mainstream media

“As a public official, I expect criticism and I expect to be held accountable for how I govern, but the personal, salacious nature of recent reporting, and often the refusal of the media to correct obvious mistakes, unfortunately discredits too many in journalism today, making it difficult for many Americans to believe what they see in the media.” . . .Sarah Palin

 Something has happened to the political landscape that most potential conservative candidates aren’t even aware of yet. An astonishing, unintended “change” has occurred that will give candidates from the Right a definite advantage if they choose to take it. A definite chink in the Left’s armor. And that’s a dilemma because charging in and taking advantage of this new breach in the Left’s parapet will take courage and conviction. Assets that even the best GOP politicians are generally in short supply of, especially in the higher echelons. With the exception of a couple of “bold ones” the rest are all playing it safe. Over cautious. So what is this significant “thing” that has happened? Simple, the biased, autocratic, domineering Main Stream Media (MSM) has clearly given away its position and, as a result, they can no longer be called objective or respectable. “What?” you say. “you’re telling us something we’ve known for years.”   True, but the difference is that today, there are literally volumes written that prove, and expose, without a shadow of a doubt, the hatreds and prejudices that the MSM have for Conservatives.   It’s no longer just the lone, pioneer voice of Limbaugh talking about it on the radio. Its now categorized and documented by a myriad of learned experts and available for any conservative politician to reference. At their finger tips. Now the possibility of a surprise ambush by the MSM is almost non-existent. This is huge. Conservatives can now make a legitimate case for a major break in relations with the various elements of the MSM. So, what does this mean?   Is it now time to go on the attack? Hit the MSM head on? Kick them where it hurts?   No!  We can learn from beloved former Washington State governor, the late Dixie Lee Ray who took a confrontational strategy with the state media. When a pet pig had a litter of piglets, she even went so far as to name each of the piglets after some of her worst adversaries in the press. Dixie Lee was a brilliant scientist but she made some serious missteps in her handling of the media which cost her a re-election. Dixie was a no-nonsense gal, God rest her soul.   Not enough like her, sadly.  Were I advising a contemporary conservative politician vying for a high public office, I’d tell them to take a look at how ** Danish politician, Fogh Rasmussen handled the situation when an aggressive, left-leaning member of the Danish media began to pressure him to grant an interview. In reality it was nothing but an ambush and Fogh knew it. But he didn’t counter attack. No, Mr. Rasmussen made a simple public statement: “it is an infringement of my personal freedom if I, myself, may not decide who I will speak to on a day to day basis”. Surprisingly, that was the end of it. Fogh simply ignored them, stuck to his principles and kept quiet.  I’m sure he then focused on his constituents. Perfect. A simple, respectful refusal – and then ignore them.  Of course we can expect no such civility in our own political process. Maybe from the Conservative side but you can bet that the MSM counterpart will not reciprocate.    You see, the MSM considers itself a legitimate and legal part of that process. When in fact they’re nothing more than a business trying to make money and they’ve been given far too much access. They have no more rights than any other business other than their individual right to vote.    But they won’t see it that way. Which is why any conservative politician who attempts to quietly banish them from “our side” of the political process will set off an unprecedented political firestorm.    And this will be an opportunity for Conservative politicians to, once and for all, forget George Bush’s disgusting “New Tone” and grow a spine. Regain some respect and stop pandering. Politicians with a backbone? What a concept.   They’ll have to learn just as Riot Police must learn. Riot Police are taught to keep their fear, anger and emotions under control. Not an easy task when being verbally attacked by a mob. Only when the rioters cross a certain line and actually assault the police, are they allowed to retaliate. Until then, they remain silent with plexiglass shields locked. The tuning-out and expulsion of the MSM from the conservative side of the political process will cause an intellectual riot of sorts. Depriving these spoiled MSM brats of what they think they’re entitled to will cause the expected destructive conflagration. Something to definitely be prepared for. There may even be some small skirmishes. Extra security might be required for restricted conservative functions so that disruptions don’t occur. Yea, its going to take some real backbone on our part! We’ve catered to these Constitution-hating leftists far too long and they’ve become accustomed to having their way. But it is the MSM, through their own misconduct that have forfeited these privileges. Privileges are not rights and can be taken away. What would be the positive effects of this sort of decisive and courageous action on the part of Movement Conservatives?   Think of the time spent by Conservative politicians preparing for the hostile gauntlet that they require themselves to run through every political season. They must shift their focus away from the Conservative Base and give rapt attention to the enemy in the MSM. They must become as “walking encyclopedias”. With knowledge and the correct pronunciation of every little tinhorn dictator around the world and the tiny nation they lord over. They’re required to know minute details on all subjects or risk looking foolish on national TV. The irony is that the vicious MSM will see to it that they look foolish anyway. No matter how well prepared they are. Can we remember the ’08 GOP debates? The time it takes to maintain this charade totally shifts the politicians focus away from connecting and bonding with the actual voting Base that will, hopefully, elect them. Exactly as the Left has designed and implemented it!   Such a tragedy that Conservatives have repeatedly fallen into this trap and allowed themselves to be manipulated to this extent.  It has been Sarah Palin who has taken the worst of the full frontal attacks/barrages of the MSM and certain other well organized, well financed elements on the Left. This fact is telling.  If Sarah decides to pursue the 2012 POTUS, she should consider a departure from the traditional/conventional forms of campaigning and that will also include banishment of the MSM. Going straight to the populace or working through “friendlies” of which there are ample. She can learn much from the mistakes of Fred Thompson and Duncan Hunter.   Sarah will need to skirt around the Left’s Maginot Line. She should also avoid, like the plague, the well traveled thoroughfares that other GOP candidates choose to travel upon. They’re lined with trip wires, booby traps and snipers peering down from tree tops. Sarah can reach the same destination by traveling off road along dirt roads and game trails. Metaphorically speaking, of course.  Darvin Dowdy   **Danish politician – copy/paste this url: https://www.indymedia.ie/article/82913?comment_order=asc&condense_comments=false

“The rumors of my death have been greatly exaggerated” -Mark Twain

The Republican party is undergoing a rapid and drastic change. As we speak, all sorts of factions vie and joust for preeminence within a party that seems to be deflating overnight. People associated with the party for a long time look about them in disbelief, as if after an airplane crash where there seems nothing at all recognizable left of the original vehicle, just little pieces strewn as far as the eye can see.

It is speculated that the GOP have become the new Whigs, and will inevitably be cast aside in favor of a one party state into the foreseeable future. Of course, this sort of speculation is frivolous.

What happened to the GOP becomes clear with the benefit of some distance from the tremendous shifts of the 2006 and 2008 elections. It is linked to a massive shift across the board amongst our media, political class, and intelligentsia that has been so big as to have gone almost unnoticed until now.

The problem with the GOP from an electoral perspective in both 2006 and 2008 stem from a fairly simple source, but that source is deeply rooted and readjustment will inevitably be painful.

As a Congressional staffer, I worked on Capitol Hill, and saw the GOP leadership in the House from a relatively close vantage point. As a member of my generation, and coming as I do from California, I found the culture of Washington DC to be unique, and that found within Republican areas of Congress even more so. That is the first clue as to what went wrong for the party

Washington is anachronistic. The culture is a leftover from an earlier age. While the rest of the nation is culturally very firmly in the 21st century, the area inside the Washington DC beltway is probably approaching the 1980s or so. This cultural divide is a result of necessity, it is the natural effect of the machine that Washington is and the function it serves.

For decades, we were every bit the Republic. We sent our representatives to Washington based largely on our estimate of their judgment, with no idea what issues they may have to face in the years until the next election, and we judged them based on what we thought that they had done, based largely on the reports of a few media outlets and the statements they released themselves. Since the machinery for more direct government simply did not exist, this was the best system we could use, and it worked quite well for a very long time.

In the resulting culture within Washington itself, something I call the “cult of the gentleman”, and more negative people describe as an “old boy’s club” developed. It was the logical creation of our very political system, and it too had it’s uses. In this system, a person sent to Washington had to be a “gentleman” to get anything done. A gentleman was somebody who was first and foremost loyal to his friends, who stood absolutely on his word to his close associates, and who closed deals with a handshake, not a contract, and certainly never a press release. Because representatives were there to act as independent agents on behalf of the voters, and could receive but little input from those voters thanks to distance and technological limitations, they were effectively on their own. They had to rely on their own judgment exclusively, and since the landscape of Washington is composed of other such persons, the first skill they had to know was how to be a gentleman, so as to get along with the other Washingtonians, so that they could get something done; because you could not accomplish anything if you could not sign others on to your initiatives.

This is where “horse trading” comes from. Elected agents would agree to support one another, just as bloggers today mutually link to one another for support. One would vote for the bill his friend proposed, not based on the contents of that bill, but based on his relationship to it’s author. In return, one of his bills would be supported. This was logical, since politicians could rely on face to face contact with people they spoke to every day, and had to rely on one another’s word, just as their constituents relied on them based on their word.

What has happened in the last ten years is a technological revolution in America that is easily as significant as the opening of the first newspaper presses in the American Colonies. This change was rapid, and it has not yet reached the full extent of it’s tremendous impact on our whole civilization. Suddenly, average voters are able to track, through a constant stream of information coming onto the internet, the activity of their representatives in far greater detail than ever before. Suddenly people could speak back quickly and efficiently in real time, and they could use the internet to organize rallies and political activities all by themselves, coming together like the crystal in saline solution; spontaneously, with only a small spark.

In the old Washington, you voted for the bill your friend proposed because he was close and your constituents were far away. It is quickly changing into a situation where your constituents are close and your friend is far away; separated by the barriers to human interaction we all experience as information flows at us in an ever increasing stream. This utterly changes the paradigm for Washingtonians, but they are the last to realize it.

What we ourselves do not realize is the extent to which this has shifted the political game in the United States. Nor do we understand how irrevocable that shift has been. Both the Democrat and Republican parties have for many decades had two fundamental factions within their ranks; “personality politicians” and “ideology politicians”. To a greater or lesser extent, virtually every politician of any party can be placed in one of these two categories.

A personality politician runs on his personality, he makes the case that he can be trusted with the power to represent a given region because of his inherent judgment, character, or wisdom. The ideology politician makes the case that his ideology (which he will elaborate if he wants to be successful) is one which most closely represents the people of his district. This is a divide long understood and written about by political scientists; the obligation of a politician to try to accurately represent his constituents or the obligation of a politician to use his own judgment. There is no one answer to this, it is not black and white, and a politician will always have to strike some balance between what he perceives to be the will of his constituents and what he perceives to be the right thing to do.

As a result of far greater technical ability to follow every word and action of politicians, via people recording them with cellphone cameras, vloggers following them with palmcorders, and the old established leakers and journalists of days gone by, we have become a far more well informed body politic than previously. The result is the triumph of the ideological politician over the gentleman politician.

Now, traditionally, an ideologue was mistrusted in Washington, because they necessarily saw everything through the lens of their ideology. Nobody wanted to work with a guy who lived his life as a result of a political ideology. Why is this? Just think about it, you may vote for a guy who does nothing but spout his political ideology, and who becomes fiery and enraged when somebody strays from the political line, but would you want to have a drink with him in the Republican Club (or local bar)? Even more to the point; would you want that guy in your living room all the time? No, gentlemen, though ideologically slippery, were far and away more congenial to be around, and even when standing in opposition to you, were ready to go out for cocktails after the day’s joust was over. Thus, ideologues gained a reputation as people who couldn’t be taken seriously. They could raise an angry mob back home, but in DC, they couldn’t get anything done, because they estranged people.

But you say, if we are “closer” now to our politicians than we were, shouldn’t the gentlemen be rewarded for being personable? In answer, I ask if you have ever read the comments on your average youtube posting. We do not consider the internet to be equivalent to sitting in the bar with someone or we wouldn’t treat online postings the way we would a bathroom wall at a truck stop. We would never think to write on any part of our homes what we write on online forums. No, we are incredibly critical, often hostile, and always highly ideological when online, and are personable, quiet, neighborly, and uninterested in politics when we meet our neighbors mowing their lawns. That is the America of the 21st century.

Simply put; he is rewarded who can consistently put forth an ideology and intelligently defend it, and is rewarded more to the extent that that ideology is broad and consistently fits with the facts of our world. What a gentleman politician can explain eye to eye in a cocktail lounge inside the Beltway sounds like absurd flip-flopping when he explains it in writing to an online critic. In this environment, ideology is king.

The Democratic party has already dealt with this revolution, but the GOP is only going through this transition now. Back in the late 1990s, I was very surprised at the degree to which the Democratic party was beginning to drift leftward. This accelerated rapidly after President Clinton left office, and I was puzzled, and incorrectly assumed (based on 20th century political calculus) that as they moved hard to the left, they would alienate the center, which they needed for national office.

You saw personality politicians in the Democratic party left behind (Sen. Joe Lieberman is a perfect example). I knew something significant was going on when the Democrats could nominate Lieberman as Vice Presidential nominee for the 2000 election, only to abandon him as too centrist in 2006. How could a party move that much, ideologically speaking, in so short a time? How could Al Gore run as hard left as he could, for as long as he could and still be sidelined and honestly be probably too moderate for today’s Democratic party? How could Hillary Clinton have been undermined and ultimately toppled from the left in 2008? Even more interesting is why the Democrats could move so hard to the left and win such a big majority in the 2008 election if the entire nation has not shifted very much?

Clinton lost in 2008 because she was using the old calculus; you have to win the middle, and personality is more important than consistent ideology. Simply put, in the no holds barred debate forum of today’s America, a politician who consistently maintains a single ideological stance over time will win out over one who does not. Just consider the case of the criticism of Hillary’s vote on the Iraq war. Just look at Barack Obama’s voting record. He is as rock-ribbed liberal as you can be. With so many easy to use online rating systems and sites that describe every vote a politician ever made, it is easy for bloggers and pundits, and anybody else to look at a voting record boiled down to hard facts. It is easier to defend a consistent record from critics who disagree with your premises than to defend an inconsistent record from people who question your judgment.

If we analyze any one vote to make a demonstration, we should look at the most important vote cast by the Republican majority since the decision concerning the Iraq war; the financial services bailout vote of August 2008. In this vote, the GOP was split. The party divided neatly between those who stood by the Bush administration, and those who stood by Republican ideology. Tradition would dictate that a party stand by a guy they had gone to lunches with and spoken to face to face, and who was probably 75% kosher ideologically from a GOP standpoint, not that they would throw an old colleague and fellow gentleman to the wolves the first time he makes a major break from the party line. Tradition was wildly out of date in 2008, as the Democrats, still reeling from their own internal bloodbath, knew perfectly well.

The Republicans were left behind because of the nature of being in power in Washington. Remember where I said the Democratic shift accelerated after the end of Clinton’s Presidency? When a party is in power, they are very busy; they are working with other members of their party inside Washington. Ideas are bouncing from the Republicans in the House and Senate to the White House, back over to the Congress, and being churned over and put into laws or discarded. The fast pace, and volume of work to be done in running our nation do not allow a lot of time for reflection. White House staff consider it normal to suffer a rolling staff turnover as people burn out after a year or two in those conditions. In this environment, with the best and brightest in a party occupied by their jobs, there is no time or energy left for a rethinking of the party itself, and traditionally, this has led to a party too long in power getting out of touch with the country.

In this case, it isn’t just a matter of being out of touch, but a small matter of the most significant communications revolution since radio taking place across the world. The Democratic party was out of power and therefore subject to the rapid changes. This was well documented by the media, who speak of the “netroots” movement. What is not being considered is the truth that this revolution in two way communications is not limited to the left wing in politics, nor is the Internet as a whole liberal; certainly, despite the impressions given by early internet being linked to academia, it is far less liberal than the major conventional media outlets such as newspapers or television.

This brings me to predictions. We see today that the steady, individually tiny, and collectively overwhelming pressures of rapid feedback are utterly transforming our conventional media. Newspapers are increasingly obsolete. If a columnist wishes to be heard, he can make a blog like everybody else and his writing will stand on it’s own merit, not his ability to fight a bureaucratic battle within a little news company hierarchy. If he complains that he needs money, let him make a blog as well. Successful bloggers have found ways to make more money blogging than the average columnist makes writing columns. We, the blogosphere, feel no pity for the newspapers.

Major television, no matter how big the mother company, is not immune. MSNBC was moved further faster, but we see CNN also polarizing in their editorial outlook hard to the left, while Fox polarizes more and more to the right. All the media outlets are giving up the idea of “objective” journalism in favor of the far more honest understanding that everybody has some kind of bias one way or another and it is better for everybody if that bias is known in advance and not concealed. This is precisely what is effecting politics as well. We want reliability and predictability from our politicians and news anchors, not so much personality. This was the death of John McCain, whose war hero record was necessarily non-ideological, and therefore necessarily irrelevant to the principal debate. While Obama could defend a consistent stance, even if it was no the same as the majority of the country, McCain had none. We respect those we disagree with utterly but who honestly believe what they believe and stick to their guns; we do not respect those who seem to have no philosophy whatever.

This is why the GOP seemed like the party of the old boy’s club. This is why the party seemed to have no ideology at all. This is why the GOP leadership seemed to betray the country on the most important legislation in a lifetime, when it so obviously was opposite their ideological stance against out of control government, and it is why the Democrats are veering so hard to the left in so many ways in so short a time.

McCain lost the Presidency when he came back to Washington, suspended his campaign, the nation held it’s breath, and then instead of siding with the vast majority of voters against both an unpopular President Bush and his opponent, he simply echoed both of them on the bailout issue, losing his credibility and watching his poll numbers evaporate. At that moment, his campaign was lost and they knew it.

As a result of this new world, the GOP will re-form. It will do so even if it does not want to, but will be forced to by the will of the American people to have some check on the other party. The Republican ranks will be purged of those who cannot consistently defend their ideology or even explain what it is. Gentlemen will be brutally dropped, just as we saw in the bloodbath that left a former Democratic nominee for Vice President end up supporting the opposite party’s nominee for President only eight years later. What happened amongst Democrats will now happen on an accelerated time scale with the GOP, and it will look messy, but in the end, the party will be reborn far more fit, far more in tune with today’s America, and ultimately, since we have not lurched to the left as a nation, with very good prospects considering that all this is taking place in a center-right country.

For more commentary visit www.jubalbiggs.wordpress.com

<!--[if gte mso 9]>

Normal
0


false
false
false







MicrosoftInternetExplorer4

<![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]>


<![endif]-->

<!--[if gte mso 10]>

<![endif]-->
<!--[if gte mso 9]>

Normal
0


false
false
false







MicrosoftInternetExplorer4

<![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]>


<![endif]--><!--[if !mso]>

It’s official, Obama isn’t just running a negative campaign, he's running an all-out smear fest.  Obama’s Ralph Reed ad accusing McCain of being in bed with Jack Abramoff is especially Swift Boat-like.  He's going after McCain’s strength in a very Rovian way, never mind how baseless the attack is.

The Obama campaign is counting on the classic “he started it” argument and a docile media to let him continue his Different Kind of Campaign shtick, and without some very aggressive action from the McCain campaign that’s exactly what will happen.  McCain’s press shop has been admirably swift and aggressive in rebutting Obama’s attacks, but they need to run a paid media play as well.

McCain should run spots during the Democratic National Convention hitting Obama for corruption (see Rezko scandal, Freddoso’s new book) and hypocrisy (for running a “Karl Rove Style Negative Campaign,” literally use Rove’s name, it’ll spark a fantastic press frenzy).  The spots are primarily about disrupting Obama’s convention coverage and would be a perfect hook for the party’s robust Denver strike team.

Check below the jump to see 9 of Obama’s recent negative spots.

Although today his book is being touted by left-wing reporters and pundits, his initial plans for the project show former White House press secretary Scott McClellan intended to take a much different approach, one that was more sympathetic to President Bush but also quite hard on the "liberal elites" of the Washington press corps and their "hostility" toward the administration.

Reading through McClellan's original book proposal, obtained by Politico.com, it is clear that before his editor Peter Osnos took the book on a sharp leftward turn, McClellan wanted to turn the tables on foes in the press gallery including far-left columnist Helen Thomas and NBC correspondent David Gregory.

"I came to know and respect those who were assigned to the White House beat. They are solid professionals, but rarely scrutinized or put under the microscope. I will take a look at notable personalities in the White House Briefing Room, including David Gregory and Helen Thomas. I anticipate an entire chapter about the former," McClellan writes in his proposal.

According to McClellan, America's elite journalists have a dramatic problem with political diversity which in turn leads them to skew the political debate in a leftward direction. The media are in a "constant state of denial" when it comes to admitting this.

I will look at what is behind the media hostility toward the President and his Administration, and how much of it is rooted in a liberal bias.

The public holds the national media in low esteem. I think there are several reasons why, and I intend to write about them in some detail while discussing ways the media could improve their image. It is more than just the perceived arrogance, cynicism, gotcha-journalism, and lack of accountability. The establishment media does not tend to reflect Main Street America, or spend enough time focusing on the issues that matter most to the general public, and too often sacrifice substance for process. They tend to reflect the liberal elites of New York and Washington that are part of the social circles in which they run, and it shows in their reporting. Yet, they live in a constant state of denial when it comes to acknowledging such an obvious fact.

Fairness is defined by the establishment media within the left-of-center boundaries they set. They defend their reporting as fair because both sides are covered. But, how fair can it be when it is within the context of the liberal slant of the reporting? And, while the reporting of the establishment media may be based on true statements and facts, is it an accurate picture of what is really happening?

The fact that McClellan's revised, Bush-bashing book is being so heavily promoted by the top media outlets is a testament to the veracity of McClellan's original thesis. It is also a validation of one of the right's biggest critiques of the Bush Administration--its loyalty fetish. Scott McClellan should never have been appointed to his position. He only obtained it because of his personal connections, not through his merit or affinity for conservative principles. That he turned on Bush is not exactly surprising.

Full text of McClellan proposal.

How on God's green Earth can Donna Brazile sit on her spot on the CNN Election Central command center week after week and pretend to be an "unbiased" political analyst?

Yesterday, she was front and center as the most recognizable characters at the DNC Rules Committee meeting.

Is it just me?  Don't the Objective Journalists(tm) of the world see the obvious conflict of interest?

This is the equivalent of a board member of Bear Stearns appearing on CNN and pretending they were an uninterested observer talking about the subprime mortgage crisis.

It is really sickening to see the increase in the unholy alliance of the US News Media and the DC Political Establishment.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)