Like I said, there are just to many instances that have NO OTHER EXPLANATION, save that the majority of the MSM is in the bag for Obama, Democrats and the Left...
The intentional racialization of the Sanford FL issue is a prime example.
If the MSM were truly beholden to corporate masters for ratings, then the MSM could have fanned the flames of racial riots and made them happen even MORE than the MSM accomplished..
But racial riots would not serve the agenda of Obama and the Democrats, so the MSM complied and toned things down..
During the last election, there were three times as many negative stories about Romney than there were about Obama.
The above example of the AP self-editing itself to protect Obama.
And so on and so on and so on...
The ONLY possible explanation that fits ALL the evidence is that the majority of the MSM is in the bag for Obama, Democrats and the Left...
And, after all, aren't Fox and talk radio part of the MSM anyway? How do you explain that one?
That's why I always say "the majority of the MSM"...
Basically, you have the near entirety of the MSM on one side and FNC on the other..
Like I said, things ARE changing.. Slowly. ABC is savaging the Administration on Benghazi. NBC reported on the IRS targeting of conservative groups. Which is STILL going on to this day..
But there hasn't been a huge change. Just a few instances here and there. Time will tell if it's going to be an about face, such as we saw from Pre Iraq War to Post Iraq War...
It's funny..
Ya'all will concede the MSM bias in the run-up to the Iraq War based on the evidence.
Yet you deny that MSM Obama/Democrat bias that has existed for the last 5 years, give or take.....
Even though the evidence to support THAT bias is 20 times the evidence that supported the Pre Iraq War bias conclusion..
Funny, iddn't it... :D
Ya'all will concede the MSM bias in the run-up to the Iraq War based on the evidence.
Concede?
Concede it's conservative? That's not what we're saying at all.
The bias isn't conservative or liberal.
Here's where I think the biases are:
1. Power & money
2. Advertising (see #1)
3. Towards themselves (thanks, CW! this is a good one.) You'll never see the media critiquing the media.
4. Towards playing it safe. (Most journalists have families after all. So the targets you want to go after are targets that aren't going to get you fired.)
5. Towards the views of their editor. (See #4 about families and keeping a job.)
It's funny, Michale, that you yourself pretty much hit the nail on the head when you said there's no liberals in the MSM taking Obama to task from a liberal standpoint.
Exactly!
They reside on blogs and alternative media. That's pretty much it though.
Now you can continue to scream about a 'liberal' media if you want to work the refs as a conservative (this is the conservative strategy after all), but it's pretty apparent there is no liberal media. Or, rather, there is a liberal media but it's here w/ people like CW - but certainly not on the corporate media.
-David
"There is some strategy to it [bashing the 'liberal' media].... If you watch any great coach, what they try to do is 'work the refs.' Maybe the ref will cut you a little slack on the next one."
- Rich Bond, 1992, Chairman of the Republican Party
Some never did (see: Tom Friedman and the "Freidman Unit" or "FU").
Hahahahahah ... well, played by the way, CW!
The other thing it's really hard to do sometimes. Especially, when you've staked a position, is reverse your position.
This is just human nature. No one likes to admit to being wrong.
The "pile on" one is another really good way to state. I think I was thinking similarly w/ "playing it safe".
-David
p.s. For anyone interested, Brook Gladstone wrote a really wonderful illustrated book on the subject which I'd highly recommend to others. I can't find my copy right now or I'd add a few of her additional thoughts (may have covered already though as this likely influenced my thinking):
http://www.amazon.com/The-Influencing-Machine-Brooke-Gladstone/dp/0393342468
Now you can continue to scream about a 'liberal' media if you want to work the refs as a conservative (this is the conservative strategy after all), but it's pretty apparent there is no liberal media. Or, rather, there is a liberal media but it's here w/ people like CW - but certainly not on the corporate media.
-David
You're parsing my words..
While I may have stated (inaccurately) on occasion that the MSM is in the bag for "liberals", my point has ALWAYS been that the MSM is in the bag for Obama and the Democrats...
It's ya'all who always want to equate that with liberals in general..
So, let's cut thru the felgercarp...
The majority of the MSM is in the bag for Obama, Democrats and the Left..
In that order..
The MSM will protect Obama. As in the AP report I quoted twice.. And no one addressed it. Don't think I didn't notice.. :D
As I mentioned to CW, the idea that ratings and profits are the priority has been proven false...
The ONLY explanation that fits ALL the facts (sans outliers) is that the majority of the MSM is in the bag for Obama.. Then Democrats... Then Liberals..
The majority of the MSM is in the bag for Obama, Democrats and the Left.
It's an interesting theory you have, Michale, but there's simply too many things which it doesn't explain.
Like the deference to Bush when he was in office ...
Like going after Anthony Wiener ...
And all of the content completely missing from the MSM which every liberal in existence would love to hear reported on.
Google ALEC, Michale. They are having a meeting this week in Chicago. It is being protested by thousands.
Yet there is virtually ZERO mainstream media coverage of this event.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&gl=us&tbm=nws&authuser=0&q=ALEC&oq=ALEC&gs_l=news-cc.3..43j43i53.542.638.0.1344.3.2.0.0.0.0.705.705.6-1.1.0...0.0...1ac.1.oagff8YnU0A
It's almost a complete media blackout. You have to read about it in British papers.
If the media were "in the bag" for the Left, Obama, or Democrats, this would be everywhere.
Why won't the media touch this story?
-David
It's almost to the point, Michale, where this idea of a 'liberal media' is not just false, but laughable.
You yourself pretty much said it: There's no liberal coverage of Obama.
I'd just extend this to say: There's no (or almost no anyways) liberal coverage period in the MSM.
-David
Like the deference to Bush when he was in office ...
Ancient history...
Like going after Anthony Wiener ...
You mean, like Democrats are??
If the media were "in the bag" for the Left, Obama, or Democrats, this would be everywhere.
Why won't the media touch this story?
Because the MSM is NOT in the bag for the Left, Obama and Democrats.
It's in the bag for Obama, Democrats and The Left.
In THAT order.
So, if reporting something would be GOOD for The Left, but BAD for Obama or Democrats, the MSM won't report it.
Simple logic.
Now, you explain to me why the MSM would report on tons more negative stuff about Romney than it did on Obama??
Why would the MSM make up racial crap about Zimmerman where none existed??
Because the MSM was in the bag for Obama and the Democrats.
NO OTHER explanation fits the facts...
I'd just extend this to say: There's no (or almost no anyways) liberal coverage period in the MSM.
You can "extend" it to say that I said that the man in the moon eats green cheese..
Doesn't mean that is what I said. :D
If reporting something would be GOOD for The Left, but BAD for Obama or Democrats, the MSM won't report it. NO OTHER explanation fits the facts...
Except that reporting on ALEC would be good for Obama, Democrats, and liberals.
Which doesn't seem to fit this new theory of yours ...
And my guess is that conservatives won't even go so far as you in acknowledging that the facts don't fit this idea of a 'liberal media'.
We've probably about beaten this to death though, so I'll sign off, let you have the last say, and thank you again for providing me with the inspiration for writing the article. I've quite enjoyed the 15 seconds of notoriety it's garnered this week with some quarter million+ hits.
-David
Except that reporting on ALEC would be good for Obama, Democrats, and liberals.
In YOUR opinion.. :D
And, if you had control over the entirety of the MSM, then we would see coverage, I am certain..
:D
Which doesn't seem to fit this new theory of yours ...
No "new" theory there at all. It's the same theory I have been stating since 2009 or thereabouts..
We've probably about beaten this to death though, so I'll sign off, let you have the last say, and thank you again for providing me with the inspiration for writing the article. I've quite enjoyed the 15 seconds of notoriety it's garnered this week with some quarter million+ hits.
"One is honored to be of service."
-Robin Williams, BICENTENNIAL MAN