Could you explain why Kos doesn't count? When it comes to damaging liberal causes, he did drive a Senator out of the Democratic party. On a personal loathsomeness scale, he said "Screw 'em" when four Americans got killed and strung from a bridge by terrorists. Why doesn't he count?

Egbert - okay, put him in the Rush file. Believe it or not, Chris Matthews reaches a wider audience, and Kos is read mostly by true believers. But you already knew that, didn't you?

Kevin -

Yes, the WSJ editorial page is the worst. It is almost unbelievable that a paper with its influence and stature would be putting out what can only be described as a capitalist version on Pravda in its opinion pages. Loathsome, dishonest to an extent that is almost (*almost*) comical, and animated by no principle whatever save the narrowest hack partisanship.

Unfortunately, for professional reasons, I have to (at least) scan the WSJ daily. I assiduously avoid its editorials. Frankly, the white / black dichotomy between their reporting and reasearch and the idiotic right wing gleichschaltung on their editorial page leaves me constantly shocked.

By the way, you missed the increasinly right wingism of Barrons (Donlan) and the extreme loonyism of the Investors Business Daily.

C. Ronson

In the early 1990s, when I worked in NYC investment banking circles, I used to remark that the WSJ editorial page was the only fiction I was able (had time) to read. Before turning ugly in 1992, the WSJ ed. page was really quite entertaining fiction, but I didn't know anyone who took it seriously. I didn't think the editors who wrote the stuff did either. Later, I was amazed to find that there were people in the business hinterlands who not only took it seriously, but found it credible.

I think you're on the right track with Matthews, but the problem is that there are so many people just like him, in both the print and TV world. Richard Cohen, Joe Klein, all the straw people who go on Fox and allow themselves to be shit on in exchange for money -- if you start such a list, where does it end? What makes you decide that Matthews, who has his good moments, is worse, considered overall, than Maureen Dowd, who has almost none?

I'm going to suggest a different "worst": the Dems who have allowed these people to kick us around for the past 10 years with nary a peep of protest, even encouraging them more often than not. We are absolutely getting what we deserve, and every time someone on the left snickers at one of Klein's or Dowd's or whoever's cheap shots on a Dem, we deserve it even more.

Chris Matthews is definitely #1. Arianna Huffington is a very close #2, for all the same reasons.

This is like making a guest list for the wedding. If we invite loony Uncle Bill, then we gotta invite cousins Anna through Xerxes.

I believe this earns you a gold star from Bob Somerby.

Katie Couric.

You just can't stand that conservatives finally have a voice out there now, can you?

It can't help much that Fox gets better ratings, Rush rules talk radio, and Air America is hanging out to dry.

Of course, if you can't compete, you can always use a new Fairness Doctrine to wipe out the competition.

There should be a special place reserved for Bob Woodward, who has totally lost his bearings, and has become the palace scribe. Not the worst, but certainly a dishonorable mention.

Which one has the most influence? Who knows. I do know this, however: The Journal op-ed is oftentimes contradicted by it's own news pages. When Matthews goes into one of his frequent Hillary rants, the liberals switch to CNN or a sit-com re-run, and Nancy Grace is unwatchable by anyone with a modecum of intelligence, so she has virtually no effect. The net effect, IMHO, is almost negligible.

More importantly, just think of how little liberal media there really is. Miniscule is a good descriptive word (all we have is Olbermann). And yet, Dems totally kicked butt in the last election. How can this be? Maybe the answer is in the old maxim "All politics is local" I can't think of any other answer.

Chris Matthews is improving. After not watching him for years, I now tune in usually before Countdown. He's angry about the disaster in Iraq and clearly lays blame on this administration. I've also seen him give quite a bit of grief to some know-nothing Repub reps and senators recently on other issues.

I don't even know the names of the talking heads or of those who do the interviews anymore. I refuse to watch any MSM media and haven't for the past four years, except for the two I mentioned. Russert, Lehrer, Blitzer and Matthews were my most disliked back in 2002 because they should have known better. But you could say that about any of the MSM at that point and could still say it today, with a slight exception for Matthews. Really laying down on the job.

Your sentence should have read: "[Chris Matthews] tries to convince(s) them that liberal politics is an idiotic clown show by using his once-a-liberal bona fides."

Matthews convinces me only that he's an idiot whose thoughts drift whichever way the wind blows that day.

No need for explanation. The post was fun. Stuck at home on a rainy day fun. Citizen journalists are just apt to glom onto the Hannities, Rushes and their ilk. We're opportunists!

I agree that Maureen Dowd can disappoint--I did not like that she said Senator Clinton is wielding Bill as a bludgeon on support and money...undermining her presentation...as a self-reliant feminist...if you can only win by leaning do heavily on your man for your muscle, isn't that a benign form of paternalism?

That was a low blow and a cheap shot.
It demeaned Dowd instead.

[Kos] did drive a Senator out of the Democratic party

You have to be a member of the Wingnut Elite, First Class, with a medal for Conspicuous Lunacy in the Face of Facts, to believe that Kos drove Lieberman from the Democratic party.

You'd also have to believe that Lieberman's heart ever had a stronger connection to the Democratic Party than his lips have to Bush's buttocks.

Flamethrower,

I basically agree with you, but at least he's woken up on Iraq. That's progress. Now for the rest of the agenda. You haven't noticed a slight improvement?

i agree with ben: i'm not sure how many readers of the otherwise excellent wsj even bother with the editorial page. it would be interesting if there was a way to find out.

as for egbert: he was stupid on the previoius version of this thread, and he's stupid on this one as well (although i notice he's removed the anti-semitic charge that he previously employed). in point of fact, of course, joe lieberman drove himself out of the democratic party, although as a functional matter, he remains: kos (like many others, including a majority of CT dems) merely noticed.

More importantly, just think of how little liberal media there really is. Miniscule is a good descriptive word (all we have is Olbermann).

This hallucination continues to be hilarious. Check out some surveys of media people sometime for their political leanings.

Unless of course your criteria for "liberal" is mouth-foaming fanatic.

Actually, their audience is old, not particularly liberal. It's an average age of 59 or 60.

I've never actually heard Nanacy Grace, or even read the closed captions, but for some reason she is silently on TV at the gym a lot. The vicious, hate-filled look on her face is enough to make me think she must be saying something really awful.

Howard: From personal experience, I'm pretty convinced that lots of otherwise normal (but conservative) WSJ readers do indeed read the editorial page and believe the stuff they print. It's not that it turns them into conservatives, but that it takes non-wingnuts and turns them into wingnuts.

BTW, I was mostly focused on radio/TV personalities. (Yeah, I know, that was hardly obvious since I also singled out the WSJ editorial crew.) Matthews' problem is not that he's wrong about everything, but that he seems like the biggest exemplar of the clown show approach to politics. Sure, the people who appear on his show bear some part of the blame, but he's the ringleader.

Kevin, perhaps i'm lucky in my circle of acquaintances: i know many wsj readers, and none of them takes the editorial page seriously! clearly one of us knows an atypical selection of journal readers.

speaking of wingnuts, then we have bobwire: rather than actually, you know, look at what appears in our various media, he wants to rely upon very limited polling data of personal opinions. that's why it's so hard to take right-wing arguments seriously about anything: today's rightwingers quite literally seem to have no clue about the process of logical thought, only the process of loud-mouthed fulmination, propaganda, and lying....

Nice post from Mr. Drum. Concise and true.

Matthews' audience is probably mostly liberal and centrist liberal, and he convinces them that liberal politics is an idiotic clown show.

I have noticed this and it bothers me. Matthews has always rubbed me the wrong way, but he really doesn't use the politics of hate like Lou Dobbs.

I agree that the WSJ editorial page is one of the worst rags I have ever seen from a major newspaper. One might expect it to be a megaphone for the billionaire wing of the Republican party -- after all, that is it's natural base. But they are also just hacks for right-wing extremists on almost all issues. One might have thought the WSJ would support expansion of funding for stem-cell research -- after all, stem-cells entrepreneurs like it and it potentially could lead to economic growth along with advancing science. Instead, they just blindly kiss Bush's ass.

from wikipedia:
Matthews has worked for four Democratic politicians. He was a presidential speechwriter for four years during the administration of Jimmy Carter. Among his efforts was Carter's infamous "malaise" speech, though the word "malaise" did not actually appear in the official transcript.
He served as a top aide to long-time Speaker of the House of Representatives Tip O'Neill for six years. He worked in the U.S. Senate for five years on the staffs of Senators Frank Moss and Edmund Muskie before losing to Pennsylvania Congressman Joshua Eilberg in a U.S. House of Representatives Democratic primary in 1974.

Matthews was raised in a conservative Irish Catholic household. As a young man he was a Goldwater Republican who was inspired to become a Democrat by Eugene McCarthy's pro-civil rights and anti-Vietnam war platforms. Despite having worked for Democrats, Matthews has said, "I'm more conservative than people think I am. ... I voted for George W. Bush in 2000."

Thanks Kevin, this is really an excellent change of pace discussion. Like you say, its pretty easy to go after the dogmatic like Fox News, Limbaugh etc, but you are right,they are preaching to the choir. It is the insidious ones that are interesting for this discussion. I think that on a lot of the big issues Chris Matthews personal, deep down, beliefs may be better than he is given credit for; but I still agree with all the criticism here of what transpires regularly on his show. I am going to nominate Norah O'Dionnell and Wolf Blitzer. Blitzer acts like he Ed Murrow while mindlessly reading and parroting whatever sinmeister bullshit the GOP machine spits out. You almost wonder if a body snatching gooper seed pod didn't take him over somewhere in his big stint in the middle east quite some time ago. Norah O'Donnell is simply ridiculous in her off the charts empty headed stenography of GOP blather; it is laughably pathetic, and delivered with almost a complete lack of basic intelligence.

I believe it was Brad DeLong that said this--
If the Wall Street Journal editorial page were to tell you that there is plenty of milk in the refrigerator, you would be well-advised to open the refrigerator and take a look for yourself before heading out to the grocery store.

Oops, lets not forget the Washington Post in it's current vintage. Save for Dan Froomkin and occasionally EJ Dionne, it is hard to distinguish from the WSJ anymore.

CWA - Why bother to look? Just go get milk.

The problem isn't so much that there's a single worst person or even a short list of them, it's that there are so many and so much variety to choose from. No matter what you brand of right-wingnuttery there's a friendly place to go to get your preconceptions affirmed. The business elite have the WSJ editorial page (among other "business" publications). If you're think the (7,000 year-old) earth is an the thrall of secular humanist atheistic Darwinists, you've got Dobson (and Robertson and Fallwell and ...). If you're a grumpy old white working class guy who thinks all the foreigners are taking the good jobs, O'Riley and Dobbs are for you. You name it, they got it on the right.

But where do we far left liberal tree hugging America-hating want-the-terrorists-to-win pinkos go for our fix? The Internet - maybe a little. But the Internet requires you to go and look for it. On the Right it's in your face all over the place.

When it comes to media, we're just outnumbered and outgunned. Given that, I think it's a testament to the reasonableness of the average voter that we still win elections.

aa

A Aardvark's comment made me think of a voice that I really miss. Although he wasn't an uber-liberal, he was certainly progressive, intelligent and honest. Aaron Brown, last seen in the anchor chair at CNN

excellent article about WSJ's shortcomings:

http://slate.msn.com/id/2086691/

In case anybody's Interested, my take on the Imus collision:
http://homepage.mac.com/petergillis/iblog/
Oh, and a really bad latin pun.

Well I'll go a long ways for a bad Latin pun! See ya there!

David Brooks, Thomas Friedman & Christopher Hitchens. All 3 for pretty much the same reason. They are all smart enough to know how damaging, dishonest & enabling they've been in support of the whole bait & switch neo-con-job. They're all serious enough to know the vast repurcussions of the greatest foreign policy disasters by the most craven, incompetent administration in US history. And all 3 even now continue to justify, rationalise, evade responsibility & wilfully dissemble.

When Brooks very recently said, yet fucking again, on the Newshour that Joe Wilson's CIA report supported the Niger yellow-cake fiction, I don't think I've ever loathed a media commentator more. It wasn't just the lie. It was that he repeated it knowing it was a lie, to cover his longstanding, eye-rolling dismissal of Plame-gate as a Beltway brouha-ha, a teacup tempest, which was unavoidably neither with Libby's conviction. (I also resnt the hell out of Mark Shields for being such a bumbling, blustering, ineffectual voice for what's jokingly referred to in the US as the "left")

Chris Matthews, by contrast, is a terminal lightweight, buffeted by man-crushes & mean-girl-grudges, who dishes politics like it's celebrity gossip. If politics is "showbiz for ugly people", Matthews is it's porcine Mary Hart. Similarly, Coulter, Malkin, Limbaugh, Grace & the entire staff at Fox are doing schtick. They are paid provacateurs, play-acting outrage, confecting controversy, sneering their hate-filled invective because, like car wrecks & bar fights, verbal violence draws a big crowd.

Other ostensibly serious, & seriously vile, commentators like Novack, Kristol, Krauthammer etc., I loathe less (than Brooks, Friedman & Hitchens) because I suspect they are credulous & zealous enough to actually believe the fact-free polemic they peddle. They escape worst-ever status through the startling sincerity of their stupidity.

Yeah, I'm going to vote for the New York Times here as doing more damage to the national discourse than the WSJ.

Even Henry Maier was aware of the wreck their editorial page was, and he's been deceased since the summer of 1994.

Since bmaz brought up the Washington Post, what is going on there these days? Are they turning into the Washington Times II? This seems to be a relatively recent development. That unsigned "Pratfall in Damascus" editorial on Nancy Pelosi's Mideast trip was a sign of how much things have changed. The fact that the editorial was unsigned is significant and carries more weight. Traditionally, an unsigned editorial is supposed to reflect the view of the editorial staff as a whole rather than just the writer. In the past, I could certainly have seen the Post running a signed editorial blasting Pelosi, reflecting the individual columnist's view. But the fact it was unsigned was striking.

Egbert, DailyKos is one of the Web's most active sites, with more than 100,000 active members and millions of hits per month. It represents the whole range of Democratic and Independent thought, and actually allows people to (gasp!) post opinions, even dissenting ones, something your heroic conservative sites tend to shy away from. (See how fast Free Republic bans you if you post an opinion counter to theirs.)

Kos apologized about his angry reaction when four American mercenaries were killed in Iraq. (Did you, egbert, ever say or post something when you were angry that you regretted later?) It's just that he grew up in Central America, and he saw what brutality mercenaries and "contractors" are capable of.

Kos helps raise millions of dollars and stir up thousands of volunteers for Democratic campaigns. He helped bring Jim Webb, Jon Tester, and Claire McCaskill into the Senate, helped Barack Obama win the Illinois Democratic Senate primary in 2004, and has generally become a terror for the conservatives--like you. And egbert, don't you dare talk about loathsomeness when you cheerfully support the most viciously criminal Administration in American history.

Peggy Noonan is a cult leader like Ann Coulter so I doubt WSJ has any real impact on anybody other the redneck - stupid people, who only read the WSJ for op-eds.

But it's been the mainsteam media that has fallen the lowest. Like that stupid editoral about Valerie Plame, and all the outright lies - so a piece had NO business on the editoral pages of that newspaper.

Lee Iacocca is right and something else about these words:

We've got a gang of clueless bozos steering our ship of state right over a cliff, we've got corporate gangsters stealing us blind, and we can't even clean up after a hurricane much less build a hybrid car."

And this: "Thanks to our first MBA President, we've got the largest deficit in history, Social Security is on life support, and we've run up a half-a-trillion-dollar price tag (so far) in Iraq. And that's just for starters."

It's sounds Republican.

Whatever happen to real conservatives?

On the CNN, I heard that more voters are independent now but dollars to donuts - I be willing to bet it's not liberals going INDY but Repugs going "Indy". The GOP did everything Bush wanted them too ONLY because, in return, the GOP got whatever pork or cushy job for themselves and the their friends - the GOP forgot their constituency even mattered, and NRO, WSJ isn't the voters.

CASE in point - look at Ezra Klein blog today:

More Thompsonian Economics
By Ezra

From a bit later in his (Fred Thompson) op-ed:

This issue is particularly important now because massive, unfunded entitlements are coming due as the baby-boom generation retires. We simply cannot afford higher taxes if we want an economy able to bear up under the strain of those obligations.

Perchance Fred Thompson is hoping that baby-boomers will still vote for him but really, I don't see it. The GOP was so busy kissing Bushie's liar ass they forgot they had a constituency, and I think those baby-boomers just want "Indy" AND WILL NOT vote GOP?

Fred Thompson is stupid, yes!

Almost as dumb as McCain.

Good post, Kevin. Let us raise a toast to centrist liberal pundits everywhere who, until the November election, maintained that the big problem was that the Democrats didn't have clue.

Jeebus:

Howard: From personal experience, I'm pretty convinced that lots of otherwise normal (but conservative) WSJ readers do indeed read the editorial page and believe the stuff they print. It's not that it turns them into conservatives, but that it takes non-wingnuts and turns them into wingnuts.

Gee, that would be speculate that the mostly college educated people that purchase the WSJ – to keep up with the stock market, don’t have any critical thinking skills. I'd give the readers alot more credit than that does Kevin and his gullibility factor.

Be interesting to run a poll - How many people reading the WSJ actually ever listen to Rush Limbaugh? And what areas does the WSJ sell best in, NY and CA? Certianly I would doubt that WSJ sells much to those folks in the heartland of the redneck village people red states.

I have nothing to say other than that I completely agree with you, Kevin. I think you articulated what I have felt for a long time, but lacked your eloquence to express.

Rock on.

From Pew Research, Mar. 8, 2007: Today's Journalists Less Prominent Fewer Widely Admired than 20 Years Ago. An excerpt on today's favorite journalists:

Looking at the list of most admired journalists, no individual news person is named by more than 5% of the public. In fact, the differences among the top 3, Katie Couric, Bill O'Reilly, and Charles Gibson, are not statistically significant. In 1987 Dan Rather stood out among his colleagues with 11% of the public naming him as their favorite journalist.

Some of today's top journalists appeal to distinct constituencies reflecting the nature of their audiences. For example, Bill O'Reilly tops the list of most admired journalists among Republicans – 10% name the Fox News Channel talk show host. Only 2% of Democrats and Independents name O'Reilly. Much of Katie Couric's support comes from women: 7% of women name Couric as the news person they admire most compared to 2% of men. And Jon Stewart, host of the Daily Show on Comedy Central, is popular mainly with young people. Among those under age 30, 6% say Stewart is their favorite journalist, making him along with O'Reilly the top pick among this age group. This compares with less than 1% of those over age 30, who admire Stewart most.

From the posts above: Russert, Lehrer, Blitzer and Matthews; Andria Huffington; Ann Coulter; Malkin, Limbaugh, Grace & the entire staff at Fox; Mary Hart; Norah O'Dionnell (and Wolf Blitzer); Richard Cohen, Joe Klein, Maureen Dowd ; Lou Dobbs ; David Brooks, Thomas Friedman & Christopher Hitchens; Novack, Kristol, Krauthammer.
Wow! Quite a list. And you know what? I don't listen to or read the majority of these ignorant opinionated turds on any regular basis. I'm not quite sure why Lehrer is in the list because he is a news guy, not opinion. Of those I have seen or read at any time (Russert, Blitzer, Huffington, Coulter, Limbaugh, FOX (as a generality), Klein, Dows, Brooks, Friedman, Novack, Kristol, Krauthammer, although I might like to hear their views for counterpoint, I would not give 2¢ to get their opinion as its worth. In fact. most of them could be run into the ground just on their fact base. So what's an opinion based on falsehoods? Lies upon lies. But that's not what it is about, is it? Lies work. Or, at least do damage.
But, just like Imas, it is those of you, anyone who reads or listens to this trash, that support it.

You know, if your main interest is providing your own prejudiced opinion, rather than facts and considered balance, it's not news or information. It's propaganda.

"the WSJ editorial page is by far the worst. I'm convinced it's done more real damage to the liberal cause than any other single source of the past quarter century"

Forget about the liberal cause, what about the damage they've done to the COUNTRY?

It says a lot, none of it good, that Jon Stewart is considered a journalist.

BTW, Roger Ailes on Peggy Noonan:

A Noonan Flashback

I missed the fourth anniversary of this Peggy Noonan Classic:

Weeks later, after all the news--the invasion, Saddam gone, more al Qaeda arrests--the president of the United States had a meeting that he'd been looking forward to. It was in the Oval Office. It was early evening and the lamps seemed to light it with a golden glow. The door opened, and in marched the men who got Osama. The Ranger crew, the Screaming Eagles who guarded them.

The president gave them great medals and thanked them on behalf of a grateful nation. Then he asked for the Rangers who'd stormed the hideout. They stepped forward. Bush said he was sorry their names would have to stay secret but it was best under the circumstances, too much still going on, didn't want to let them be a target for some nuts.

"But when the time is right," Bush said, "your country will be told who you are, and what you did. And then -- better get ready for the sculptors and all the statues."

--posted by Roger

Noonan dear, Bush is such a nasty guy, there is no way in hell he let anybody get a statue unless it was him alone that was getting one.

I mean, as I recall, "heck-of-job" Brown got the axe, and Bush expects loyality be he doesn't give loyality to anyone except his two bosses Dick Cheney and Karl Rove.

As bad as the WSJ editorial page is, by your metric it isn't nearly the worst. It's just SO over the top that I expect that it influences primarily the already insane. And then there is the contrast between the editorial page and the reporting mentioned by many previous commenters. The reporting undermines the editorial page to such an extent that I think it largely nullifies its harmful effects. (I tend to think that on the whole the reporting in the WSJ is better for liberals than the reporting in the NYT. Certainly it was in the run up to the Iraq war.)

And then one must consider, as you do, the audience. I'm not going to argue for a second that they represent an intellectual elite by any means, but generally they are of average or somewhat better intelligence. Smart enough to see the contrast between the editorial and news pages, and smart enough to therefore discount the editorial pages by about 80%.

DailyKos is one of the Web's most active sites, with more than 100,000 active members and millions of hits per month. It represents the whole range of Democratic and Independent thought...

Lately that "range" is about five millimeters wide on the political spectrum.

And I'd echo the comments regarding the Washington Post. Virtually as pernicious as the WSJ editorial page, yet with (sadly and unjustifiably) infinitely more (unearned) credibility than the WSJ editorial page.

The thing to remember about Matthews is that he worships power. When Bush appeared strong, Matthews was in love. Now that Bush appears weak, Matthews is skeptical. There's really not much else going on.

Lately that "range" is about five millimeters wide on the political spectrum.

How wide is the spectrum of thought at Redstate, FreeRepublic or LGF?

If Kos is five millimeters, those would be measured in angstrom units. Kos entertains a lot of wide ranging thought, and you sound like someone who has read ABOUT DKos, but hasn't actually participated, because you obviously do not know anything about the site.

And why do you suppose that reader comments are so unpopular among nutwing sites?

rnc, I have to respectfully disagree. Read through about 100 diaries and 200 comments on DKos sometimes and you'll see everyone from conservative Blue Dogs to the true Lefties represented. Pro-gun and pro-life Democrats are heard from frequently. And no one criticizes the shortcomings of the Democrats more than DKos and its readers. The thing that unites all of us, however, is the horrendous damage being done to our beloved country by Bush, an increasingly delusional Cheney, and an utterly unprincipled Rove.

RR - rnc is an ineducable crank.

Daniel Henninger ought to be wormed.

All kidding aside, what I find most enraging about the WSJ Ed. Page is the smarminess: relentless, brazen, and total. It does not lie some of the time. It does not lie most of the time. It lies ALL of the time. In the face of all evidence, despite even the most withering scrutiny. (We need not waste time here discussing its quite novel approach to "corrections" when readers it has smeared point out the numerous lies and distortions published.) Iraq, U.S. Attorneys, Al Qaeda, NSA wiretapping, the Clintons, the Democrats, conservatives, liberals, taxes, economics . . . One has no choice but to wonder: Do they really believe

If the New York Sun was a much larger and influential paper, it'd be right up (or down) there with its upscale right-wing Israel uber alles approach. Too bad, because in some areas, notably the arts and even occasionally sports, the Sun is a decent newspaper and a nice alternative to the tired Post vs. Daily News brawl.

But I sense the New York Times and Washington Post, fearful over the decline of the print press and somewhat unsure over how to handle their online alter egos, are editorially hedging their bets in order to stay in good with corporate America and not lose any additional significant advertising accounts. Remember, these papers have traditionally been more Establishment than "liberal," despite what the right-wing punks may have you believe.

Ever catch the WSJ editorial writers on TV? They used to have a show on one of the cable channels and MAN, are they a creepy looking bunch of people. If a Hollywood producer set out to cast a central committee for some Orwellian totalitarianist dystopia, I doubt they could have round up a group that would make your skin crawl more by design. I'll bet they start to smolder if exposed to direct sunlight.

maybe it's just me but i'm skeptical about how influential any of these clown are, for good or for ill. the wsj editorial board is in the same category as limbaugh or o'reilly. they're so rabid, so intellectually dishonest i doubt even family members take them seriously. i doubt they believe themselves. i do however agree that maureen dowd is dangerous, not for any of her ideas — she has few — but rather for the cynicism she views the world, especially the left.

RNC,
If DKos is just a left wing site, why does Jim Webb get such strong support there?

The recent furor over Don Imus's comments has led me
to conclude that the MSM isn't very capable of delving deep into society's ills.

Yes, racism and sexism are awful, but so is war and the vast machinery that supports it.

What if the energy that was expended over Imus was directed towards the Iraq mess?

Think about it.

We only have energy for "fluff" and neglect real problems.

While the bball fiasco merited some MSM covergage, what about the murder rate in, say, Philadelphia?

Now that's a real problem, one that demands far more action than the response we saw to Imus's vitriolic language.

The WSJ = an entity that must cherish the notion that our country is best when (as now) run by a government for the rich and nothing but the rich so help us god!

I believe Nancy Grace is Mark Levin in a really bad wig and falsetto voice.

Has anyone ever seen them together?

If DKos is just a left wing site, why does Jim Webb get such strong support there?

Jim Webb's only function was to knock out George Allen, and Kos would have supported George Wallace if that's what it took to do that.

Is any of that support you mention recent?

No way can you mention Matthews and leave Timmeh off the list.

Brojo writes:

I have noticed this and it bothers me. Matthews has always rubbed me the wrong way, but he really doesn't use the politics of hate like Lou Dobbs.

I agree absolutely about Lou Dobbs, but out of all the media personalities mentioned, Chris Matthews is the most entertaining and watchable. I disagree that his show is an idiotic clown show. He's at least geniune, unlike Lou Dobbs, who latches on to whatever isolationist flavor-of-the-month topic, with his faux outrage. Clearly, Lou Dobbs is the worst of the worst. And although I agree with Olbermann's message, he seems a little to self-righteous, and his diatribes are a little too convoluted, which makes me want to turn the channel half-way through the same way you want to walk away from someone who talks about a topic for far too long at a party.

rnc:

is three weeks ago recent enough for you?

Daily Kos: Yeah, he had a gun.

Journalist Michael Tomasky's reviews included the WSJ, Wapo and others...as captured in the Slate article

[W]hile the pages are more or less equally partisan when it comes to supporting or opposing a given presidential administration's policy pronouncements, the conservative pages are more partisan—often far more partisan—with regard to the intensity with which they criticize the other side. Also … conservative editorial pages are far less willing to criticize a Republican administration than liberal pages are willing to take issue with a Democratic administration."

Tomasky's method was to review 510 editorials that ran during the Clinton and Bush administrations.

There is no dispute that Matthews is a loudmouth and he often blows with the political wind, but his aggressive style does lead to tough questions of pols who often are getting their asses kissed on other programs.

Most importantly Matthews does pick up on good stories. The best evidence of this in the recent past is after Joe Wilson's article in the NY Times, it was Matthews who was chasing the story to the VP's office. Matthews was the one harping on the fact that Cheney would receive a report. This was such a hassle to the VP that he sent his pitbull Libby to harass Tim Russert (a call that landed Libby in jail).

Grace is disgusting for her attempt to convict three innocent guys in the media. The Journal is ridiculous and I never read it, but Matthews serves his purpose. The media is never going to be perfect and television is full of people in love with themselves. You have to take this shit for what it's worth and then find out the truth yourself.

No CONTEST: The Washington "Moonie" Times has to be the worst. This is a radical and fanatical right wing rag that is read religiously by all Republicans in DC; and even by the MSM people. In the circa late 70's to early 80's the Korean cultist ,criminal, and tax frauder Rev. Moon established the Washington Times to influence DC Politicos, media, and America. Since that time his paper lost close up to two billion dollars. That is $2,000,000,000; with no profit to show. And he is not even a fucking American. And if you do not think that Moon has power. Just look back a couple of years ago when he had himself coronation in the US Capitol. By a Dem at that. Them read his rag. It will make you puke. Especially the extra large editorial page. This man knows mind controll.

I like Chris Matthews and can't believe you're saying he's as offensive as Grace. I think his show is probably the best left on TV today.

Looking at all the shows on a given Sunday morning, there will be maybe 10-15 good tough questions asked by the hosts to the variety of guests on that day -- but every Matthews weekday show is almost entirely comprised of great and tough questions, albeit often to the regular guests like Buchannon.

What about O'Reilly and Carlson, Hannity and Colmbs, and the other Faux news spoofs that really actively mislead the public?

I cry myself to sleep every night about the damage that pushing Lieberman out of the Democratic party did to liberal causes.

The WSJ editorial page is opinion. It is not presented as news. Last time I checked having a different opinion whether it is liberal or conservative is not a bad thing. When you read an editorial page you know what you are getting so what is the problem? I sure you all prefer a lefty rag like the LA Times that prints opinion as news and skews the news to fit their lefty agenda.

Kevin: "Of these, by the way, the WSJ editorial page is by far the worst. I'm convinced it's done more real damage to the liberal cause than any other single source of the past quarter century. There's probably a good book in that story somewhere."

While the subject of racism in media remains in the public spotlight, thanks to Don Imus -- bear with me, you'll see the relevance -- I'd like to offer readers this little gem by the Wall Street Journal's John Fund, from his May 22, 2000 editorial "Hawaii's Gray Politics", which excoriated the islands' then-Gov. Ben Cayetano, an American of Filipino ancestry (and a Democrat, of course):

"Here's hoping that Hawaii can say goodbye to its bamboo-republic status and become a hospitable place not only for tourists but also for independent thinkers."

Fund was chastising Gov. Cayetano for supposedly removing the Republican chairman of the Hawaii State Tax Commission, ostensibly for purely partisan motives.

However, the truth of the matter was that not only had this same Republican resigned his post voluntarily, he had actually done so four months prior to Cayetano's election as governor!

Fund and the Journal never printed a retraction or correction, nor did they ever see fit to apologize to the people of Hawaii -- 64% of whom are non-white -- for Fund's blatantly racist "bamboo republic" slur.

Quite frankly, as long as the Journal's editorial board continues to offer opinions that resolutely underscore its members' collective need for anti-psychotic prescription medication, the entire paper will risk embodying the very caricature with which John Fund once slandered my adopted home state -- that of an inhospitable place for independent thinkers.

Kudos for the WS JOurnal Editorial selection but the WAPo Editorial page should received an honorable mention for vigor and effort at twisting the facts at least. I would like nominate the Drudge Report and the NOte given their consistent form of misinforming and confusing the MSM. They both play a role in dummying down the media and their followers by leasing on what event are meaningful and just what that meaning might be.

Could you explain why Kos doesn't count? When it comes to damaging liberal causes, he did drive a Senator out of the Democratic party. On a personal loathsomeness scale, he said "Screw 'em" when four Americans got killed and strung from a bridge by terrorists. Why doesn't he count?

Letsee... A Democrat who didn't vote with Democrats on any of the dividing issues...

...Americans? What, we have to be up in arms because they were paid by Americans? Not because they were armed thugs? So everything they did is swept under the rug because they were born in the US?

These don't seem to be very important issues of the day. Heck, so far the Democrats have been winning the votes in the new congress without that 'Democrat's vote. And those four guys? Where were you when the last (I don't know how many but it's more than four) non-Iraqi civilian contractors were killed?

Ugh.

Honestly, I don't know how the WSG gets away with printing some of the tripe it does, or even what Chris Matthews is on.

derek: "I cry myself to sleep every night about the damage that pushing Lieberman out of the Democratic party did to liberal causes."

Why do you believe that Sen. Lieberman was still entitled to his party's nomination last year, given that he not only repeatedly espoused personal views that were clearly at odds with mainstream Democratic opinion in Connecticut, but also never missed an opportunity to publicly deride the majority of Democratic voters for being out of step with him?

I think they are all bad. I mean, I can listen to the liberal ones and grin sometimes, but what all these folks essentially do, whether liberal or conservative, is drive wedges between people who truly should be talking to one another. Someone once said that listening only to people who think like you do typically results in an "incestuous amplification" of your own opinion. And we have seen how THAT is true by watching the George W. Bush administration going flying off into the wild blue yonder of behaviors thinking they are sooooooooo right. (Pun intended.) Everybody who disagreed with this administration's power players was ejected from their playing field. So I think ALL of the people you all mentioned deserve condemnation for radicalizing us at a time when we should be acting in a thoughtful, prudent, AND effective manner.

Annoyingly, the WSJ editorials are often quoted by either those who trust the WSJ name - or didn't have time to read the news articles.

That it was printed in the WSJ is enough for most people. They just don't know that it appeared on the funnies page and not the news page...

I suspect the WSJ would regard this, "it's done more real damage to the liberal cause than any other single source of the past quarter century" as a copmpliment.

It would be more to the point to have said, "it's done more real damage to the honest discussion of issues than any other single source of the past quarter century"

he said "Screw 'em" when four Americans got killed and strung from a bridge by terrorists.

Since you cut and pasted from the other thread, "egbert," I note you didn't answer my question as why you omitted the fact that your "americans" were mercenaries. Reduces the propaganda value of your complaint, doesn't it?

As for Lieberman, your contention that Kos drove him out of the party is ludicrous on its face, but no more so than your claim that it's damaging to Democrats. Lieberman's Fox News Democrat act was what was damaging; now that he can't be represented as a spokesperson for the party, his influence is limited.

Tool.

"Since bmaz brought up the Washington Post, what is going on there these days? Are they turning into the Washington Times II?"

More like "Washington Times Lite."

I'm not going to argue for a second that they represent an intellectual elite by any means, but generally they are of average or somewhat better intelligence. Smart enough to see the contrast between the editorial and news pages, and smart enough to therefore discount the editorial pages by about 80%.
Posted by: LarryM

It suffices to point out that rdw reads the WSJ editorial page as Gospel. That gives us a readily identifiable base-line of witless credulity divorced from any intelligence whatsoever.

There were 2 "liberal" reporters -- their names escape me -- one for the NYTimes and one for the Washington Post -- who in 2000 decided that they hated Al Gore and set about cooperating with the right wing noise machine about Al Gore's "lies". They're the ones who legitimized the crap and set in motion The Gangster Bush's election. They're #1s.

Jeffrey Davis,

Do the names Elizabeth Bumiller, Kit Seelye and Maureen Dowd ring a bell?

"done more real damage to the liberal cause "

I'd say the damage has been done NOT to the liberal cause, but to the United States. America has suffered because of the WSJ propaganda machine.

I've done two editorial board meetings with the WSJ: progressives should take a lesson from the WSJ editorialists.

Basically, not being 'their sort', I can only observe. But it looks to me like the WSJ writers start with a perspective: they will write the conservative take. So they're not 'independent', in a strict sense, they're ideological -- or as they might put it, principled.

That means (I think) they recognize that there are so many ways to talk about about any particular political or economic event, so they see their role as writing it up from an exclusively and aggressively conservative perspective. Let somebody ELSE try to be fair, or objective, or sort through the facts: that's not their job.

But that's not all of it. The WSJ is effective because they ALSO define their mission beyond, er, 'principle', to EFFECTIVE support for conservatives.

Pat Buchanan's example is doubly instructive: during the Iran-contra hearings, Buchanan famously attacked Congressional Republicans for missing the call to action -- 'when they come for your President,' he said something to this effect, 'it isn't the time to start investigating, it's time to start firing from the upper floors.'

And yet -- it was the WSJ among others who led the way in more or less writing Buchanan out of the conservative movement.

I'm not defending ANY of these particulars, but I am noting that they're all effective.

Where is the comparably effective progressive editorial page?

Where are the progressives who responsibly (cuz what I described above really IS responsible, within the conservative movement as the WSJ leads it) lead progressives the way the WSJ leads conservatives?

It's not enough to mutter, 'well, WE'RE different', cuz in many ways that's simply an excuse for being ineffective.

Right?

Sadly Kevin, you just encourage them (WSJ) when you write "it's done more real damage to the liberal cause than any other single source..."

> Could you explain why Kos doesn't
> count? When it comes to damaging
> liberal causes, he did drive a
> Senator out of the Democratic party.

Using a mind-control ray on all those Democratic Party primary _voters_ no doubt.

Cranky

Now we can talk about the nominal "Democrat" who did not accept the decision of his nominal party's most dedicated voters and stabbed said party in the back...

Fascinating thread, Kevin. The comments are hilarious. Fortunately, you folks will never be in power so the Republic is safe. Rahm Emmanuel was too smart to recruit lefties to run against Republicans last year so we are not going to see radical policies no matter what Nancy does. The Republicans in Congress acted like Democrats so a lot of Republican voters stayed home last November. We'll see what 2008 brings. Personally, my money is on Rudy.

Is it not apparent to all that all the "liberal" media people who are damaging the liberal cause are not liberals at all? These people are those who at one time were Democrats, but who now are very wealthy and completely out of touch with the Democratic constituency. Look at Matthews. What kind of Democrat could he be? He worked for Tip O'Neil who, despite his vaunted reputation, set the precedent and tone for Democratic surrender during his Speakership and who was the man who put Tom Foley and Dick Gephardt in line for succession. What kind of a basis is that experience for being a strong liberal? Only now is the House recovering from the horrible legacy of Tip O'Neil's years and Mathews was an integral part of all that rottenness.

I doubt the WSJ editrial page is the worst. The rich guys who make up their primary audience are already voting Republican.

Its assholes like Chris Matthews who are considered by some to be liberals who do more damage.

But, as Bob Somerby always points out, its not just Matthews but the New York Times and the Washington Post who have seriously harmed progressives. Ask Al Gore.

Is it not apparent to all that all the "liberal" media people who are damaging the liberal cause are not liberals at all? These people are those who at one time were Democrats, but who now are very wealthy and completely out of touch with the Democratic constituency. - oleeb

Just so.

'The real threats to their living standards are the growing inequality that could leave most of them worse off, a dysfunctional health care system that is responsible for the huge projected deficits that so bother the Post, and of course global warming. But, addressing these problems would require attacking powerful interest groups, so the Washington Post would rather publish columns telling baby boomers to kill themselves.' - -Dean Baker

Where is the comparably effective progressive editorial page?

Progressives have a little problem there. It's not in our DNA to engage in massive, chronic, and fully deliberate lying. It makes us, well, uneasy and red-faced.

Conservatives, you see, just have certain natural advantages in politics. But it's not working out so well for them when it comes to actual governance, is it? They've got everything licked but reality.

Fat White Guy, everyone is entitled to their own opinions. no one is entitled to their own facts.

the wsj editorial page lives to break that rule.

mike k: Personally, my money is on Rudy.

Did you know....Rudy Guliani's first wife was his cousin. And they say a New Yorker can't win in the South.

To me, one of the most interesting questions is, in the wake of the Bush/Republican/right wing debacle, what's to come of the WSJ, Fox News, and other propaganda organs for wingnut ideology?

It's almost hard to remember how popular and credible those sources became after 9/11. But where do they possibly go from here? Who but the most recalcitrant of fools might ever take them seriously again?

Once upon a time, the Conservative movement was mostly regarded by the larger public as a fringe, bizarre segment of the populace without a shred of plausibility -- pretty much the popular opinion held of the movement back in the days of Goldwater. I guess I mostly expect that it will be shrunk back to that status after Bush and all he represents is fully digested by the American public.

I'd expect that the WSJ editorial page will simply track that movement back down to its absurdist roots. But it will be interesting to see how it does in fact respond to its own extraordinary loss of real influence on American political life.

Oleeb bleats about " Tip O'Neil who, despite his vaunted reputation, set the precedent and tone for Democratic surrender during his Speakership..."

I wanna speak up for Tip.

O'Neill was one of the first of the oldline Democrats, the old-fashioned blue collar Joe Sixpack reps, to realize the war in Vietnam was a disaster. And his reasoning was important -- he had contacts in the missionary community (the Maryknollers who had taught Diem), which made him seek out CIA briefings, and he realized that first LBJ and then Nixon had simply lied.

He did the same thing during Reagan's Central American adventures.

So it's a bit much to tag him with 'surrender'.

What really cost Democrats control over the House and the national dialogue in general wasn't O'Neill -- specifically targetted as a metaphor for Democratic control of Congress, 'fat, bloated and out of control', and yet we didn't lose the House on his watch.

What cost Democrats the House as much as any other factor (and more than most) was the inability to stand up to majority-minority redistricting forced by the Voting Rights Extension in the late 1980s. The CBC tripled in size, and moderate southern Democrats essentially vanished.

Do the math, folks. It wasn't that O'Neill was too liberal, nor that he wasn't enough of a fighter.

But there IS something to oleeb's fantasy: during a floor debate over the nuclear freeze, an amendment was offered by Democrats to undercut Reagan during his nuke negotiations with Gorbachev. O'Neill did a very unusual thing as Speaker -- he took the floor himself for a speech, in which he ROARED that the reason he was against the amendment was because "I am a patriot!"

The House endorsed the freeze, but the amendment to undercut Reagan lost.

We need more of that, not less.

Could you explain why Kos doesn't count?... eggbutt at 8:16 PM

You just can't stand that conservatives finally have a voice out there... bobwire at 9:03 PM

Unless of course your criteria for "liberal" is mouth-foaming fanatic. bobwire at 9:18 PM

...LATimes that prints opinion as news ... Posted by: Fat Angry Guy at 7:44 AM

you folks will never be in power so the Republic.... Mike K at 11:01 AM

More and more, the news media is fluff and puff entertainment with pretensions of presenting both sides of issues: right and far right with the occasional stooge thrown in for comic relief.
David Gergan once responded to a Matthews question by asking "the way you're supposed to be a Democrat?" to which Matthews blushed. He should blush for his dishonest framing, constant interruptions, misogyny, obsession with Clinton's sex life, and fatuous man crushes on authoritarian figures. When Bush wore his flight suit, Matthews and Liddy were practically giddy over his 'manly package.'
Matthews made millions lying about and smearing Clinton and Gore, which he does to this day. No one outside of Fox News and the Heathers worked harder for the election of George W. Bush.

The WSJ Ed. Page's perniciousness DOES NOT stem from its influence on right-leaning businessman and financiers who read the paper's news pages. Not at all. It stems from the fact that right wing conservative politicians, policy makers, and activitsts treat it as a rallying point, one from which to base political arguments and on which to base legislation, policy, etc. Remember, it was Bob Bartley and Ed. Page ally George Gilder who arguably did the most to convince the Reagan campaign to embrace supply side economics. Bartley's singular achievement was to make kookiness -- sleazy, mendacious, destructive kookiness -- appear eminently reasonable. Conservatives in Congress, the executive branch and elsewhere have been taking signals from the Ed. Page since at least the late '70s, even earlier (Nixon thought about hiring Bartley as a press secretary).

just FYI:

Lieberman got reelected with Republican money and Republican votes.

That makes him a defacto Republican.

No one "drove" him to do anything.

I actually still think O'Reilly and Hannity et all are still the worst. Working from home Kevin, you may be underestimating their water cooler effect, which seeps their garbage from the wingers into the merely ill informed.

Whenever Bush wanted political cover for his aggression in Iraq, and the disaster it has become, he could always turn to Lieberman as a clear example of "bipartisan" support for his decision.

Whom does he turn to nowadays for such support, with Lieberman routed out of the party?

Why, no one. His choice to continue to pursue the Iraq adventure is now a purely right wing, non-Democratic decision and catastrophe. And THAT is why it is an extremely fine thing to have Lieberman officially off the rolls of the Democratic party.

Mike K: We'll see what 2008 brings. Personally, my money is on Rudy.

Hey, Mike K. I got 10,000 US says Rudy can't win the nomination. If you want I'll go another 10G's on the democrat in the general election.

You're money looks awfully good to me.

Liberals fear the WSJ editorial page because that page deals with economic facts.

Indeed. Facts like, "We're selfish, we're scared and we don't like people. Get away from me, and keep your government aid to the underpriviledged out of my wallet. I prefer a gated community. With armed guards."

Good intentions about "equality and social justice" led to states like the Soviet Union and paradises like Cuba with its universal health care.

A very persuasive argument. Twenty years ago, I mean.

Got anything fresher? That one's already turned.

I suppose he doesn't count as a media "star" but people like George Stephanopoulos have been incredibly damaging. Passing himself off as a liberal while being the first to say that Clinton's actions were impeachable --- what might we have been saved but for him?

It's hard to choose between genuine mendacious bastards like O'Reilly, Hannity, and the WSJ ed board, and concern trolls like Klein, Matthews, Lieberhack, and the Washington Post ed. board.

One is just flat balls out insane, while the others are key to undermining liberal thought by trying to be 'sensible', which usually equates to 'liberals and democrats are doing it all wrong, and they'll pay for their mistakes unless they act more like republicans'.

Kevin,

My nomination more most loathsome media personage would have to go to Fred Hiatt, hands down. The WSJ editorial page is so over-the-top, chock-ablock with clownage, one can't even bother. But for us liberals, the Ben-Bradlee Post once was the paper that we thought, no matter what, was going to always be our responsible 4th branch of government. The great reputation the Post once had has been exploited by Hiatt and his cronies on the editorial board, the respectability of the paper lending their opinions a gravitas that they just don't deserve.

Anyway, Fred Hiatt, what you have done to the Washington Post earns you my most loathsome media figure of the Bush era.

I suppose that Hiatt might be somewhat of a marionette for even more loathsome behind-the-scenes figures at the Post, but he's the face of the fall of journalism in this country to me.

Tom

no, mhr, the wsj editorial board doesn't state economic facts; it twists them. the editorials are laughable. actually, they would be much more influential, much more of a force if they adopted more of a principled conservative stand than reflect a partisan republican view.

as for equality and social justice, they're quaint ideals espoused in the declaration of independence, in the preamble to the constitution, embraced by abraham lincoln at gettysburg, cited countless times by republicans and democrats.

"more of a principled conservative stand than ... a partisan republican view..."

That's why I noted the two aspects of what the WSJ does. It's not just that it gives the 'conservative' take on whatever is going on, which necessarily means arguing these facts are important and those aren't (or don't exist).

The WSJ editorialists also see it as part of their mission to promote Republican candidates, especially those of a particular type: AND the Journal does have a contrarian streak, pointedly printing dissenting pieces that, oddly enough, tend to reinforce its own position if only by contrast.

My point is that these are all very effective techniques: where is a similarly effective progressive voice?

Your use of the terms 'liberal' and 'centrist-liberal' ought to be singled out as a paradigmatic instance of Orwellian language. Who the hell are you talking about?

---individual w