Heathers

May 8, 2004 9:02 AM

David Neiwert writes a thoughtful piece about how utterly corrupt the press is and adds to the long running mefi discussion about why "framing" works for conservatives: "But even beyond the bias is the way this framing really corrupts and trivializes the national debate, so that we find ourselves constantly arguing about the "morality" or "character" of politicians, an issue that is by nature a product of spin and propagandizing. This has never been more clear than in the current election, when the "character" of a pampered fraternity party boy who couldn't be bothered to serve out his term in the National Guard and who went on to fail miserably at every business venture he touched is successfully depicted as that of a sincere and patriotic regular guy, while that of a three-time Purple Heart winner who voluntarily left Yale to serve in Vietnam, and whose ensuing three decades of public service have been a model of principle and consistency, is somehow depicted as belonging to a spineless elitist."
posted by McBain (37 comments total)

"morality" or "character" of politicians

not to mention the "honor" and "duty" of "warriors". it's a disgusting state we've come to. i've read this book, and it doesn't end prettily.
posted by quonsar at 9:11 AM on May 8, 2004

Aw, this is cute. Yet another conservative-bashery with a little sprinkle of "I HATE BUSH!!", "FASCIST!". "NO BLOOD FOR OIL!" thrown in for good measure.

MetaFilter thanks you.
posted by hama7 at 9:29 AM on May 8, 2004

Aw, this is cute. Yet another conservative-bashery with a little sprinkle of "I HATE BUSH!!", "FASCIST!". "NO BLOOD FOR OIL!" thrown in for good measure.
That's not what this is about. Why don't you read the link? Personally, I am and have always been, far more angry at the press than Bush and conservatives.
posted by McBain at 9:35 AM on May 8, 2004

We know the press corrupt. We know TV corrupt. We know radio corrupt. We know most magazines corrupt....answer: ignore and tend your garden instead.
posted by Postroad at 9:42 AM on May 8, 2004

Why don't you read the link?

Why read when you can watch TV?

Why think for yourself when you can have someone else do it for you?
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 9:53 AM on May 8, 2004

posty is likely being facetious. hama7 can't grasp anything that doesn't involve pictures of flags and big dollops of "morality", "character", "honor" and "duty" (what IS he, a fucking BOY SCOUT?) so it's safe to say he just didn't get it, and has since retired to his room to pamper himself with martial music and Abu Ghraib pron. all that text is tiring.
posted by quonsar at 9:54 AM on May 8, 2004

Bad politico. No cookie.
posted by Rob1855 at 9:59 AM on May 8, 2004

the reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine.

I forgot "screamingly censorious conservative-bashery and woefully ignorant of economics" in addition to the JohnKerryIsADoucheBagButImVotingForHimAnyway dirge.
posted by hama7 at 10:02 AM on May 8, 2004

Hama, I had your reaction (Oh boy, another "The press sucks because it doesn't hold my left-wing values" piece) but on first pass this appears to be a thoughtful argument, sharing more with James Fallows than Mark Hertsgaard. I've just finished printing it out, so I'll know more in a half hour our so.
posted by mojohand at 10:04 AM on May 8, 2004

If you disagree with this, what specifically do you disagree with?

Yes, you do have to read it to answer that.
posted by milovoo at 10:35 AM on May 8, 2004

Is the morality and character issue really all that irrelevant? For example, going back before 9-11 Bush's re-appontment of Iran-Contra veterans with a history of perjury raised some serious questions about his moral character in my mind. Likewise, the Lewinsky scandal revealed deeply embedded corruption on both sides of the political aisle. Getting caught in one bad lie, opens the question as to what else is he willing to lie about under oath. Locally, a Democratic politician who was both driving drunk, and set up by political opponents for arrest lost the nomination for a local spot. The area paper expressed suprise in spite of the fact that both the Democrats and Republicans involved revealed themselves over the course of the scandal to be more interested in a game of political tit for tat than serving the community.

But yes, I think that if there is a media bias it is towards stupidity. I'm less interested in who Kerry is visiting than what his proposals are and how they will affect me.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 10:47 AM on May 8, 2004

Ahhh... the best of the web.
posted by BackwardsHatClub at 11:16 AM on May 8, 2004

Is the morality and character issue really all that irrelevant? For example, going back before 9-11 Bush's re-appontment of Iran-Contra veterans with a history of perjury raised some serious questions about his moral character in my mind.

To me that has less to do with morality and character as it does with judgment and competency.

Likewise, the Lewinsky scandal revealed deeply embedded corruption on both sides of the political aisle.

Both sides?

Getting caught in one bad lie, opens the question as to what else is he willing to lie about under oath.

Lying under oath is not a crime and not necessarily bad.
posted by McBain at 11:20 AM on May 8, 2004

Aw, this is cute. Yet another conservative-bashery with a little sprinkle of "I HATE BUSH!!", "FASCIST!". "NO BLOOD FOR OIL!" thrown in for good measure.

maybe you can balance things out by calling people commies?
posted by mcsweetie at 11:49 AM on May 8, 2004

The Lewinsky scandal was the culmination of an extended witch-hunt. The key break for Republicans involved trapping Lewinsky into talking about the affair on tape, an action that reveals a profound ethical lapse on the part of the scandal-hunters involved.

The last I checked, lying under oath is in fact a crime, (perjury).
posted by KirkJobSluder at 11:54 AM on May 8, 2004

The Vietnam smear -- from McCain to Kerry

As Bush's military record comes under harsh scrutiny, the same smear campaign used against John McCain in 2000 is being rolled out against John Kerry.
By Joe Conason
Feb. 10, 2004

Many months before the dormant controversy over George W. Bush's military career resurfaced, conservatives and Republicans were raking over yellowed clippings as they sought to revive dim memories of the Vietnam War. Their target was not the errant National Guard Lt. Bush, of course, but the decorated Navy Lt. John F. Kerry.

And aw, ain't hama7 cute. Another conservative voice wilfully misrepresenting a post, attacking the source as just more Bush-bashery, failing to refute any point made in the post, and failing to contribute to the discussion.

MetaFilter thanks you.

(Look for more and louder spasms of irrational Repub fury, in the same inimitable style as above, here on MetaFilter and in America as Bush self-destructs).
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 11:57 AM on May 8, 2004

Another conservative voice wilfully misrepresenting a post, attacking the source as just more Bush-bashery, failing to refute any point made in the post, and failing to contribute to the discussion.

As the FPP mentioned framing, Hama7 was just showing us how it's done. He is pretty much on a roll today in that regard, as he managed to transform another thread, on the systematic and epidemic level abuse in US prisons, into the old debate on incarceration as punishment vs. rehabilitation. Smart guy, that Hama7... utterly soulless, but very smart.
posted by psmealey at 12:23 PM on May 8, 2004

The last I checked, lying under oath is in fact a crime, (perjury).

Lying under oath and perjury are not synonymous. Look it up. If they were synonymous, Bill Clinton surely would have been convicted in the Senate after impeachment.
posted by McBain at 12:27 PM on May 8, 2004

McBain: Lying under oath and perjury are not synonymous. Look it up. If they were synonymous, Bill Clinton surely would have been convicted in the Senate after impeachment.

True, perjury is in fact broader: "The deliberate, willful giving of false, misleading, or incomplete testimony under oath" (AHED). The failure of the Senate to convict was as much about whether the lie rose to the level required to remove a standing president from office, and a mess of political issues. Most people on both sides admit that he did a bad thing in lying under oath. The big question was whether this particular lie was bad enough to convict. On the other hand, it was enough of an ethical lapse that Clinton was professionally censured and I believe is still unable to practice law.

At any rate, I find it hard to buy the claim that lying under oath is not included under definition of perjury. In addition, I did not use the term "perjury" in talking about Clinton in any case. In general, I would argue that lying under oath in the courtroom defaults to a bad thing because the legal system requires the analysis of facts.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 12:42 PM on May 8, 2004

Clinton should have been run out of office, he lied under oath, it doesn't matter what for, furthermore he spoke directly to us, the electorate, and said categorically that he did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky.

Bush should resign for misleading the American public. "I did not have sexual relations" became "I am making every effort to avoid war". He leveled with us and was lying.
posted by cell divide at 12:46 PM on May 8, 2004

Cell divide, to put it in context, Republicans engaged in a 6 year long investigation to find something (anything!) that they could use to get Clinton out of office. Through Travelgate, Whitewater, Vince Foster, Paula Jones, and on and on, they found nothing. Then, along came Linda Tripp... and it all changed.

The sick irony of all this was that Clinton lied to the electorate and the Starr Commission was done almost on principle. That the Office of the Independent Counsel was used for such partisan purposes established a very, very dangerous precedent for future presidents who were from the opposing party of a hostile legislative majority. If he had relented with a mea culpa and resigned when the question was brought up, it would have weakened the Office of the President for decades.

I am no apologist for Clinton, I found the whole thing tawdry and disgusting, which inadvertently ushered in the neocon era with his deceit and untoward behavior... but based upon a longer view of history and presidential power, at the point at which he perjured himself, he did what he had to do. /ot
posted by psmealey at 1:31 PM on May 8, 2004

Hama7, have you ever considered that your hair-trigger screeds against imagined liberal biases in every MeFi thread just might be making you look a little stupid?

'cause, you know, it is.

Advice: pick and choose a little more carefully, and back up your little-girl shrieks of horror with a bit of substance.
posted by five fresh fish at 1:41 PM on May 8, 2004

the reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine.

I forgot "screamingly censorious conservative-bashery and woefully ignorant of economics"

hama7, the way you conducted yourself in the Fair Tax thread was very polite and you even made some points that were worth considering. Here, you've just started screaming exactly as loudly and stupidly (if not more so) than the people you've denounced.

You wanna argue the Fairness Doctrine sucks -- that media/speech is one of the things we should allocate economically? Fine.

You wanna argue that character/morals aren't meaningless framing? I think there's an actual case for that.

You wanna be completely tuned out even by the people here who would otherwise actually do that? Keep doing what you're doing.
posted by namespan at 2:11 PM on May 8, 2004

At any rate, I find it hard to buy the claim that lying under oath is not included under definition of perjury.

It is merely one of the criteria.

In addition, I did not use the term "perjury" in talking about Clinton in any case.

No, you didn't. But I'm saying lying under oath is not inherently a bad thing. If I were questioned immaterieally about my sex life, I'd lie too.

In general, I would argue that lying under oath in the courtroom defaults to a bad thing because the legal system requires the analysis of facts.

Courts have specific rules for a reason and there is a reason that lying about immaterial information is not included under the definition of perjury. So no, it doesn't default to a "bad thing". A "bad thing" is a judgment call. You can view it as such, but if courts in America saw it that way they would change the definition of perjury.
posted by McBain at 2:26 PM on May 8, 2004

i always thought it was hama7's stupidity that made him look stupid
posted by websavvy at 2:44 PM on May 8, 2004

In general, I would argue that lying under oath in the courtroom defaults to a bad thing because the legal system requires the analysis of facts.

Absolutely. This is why Clinton lying under oath was a far worse thing than his sexual infidelity.

I am no apologist for Clinton, I found the whole thing tawdry and disgusting, which inadvertently ushered in the neocon era with his deceit and untoward behavior... but based upon a longer view of history and presidential power, at the point at which he perjured himself, he did what he had to do.

No. He could have come absolutely clean, faced the consequences of his actions in his personal life, and moved on, probably stronger politicially than he ever was from that point. Instead, his efforts to hide his infidelity didn't work out, and his legacy is about quibbling over the meaning of the word "is".
posted by namespan at 3:36 PM on May 8, 2004

Unlike Beale, however, their revolt against the media Powers That Be will be neither manic nor futile. It will be organized, rational, factually sound, unintimidated and, in the end, constructive rather than destructive. It will be founded on certain basic principles:

Liberte`, Fraternite`, Egalite`!

Shit, wrong thread.
posted by Tlogmer at 4:08 PM on May 8, 2004

McBain: No, you didn't. But I'm saying lying under oath is not inherently a bad thing. If I were questioned immaterieally about my sex life, I'd lie too.

I didn't say that it was inherently a bad thing. However, for the chief executive to lie under oath in my mind shows a profound disrespect for the democratic structures he has vowed to uphold.

Courts have specific rules for a reason and there is a reason that lying about immaterial information is not included under the definition of perjury. So no, it doesn't default to a "bad thing". A "bad thing" is a judgment call. You can view it as such, but if courts in America saw it that way they would change the definition of perjury.

However, there are mechanisms for dealing with an immaterial line of questioning that do not involve dishonesty. One can object to the line of questioning on the grounds that it is immaterial. (Which, I fully agree that Starr was engaged in a fishing expedition and the question should not have come up.)

However, there is another layer of concern here. Even if the testamony is immaterial, even if, as is claimed on Clinton's side, he didn't fully understand the question as phrased (doubtful but impossible to prove), even if (much more likely) he exploited a loophole in the stipulated definitions of sex that makes the answers technically true or ambiguous, even if by twisting through these loopholes he is absolved of legal responsibility, there is still the issue of ethical responsibility. The fact that one can manipulate the legal system in such a way to give misleading or false answers to questions under oath, does not mean that one should, nor does it mean that the people who voted for him should consider him a nice guy as a result.

Getting back to the character issue in general. I feel an important characteristic in an elected officer is a willingess no hold one's self to a higher standard than the minimum required by law. In my mind both Clinton and Bush are worthy of censure because I have rarely seen them act as servants of the people rather than as players in a calculated "winner take all" game.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 4:14 PM on May 8, 2004

Good Lord. I'm tired of screeds against "the press" that define "journalists" as "political commentators from either The New York Times, Washington Post, or network television." Despite all appearances to the contrary, the whole thing is just a big ol' partisan rant whining about the media's failure to universally and vociferously champion his particular points of view:

How do we fight the war on terror? (Other than buying an SUV and being a good consumer and keeping your head down and voting Republican, that is.) Well, have you heard anything in the way of serious national dialogue about this point? I haven't, not to any great extent, and for a simple reason: The media have declined to facilitate that discussion.

They have instead defaulted to Position A: Whatever course of action George W. Bush takes is a priori good, and done for sound reasons. Neither, for that matter, is his competence ever seriously questioned.

I'm not going to work too strenously to defend our media organizations, because I agree that many of them could stand to do much better. But a piece of work this shrill, lazy, and unbalanced deserves an answer, I think.

The only two specific examples of the atrociousness of "the press" that Neiwert cites (borrowing these points from other bloggers) are a column by Maureen Dowd and a moment from Chris Matthews' show. And if those two represented all the media, I'd be right there with this guy. But they're not. MoDo and Matthews are the Jerry Bruckheimer and Michael Bay of journalism.

Believe it or not, there is in fact more to the news than Bush vs. Kerry vs. Iraq. As a matter of fact, there are thousands upon thousands of people in addition to MoDo and Matthews, some of whom are quite savvy, earnest, and devoted, who also call themselves journalists, and may in fact have even more claim to the title than the two aforementioned luminaries, who produce work like this, this, this, this and this, day after day, week after week. More young reporters than Neiwert probably cares to think about pore over the notes of city council meetings and talk to people in actual communities about the nitty-gritty details that make their neighborhoods run. If you're going to knock "the media," you're knocking The Atlantic Monthly, you're knocking Frontline, you're knocking The Ocala Star-Banner ... which is not to say you shouldn't. I'm just telling you you better come correct.

Which Neiwert most definitely does not.

The second point of his manifesto is this: "Over the past 20 years, American media have been in a state of serious decline insofar is it lives up to the responsibilities of this role."

Decline from where??? Does Neiwert's memory of the press in America really only run as far back as the Pentagon Papers? If you want to see some really bad journalism, let's pull up some papers from 1950 or so. Better yet, 1920. Where is this mythical, all-powerful press Neiwert posits that would somehow have been able not to look beyond the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995 to an attack from a heretofore piddling international terrorist group in 2001, but would also have been able to stay Al Qaeda's hand:

This degradation of the media, and its concomitant failure to keep Americans adequately informed, culminated in the attacks on American soil by Al Qaeda terrorists on Sept. 11, 2001, in which more than 3,000 people were killed in New York City and Washington, D.C. The media, to no one's great surprise, have never even begun to confront their own culpability in this disaster; and similarly they have failed to point out the fairly obvious culpability of the asleep-at-the-wheel president on whose watch it occurred.

Or this:

The grotesque pursuit of pseudo-scandals regarding President Clinton's private life -- from Whitewater to "Travelgate" to Monica Lewinsky -- became the centerpiece of national coverage of his presidency, eclipsing any rational discussion of his administration's policy initiatives as well as those of the post-1994 Republican Congress. This pursuit finally culminated in charade of Clinton's impeachment for allegedly perjuring himself in testimony over a civil suit that should never have been allowed in the first place, while in the meantime the clearly Machiavellian and unethical behavior of his pursuers went almost utterly unreported.

"Almost utterly unreported." As if Susan Schmidt and Michael Weiskopf never actually compiled countless hours of interviews and research not only in their articles in The Washington Post and Time, but conveniently in a 326-page book called, unambiguously, "Truth At Any Cost."

Neiwert imagines himself leading this Grand Charge of the People, empowered by the blogosphere, but I wonder if he would have the courage to, as John Carroll of the L.A. Times did, oversee the reporting of a series of articles outlining the horrendous behavior of a tremendously popular gubernatorial candidate, and then make sure that reporting was absolutely unassailable before running it, all the while knowing that these actions would bring thousands of cancellations from newspaper subscribers?

I love blogs as much as the next guy, but without the work of "the media," I don't know what we'd have left, exactly, in the journalistic quarters of the blogosphere. Rather than the "revolt" against an imagined "national discourse" Neiwert proposes, I think we'd all be better served by stepping up our efforts to highlight good journalism where it happens, and criticize bad journalism where it appears.
posted by grrarrgh00 at 5:14 PM on May 8, 2004

Oh, and might I add to that last sentence ... "and by committing excellent journalism ourselves on our blogs and wherever we can."
posted by grrarrgh00 at 5:20 PM on May 8, 2004

grrarrgh00 saves! He scores!
posted by namespan at 5:26 PM on May 8, 2004

even if by twisting through these loopholes he is absolved of legal responsibility, there is still the issue of ethical responsibility

Ethics are a human construct. If there are ethical responsibilities Clinton should have met, surely they would be defined by the rule of law Republicans crowed about so much. But this is a seperate issue.

I'm tired of screeds against "the press" that define "journalists" as "political commentators from either The New York Times, Washington Post, or network television."

Those sources seem, by far, to be the most influential on Washington politics.

The only two specific examples of the atrociousness of "the press" that Neiwert cites (borrowing these points from other bloggers) are a column by Maureen Dowd and a moment from Chris Matthews' show.

He talks about the Daily Howler which is exhastive and authoritative. Anyone who has read the Howler can tell you this criticism is silly. If you really need more examples, read Bob Somerby's archives.
posted by McBain at 5:43 PM on May 8, 2004

imagines himself leading this Grand Charge of the People, empowered by the blogosphere

there's that non-word again...
posted by quonsar at 6:02 PM on May 8, 2004

Those sources seem, by far, to be the most influential on Washington politics.

Yeah, and who makes them that way?? Couldn't be, in any small part, because folks like David Neiwert expend massive amounts of textual output on the political commentary of these sources, could it?

And when did the definition of "journalist" come to be "one who exerts influence on Washington politics"?

Listen, I'm not defending the White House press corps. I'm saying that they represent a tiny fraction of the "media" that Neiwert is bitching about, and that if you're going to focus on them, do that, and don't demean the work of thousands of damned excellent reporters by decrying "the state of the media." Because there is a huge body of amazing work in American media, and Neiwert does it and us a huge disservice by ignoring it in his 95 Theses.

I do read the Daily Howler, regularly. And Bob Somerby does a good job of countering a lot of the shit that the WHPC pulls out. And while he does fall into the habit of referring to a suite of reporters as "the press," he's not prone to abstract rants. He comes with specific names and details, and I respect that. When you read the Daily Howler, you know where Somerby's beef lies, and you can't deny the man.
posted by grrarrgh00 at 6:07 PM on May 8, 2004

there is a huge body of amazing work in American media

And yet, your proud nation has sunk so low. Where shall we point the finger?
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:26 PM on May 8, 2004

McBain: Ethics are a human construct. If there are ethical responsibilities Clinton should have met, surely they would be defined by the rule of law Republicans crowed about so much. But this is a seperate issue.

I think it is misleading to equate ethics with legality. Law is by nature conservative in its decision making processes preferring to err on the side of non-liability. At least in Clinton's case, the professional body that he is a part of found that he did not meet his ethical responsibilities in the case. And I would argue that Bush is empowered to appoint people who have been pardoned of contempt of congress and perjury in the past, but that doing so is not an ethically wise decision. Bush may be legally empowered to hold secret meetings regarding energy policy, but I don't consider that ethical.

Ultimately however, politicians are not just aswerable to the law, but to the people who voted for them as well.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 7:38 PM on May 8, 2004

It's tempting to re-coin the old phrase and say that a society gets the press corps it deserves. But that's too flippant. To some extent, complaining about the loudest voices in print and broadcast media is actually closer to the oft-heard 'but there's no good music being made these days', to which the obvious response has to be that you're not looking hard enough. That's to say, if you're lazy about your media diet, then you'll be fed lazy product by the media.

So I like what grrarrgh00 said in that regard. Because it's possible to make choices that aren't passive or silent, and in doing so, raise the bar for what's considered acceptible to the masses.

On the other hand, human kind cannot bear too much reality. So we get 'reality TV', and heat magazine. But there's no real harm in having a balanced media diet with the occasional brainless treat.
posted by riviera at 11:25 AM on May 10, 2004