Not the conservative media's loathing of Democrats, but the mainstream media's loathing of Democrats.

The greatest coup conservatives have pulled off in this country is coupling their multi-decade effort to browbeat the mainstream media into being mouthpieces for the conservative movement with the creation of a fringe media (right-wing talk radio, Fox News, CBN, etc.) that lets them paint the picture that the "mainstream" media is somewhere near the center (since the right-wing fringe media is always calling it "liberal").

In fact, the "mainstream" media is the mainstream conservative media. So when you are talking about "mainstream" media, you are talking about a branch of the conservative media.

The Democrats aren't going after the Republican candidates with the same vigor that the Republicans are targeting them simply because the Democrats are the party to beat in this election.

The Republican candidates have to show that they're capable of attacking the Democratic candidates, and compete with one another on that basis, because their base understands that an attack-mode campaign is the only shot they have at winning.

I agree with cmdicely's points about the media wholeheartedly, I just don't think that impacts the campaign dynamic too much right now. Perhaps in the general...

Seriously, if CNN is "liberal", what the hell is centrist?

What is kind of silly is that Somerby thinks that a show with a tiny audience like Matthews' has some sort of measurable influence, and is thus worth paying attention to.

It helps that they have Faux News to spread faux news to the masses. Theer are rich Democrats but most are cheap billionairs so they won't spend their own money to help Democrats.

It's not being ignored in the left-wing blogosphere, full stop. For instance, the terrific Lawyers, Guns, and Money regularly refers to the debacle of 2000, especially Maureen Dowd's role. I feel like I hear about this all the time.

To fill you in on history, the War on Gore began long before, in the 1980s. Gore came to my school at the time of his first presidential run. He gave his typical, boring, inoffensive speech. I find that I'm often not as attentive as I could be when it comes to taking notes on things, but I can listen to speeches and talks and recognize the quality and the accuracy of other people's note-taking. When I left the wood-panelled hall at our school where Gore gave his speech, there was a stringer for one of the wire services calling in the story. He was COMPLETELY MAKING UP LIES ABOUT WHAT GORE SAID. It might, natch, have been about environmental issues. But whatever it was, it was such a twisting, such a misrepresentation, such an INTENTIONAL MISQUOTATION that it was NOTHING BUT A LIE. It served only to paint Gore as a total fucking jackass. I sputtered at the guy on the phone, "That's not what Gore said!" and he just sneered at me as he called in his story, and I walked on.

That night, all the news channels were reporting the supposed Gore quotations as if he had actually said them, and the whole message was, oh, that Gore, he's such a total jackass.

I don't know if the stringer was with the UPI or the AP, but he was just so obviously right-wing, dishonest, and contemptuous. This guy, probably in his late 20s or early 30s, was like some denizen out of old-time movies about newsrooms and the wretches who work in them. Thanks for reporting the truth!

Can one of you leftist moonbats explain to me how can a profession that votes for democrats at a 9-1 ratio be "anti-democrat"?

*

Kevin, Pay attention- Gore's been in the news lately and people are STILL doing the same thing. Beyond that, they do the same thing to Hillary, to Obama, to Edwards- the press even reports how filibusters work differently now. It is insane. Bob is 100% completely right. Dems need to not play ball and they need to throw this stuff in the presses face. They need to constantly talk about these things. You need to put the Russerts, the Matthews on the defensive- the candidates need to come out and say "it's not about you, Tim, you hack it's about the American people, and I'm not going to let you hijack the debate."

Somerby is shrill, certainly. But if you haven't noticed, "liberals" often recite right-wing talking points about Gore (and Kerry, and Hillary, etc.) when talking about him without knowing it. Until liberals understand this problem, they cannot fight it. And the problem is not "a tiny audience like Matthews'", it is the NYT, the Post, ABC and other media outlets as amply documented by Somerby.

Living in the present is one way to look at it, but unless you understand what is going on (and Somerby documents over and over that most liberal pundits do not) you are not as effective as you should be. When you demonstrate that you understand the impact of the media on the debate, Somerby will praise you (or at least leave you alone.) And clearly, statements like "Considering how simple the math is, I really don't understand why so many otherwise bright people continue to be fooled by all this." indicates a lack of understanding of the media's role. In simple terms, most people form their beliefs based on the reporting by the press, and the day-to-day reporting by the press is uniformative and tends to favor the Republican message.

I think your post misrepresents pretty badly what Somerby is arguing, Kevin.

Somerby's point is clearly not about the Gore story in isolation. It is about the sneering and unforgiving attitude the media brings to ALL big Democrats, of which Gore is only one glaring example.

And that story is sadly still with us, and sadly mostly ignored by Josh Marshall and, I think, by you.

Somerby is right--incomparably so. He is also wrong, I think.

He is correct that one can learn a lot about the state of the press corps and our national discourse by reviewing what happened to Al Gore in 1999 and 2000, and how the press continues to treat Mr. Gore today.

The behavior of the press corps cost Democrats the White House then, and the very same behavior threatens to return the White House to Republican control next year.

Bloggers and columnists don't talk about any past events with any frequency? Good lord, Kevin, pass the bottle--you've had enough. The press corps still references its favorite tales about the Clintons and Gore, and they do it regularly. Somerby provides a very good example in today's post: Chris Matthews is on, yet again, about an off-the-cuff remark Hillary Clinton made years ago--and harps on it as a marker of "character."

When Mr. Gore won the Nobel prize, bloggers and columnists used the occasion to recall their favorite tales about Election 2000. Yet most of these accounts share one glaring omission--they always make the behavior of mainstream media disappear.

On the other hand, you have correctly identified the one way in which I think Somerby errs (and, as a matter of fact, I wrote him just a couple of weeks ago to say so.) He often bristles when writers fail to recount the sins of the press corps during the 2000 election each and every time they write about Gore. To me, this is sort of like talking up Gutenberg every time you review a book.

Nevertheless, the vast majority of Somerby's reasoning is quite right. People like Chris Matthews and Tim Russert give Republicans a pass while they trash Democrats for trivia that supposedly reveals "character" problems. If we fail to call them on it, we'll be watching the inauguration of the biggest nutjob every to hold the White House in January 2009.

Indeed, mhr. Even more shocking: Some people claim that Rush Limbaugh, who dated CNN anchor Daryn Kagan, is a Republican! A conservative Republican, dating a member of the liberal media! LIES!

The people I work with are very highly educated, and even they spout the theories that Gore was a serial liar and doesn't deserve the Nobel Prize. They also are convinced that Social Security is going bankrupt. I had to show one of Ezra's charts to my wife to convince her that it wasn't true. The media matters. If they would report the truth with the same vigor they report these smears and lies, do you really think we'd of elected Bush in 2000?

Somerby's primary topic is the way the traditional media repeatedly attack liberals and defend right wing candidates. He refers to Gore 2000 when he wants a clear illustration of the way the plutocrat media treat liberals. So, Gore 2000 is not the focus of his discussion, but history used in his discussion. Atrios did the same thing yesterday about Obama's comments on social security.
If you don't agree with Somerby's analysis, based on his long list of examples, then I am puzzled. It is important to understand the behavior of the traditional media, since they influence far more people than the right wing media. When the traditional media reinforces errors or is silent when talkers make errors, the Dems are stupid meme is reinforced. If liberals generally and the netroots in particular spoke up regularly, this meme would gradually decline. See again, Atrios on Social Security 2005.

A media story: years ago, I had a significant role for an insurgent candidate's (eventually successful) primary challenge on an incumbent. There was a very good reporter, progressive as hell, who was naturally also a huge noodge so we finally decided to leave him off the campaign bus on announcement day, even though he asked me to be on it. We figured in the end: it wouldn't help us. He'd be looking for purity, or a fight, or both.

Blogs are like that.

He was PISSED -- and he came up to me at the party that wound up the evening, to say so. The curious thing was, when he came up to ream me out, I was talking to the guy who owned the club where we were doing the announcement -- who had gotten a phone call from one of the incumbent's aides. The aide had said to this club owner, gee, you're hosting our opponent's announcement. I wonder if you do any business with us, that we can cancel - or our friends. We have a lot of friends. Maybe MADD will picket you soon -- just thought you might like to re-think your decision.

The club owner, who was pretty apolitical actually (but knows every rock star in the world), was amazed and a little worried after this call, which is why he was talking to me. But the progressive reporter interrupted us, told me off, and then left... the two didn't know each other.

The point is -- it was MY FAULT that I didn't grab the reporter's arm, and quietly shut him up, so he could hear this totally spontaneous and unprompted example of just WHY we were insurgents against the incumbent. Cuz he was so sure he knew what was going on, the reporter missed what could have been the best story of the campaign.

But it was still MY fault for missing the opportunity: in truth, I was pissed at the reporter for reaming me out when I wanted him to shut up and LISTEN.

But it's never productive to blame the press for acting like the press. GIVE THEM BETTER STORIES.

And part of that is RECOGNIZING what a better story looks like. Somersby's examples are damning, but maybe not for the reasons he thinks: Howler argued that Kevin's post on Guiliani's health care ad should have been MORE data-oriented and attack the MEDIA, ye gods. Meanwhile in the thread we actually had Frankly arguing that the best thing Democrats could do to respond to Guiliani's speaking personally to the audience about his own prostate surgery, is to talk about how it made him impotent. (sic)

Imagery and a compelling narrative, folks.

Right now, Clinton has a very good narrative going on: she's the grind-it-out candidate, steadily picking up slight margins in every contest, skillfully stepping on Obama's stories, focused on the prize of the Democratic nomination cuz that comes BEFORE the actual election campaign. She's been careful (and gutsy, in truth) about not pandering too far to the 'get us out yesterday' Democrats, she chose the right amendment to offer on the comprehensive immigration bill: her image is the GROWN UP in the race.

Unless she makes a mistake (like listening to the posters here), her negatives have peaked. She's also steadily building a base from which to play offense, not defense, all next summer and into the fall.

NOTICE, already: blogs don't need to be the guy too busy telling people off to catch the best stories unfolding right in front of us.

wtf?
Do you have a cite for that 9-to-1 ratio?

By the way Chris Matthews ridicules Clinton not because he prefers Rudy or Romney but because he is angry that neither the likely Democratic nor Republican nominees is likely to withdraw troops from Iraq immediately.

Does anyone really think that a profession with 90% Democratic contributers would like the Republicans to win? Come on now! Any person with half a brain can see that the press' ridicule of Clinton is based on a preference for Obama and/or Edwards, not on a hope that Giuliani will win. Lets get serious here. As far as ridicule, well when the Democratic party campaigns in 2006 on ending the Iraq war, and not only fails to do so, but whose top two candidates will not commit to withdrawal they deserve to be ridiculed!

I am thrilled that Clinton and the democratic party is so hypocritical since I support the war, but they are hypocrites nonetheless. Hypocrites who deserve as much or more ridicule than Larry Craig.

I think Somerby is about 35% right, but I've been finding him increasingly irritating (could only manage to get myself to skim part of today's piece -- anything less than sheer hatred of all Republicans seems to be unacceptable).

Nevertheless, it's true that Democratic candidates are held to a nearly impossible standard of perfection, while Republicans are given passes time and again. I'm personally convinced that if the "Dean scream" of '04 had been the "Giuliani ululation" or what have you of '08, while the late night talk shows would still be teasing, a lot of pundits would be remarking on his "passion" and the whole thing may have redounded to his benefit.

Some of this I'm sure is corporate ownership and perhaps over-comfortable life and sense of entitlement of people like Cookie Roberts, but I think it's mostly to do with the press having a similar case of "battered wife syndrome" to the Democrats. They're so afraid of being tarred as supporters of the Democrats (which the rightwing press will always accuse them of being, until the day they finally catch Hillary Clinton eating babies while getting gay married to Jane Fonda next to Vince Foster's frozen corpse) that they tend to bend over backwards to be "tough but fair" to the Dems while being "easy but fair" with the Repubs. A majority of them actually do vote Democrat, I'm sure, but they're trying so hard to leave their feelings at home that it translates as "I'll do the opposite" -- some of these people are not very bright, by the way.

As for Somerby's constant bashing of people like Frank Rich, who is probably one of the best mainstream liberal op-eders, Gore was and is not perfect and much of the criticism he got from the mainstream press in 2000 was, in fact, EXTREMELY justified, even if he never claimed to have invented the Internet. With enemies like Frank Rich and E.J. Dionne, who needs friends?

"Can one of you leftist moonbats explain to me how can a profession that votes for democrats at a 9-1 ratio be "anti-democrat"?"

As they say on slashdot: RTFA

If you click through on the link, Bob Somerby does a a great job of documenting it.

Somerby is right on the broad case, which is the SCLM isn't really so liberal, at least not when it counts. And columnists, reporters and editors voting for Gore after spending two years convincing people he's a big phony liar doesn't make their behaviour in their jobs go away.

They tend to report most things with something of a presumption that the conservative position is right.

And:
" The Gore story from eight years ago isn't being ignored because Gore is a Democrat, it's being ignored because it's eight years old."

That doesn't stop the wingnuts from wailing about Gov. Casey, now do it?

I think Somerby's critique of, frankly, you is right on. You can't discuss how this election is going to go without referring to how the media are going to play it.

As to Matthews' tiny audience. First, it isn't as small as it outta be. Second and more seriously, it drives things. The pattern from the 2000 campaign was that something would be reported as fact in the NYT or Washington Post, then it goes places like Matthews, then, if it takes hold of the pundit mind, it goes bigger places.

I had precisely the same reaction to this comment of yours, Kevin:

A decade ago I used to be one of them, but all it took was a very modest amount of reading on the subject to convince me that I was off base. Considering how simple the math is, I really don't understand why so many otherwise bright people continue to be fooled by all this.

They don't get fooled by this. They simply pass on nonsense unedited and uncommented upon. They convey standard narratives, often crafted by the RNC and sent out on their blast faxes.

You see this ALL THE TIME. Democrats saying perfectly anodyne things are ridiculed. Republicans saying absolutely absurd, absolutely stupid things--from the founding fathers being clergymen to Iran being a threat--and nobody ever says "WTF? You're CRAZY." Richard Cohen is out pushing the nonsensical, ridiculous line that Iran represents a serious threat that has to be dealt with because Americans are being killed in the country on their border.

Fred Thompson is still talking about the Soviet Union, and saying his name doesn't lead the traditional media talking heads into gales of derisive laughter. These guys haven't even gotten the equivalent "Seven Dwarfs" label. Every single republican candidate is a ridiculous joke, and nobody is making those jokes.

The Dem candidates, with the exceptions of Gravel and Kucinich have both experience weight and credibility. They don't say ANYTHING crazy, or ,laughable, but constantly are the recipients of baseless derision. CLinton doesn't utter a single word that hasn't been doublechecked, because she'll be savaged for any misspoken sentence-and so then they deride her for being stage managed.

Every single one of the repubican candidates has absolutely nutty stuff on the public record. None of it is used for constant derision. Rudy! isn't nicknamed 911 Rudy!. Can you imagine a dem named Huckabee whose name is not endlessly made fun of? Obama/Osama had its run. Where's the run on a wuss name like Rudolph? The mdeia has completely internalized, and conveys, the feminization of the dems and the masculinization of the republicans--again, despite ample public record of these guys being scaredy-cat wusses. Can you imagine Obama or Edwards getting away with Romney's claim of hunting prowess?

The coverage is incredibly and consistently slanted.

And, yes, Kevin, by expecting bewilderment that people who will outright lie about the effectiveness of prostate treatmeng in the US vs Britain will also ouright lie about the "danger" social security it is.

They lie. All the time. And the lies are never documented.. Then they revert to making fun of the Democrats.

There are exceptions. the Times Editorial page, for example. But the beltway village messsage is consistently derisive of the democrats, and respectful of the republicans--even though those republicans are, at this point, gibbering loons.

"Bob Somerby is convinced that liberals will never get anywhere until they truly understand the [mainstream] media's loathing of Democrats."

What planet is this Bob Somerby living on? Despite the liberals' firm belief that the corporate leadership of the media loathes the Dems, but cannot point to any evidence of such loathing. There is no denying the fact that the overwhelming majority of the day to day working media is itself liberal, views the world thru a liberal mindset and would not do anything that puts the Dems into a bad light.

Case in point--the media's treatment of Barack's standing by his "homophobic" black minister who was cured of his homosexuality by God. One could only imagine the reaction that the media would have to this story if Obama were a Republican candidate instead of Democrat. It would be the only story that the media would talk about on every venue. With everyone being able to cheerfully denounce Obama and remark how this shows how desperate his campaign must be if he has to make such a blatant appeal to the religiously intolerant rubes and crazies that makes up the base of his party. But since he's a Democrat who is appealing to African Americans, it is understood by the media that this is something he doesn't want to but is forced to in order to have a shot of stopping Hillary in South Carolina. So it gets ignored by the liberals in the media so as not to put Obama into a bad light. Do you really think if he was a Republican, he would not be asked by every reporter everywhere he went why would such an intolerant bigot be a part of his campaign?

I dunno what to make of stuff like that. Obviously very few mainstream media are movement conservatives; yes many of them hated Clinton, Gore, the other Clinton. But it was never based on ideology.

I dunno, why? but vague talk of conspiracy and a monolithic media doesnt help us understand the problem.

Plus many leftists hate Clinton, are they too part of the conspiracy?

Bah.

Why do the voting patterns of the media matter? What matters is the stories and their accuracy. If they aren't reporting the truth in a fair way and they are repeatedly attacking Democrats while giving the Republicans a pass, then it wouldn't matter in the media voted 100% Democratic.

First, the mainstream media cannot really be said to loathe Democrats. I tend to agree that Gore's coverage in the 2000 election was far harsher than Bush's but its not clear that this demonstrates loathing or that it is typical. Now it is proably relatively fair to say that Fox News loathes democrats but they are not exactly typical.

Second, the right wingers tend to be better at working the media and putting them on the defensive. Its sad that it works this way but the world isnt fair and claiming that mass media loathes democrats is neither convinving nor particularly helpful. The meme that the media is biased to favor liberals is well entrenched despite its lack of evidentiary support.

Third, the media is biased towards sensationalism, simple black and white story lines and keeping their job easier. The right wingers play upon this to their advantage in coverage.

Fourth, I agree with you that the lack of interest in Gore 2000 is due to a lot of reasons foremost because it is now old news.

We live in a world where black and white attacks are easier to get accross in the mass media. Appealing to the lowest common denominator is not exacly a new phenomenon and responding effectively will never be easy.

I used to read Somerby a lot shortly after the 2000 election, when his posts about how badly the media treated Gore were still relevant. But I didn't keep reading him for long, partly because there's only so much of his "Can you believe . . . " style I can take, but mostly for the reason you cite here: Despite the fact that he's 100% correct, it's high past time for him to stop beating the Gore 2000 story and move on.

Bob's obsession with Josh Marshall is a little weird. After all, he employs Greg Sargent to write "The Horse's Mouth," a blog that focuses entirely on the way wingnut talking work their way into the mainstream media.

The larger problem is Somerby's analysis. Why is the media so biased against Democrats? Because they're a bunch of "plutocrats." I'm skeptical of that as an explanation. More to the point, it's an engraved invitation to give up the fight. After all, what are you going to do, abolish media corporations? Nationalize Rupert Murdoch's assets?

Somerby's remedy is that blogs should, uh, talk about media bias more. Yeah, John Edwards will thank us for serving the nation with hundreds of blog posts about the unfairness of writing about his $400 haircut. Sorry, that's pathetic.

The reality is that media bias has complicated roots. By thinking about them in a grown-up way, allowing for complexity and shades of gray, progressives can start turning media narratives to their advantage. The alternative, of course, is to just complain about it a lot.

Is there even any argument that Bob is right? When do GOP candidates get gang-banged by the media over rhetorical slip-ups? McCain for his "Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran" Beach Boy butchering? The Mittster twice in the same speech conflating Osama with Obama? Rudy suggesting HRC would invite Osama and Ahmanadijad to the White House? Fraud Thompson sleepwalking through his candidacy?

Those "errors" received little, if any, traction, yet our mainstream discourse is cluttered with Hillary's cleavage, Edwards' haircuts, Obama's elementary schooling, and the Clinton's marriage. The fact that the MSM could ridicule the Clinton's marriage, while the presumptive GOP frontrunner is on his 3rd marriage, including one to his cousin, is a clear sign where the media's loyalties lie.

DNS,

heres the link:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19113485/

Author: Bill Dedman

Date: June 25, 2007

Title: Journalists dole out cash to politicians (quietly)

Here is the relevant quote from the article:

"MSNBC.com identified 143 journalists who made political contributions from 2004 through the start of the 2008 campaign, according to the public records of the Federal Election Commission. Most of the newsroom checkbooks leaned to the left: 125 journalists gave to Democrats and liberal causes. Only 16 gave to Republicans. Two gave to both parties."

The Republicans are in trouble right now because Bush is losing his pointless war so catastrophically; but America is still an arrogant, conservative, rightwing country. Mainstream reporters suck up to conservative politicians because that's still what sells. They report the news with a pronounced conservative bias in comparison with reality, yet the moronic Americans still complain that the press is too liberal. Sorry Kevin, but that's not going to change in our lifetimes.

Bob Somerby is right. You can see the effects of the mainstream liberals not adressing the issue. So few voters even know it. And I think Bob's right that the only hope for stopping it, or at least mitigating it is for people to know that it happened to Gore and it's happening again. They need to know that the media is full of disinformation. As for the comment that so few watch Chris Matthews that is has no effect, it's not just Chris Matthews, although he has more effect than the writer thinks, there were many many so-called mainstream pundits that joined in on the fun, as evidenced by the fact that the race was so close, it was able to be stolen.

Can one of you leftist moonbats explain to me how can a profession that votes for democrats at a 9-1 ratio be "anti-democrat"?

Ahhh yes ... the old "But they vote for Democrats!!" line.

Of course, what you wingnuts fail to grasp (well, one of many things) is that if the high school sports reporter in Eastbumblefuck Iowa votes Democratic, it doesn't mean jack shit.

But when an OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of op-ed writers, political columnists, editors and media owners are flaming wingnuts, it means a lot because they are the ones who control our country's discourse.

They are the ones who decide what is and is not news.

They are the ones who decided that being stenographers was more important than being actual journalists.

They are the ones who focus on John Edward's haircut while completely ignoring Rudy's blatant and willful lies about our health care system.

Of course, I probably should point out that very few on the right whined about the "liberal media" during the 90s, probably because the media spent every single night blasting what (and who) Clinton did in his spare time.

Face it: The "liberal media" mantra is nothing more than a complete and utter myth drummed up by GOP operatives.

It was quite brilliant, actually, and it continues to let the right say whatever the fuck it wants without fear of being called out on it, lest the wingnut hordes stalk some poor family for not walking the GOP line.

Yesterday Norman "Vote Santorum, you damn liberals!" Rogers shows up wielding a fire axe, and today Chicounsel is back. What gives?

"If anything, this puts the whole thing in an even worse light, because it makes it seem more likely that teaming up with McClurkin was a deliberate decision, not just a staff mistake. There's no telling, of course, but it's either a case of horrible judgment or a case or horrible vetting and planning. Those are both pretty bad signs."

Thanks Kevin for proving my point. If Obama was a republican, I think it highly unlikely that you would consider McClurkin's presence to be a case of horrible judgment or vetting or planning. No, I assuming that you would claim that this shows how deeply homophobia runs deep in the GOP base. But since he a democratic appeals to blacks, you can't say that without being run off the liberal plantation.

I think there's a much simpler answer to the question of why the Dems aren't going after the Republican candidates the way they are going after Hillary.

First, the Democratic field is a much more settled one. It is highly likely that Hillary will be the nominee. Rudy could easily still lose the nomination.

Second, the Democratic candidates do go after Republicans: they go after Bush, who offers a much more target-rich environment. If Rudy gets the nomination you can bet that Hillary will repeat over and over "If you liked Bush, you'll sure like Rudy."

Third, Hillary is much better red-meat-throwing material for the Republican base than Rudy is for the Democratic base. Dems just don't loathe Rudy the way Republicans loathe Hillary.

All of this seems pretty obvious to me, so I dismiss much of Sommerby's rant about the media (though he's right about their disgraceful treatment of Gore in 2000). The one part of his blog that I do agree with is his comments about Matthews, whose Clinton-obsession has become nearly pathological. That guy is off the rails on this subject.

The larger problem is Somerby's analysis. Why is the media so biased against Democrats? Because they're a bunch of "plutocrats." I'm skeptical of that as an explanation. More to the point, it's an engraved invitation to give up the fight. After all, what are you going to do, abolish media corporations? Nationalize Rupert Murdoch's assets?

I'm not sure that I necessarily agree with Somerby's precise analysis of the problem either, but what's a lot more important is to realize that there IS a problem and deal with it.

Personally I think the problem comes about from a variety of sources: overcompensation to achieve "balanced" reporting, an easily exploitable sense of guilt, an instinctive toadying to the powerful and rich, all figure in, in my view.

But the remedy hardly requires that we adopt a different economic system. Mostly, it would require forceful pushback against the media for its reflexive criticism of left wing politicians and indulgence of right wing politicians.

Problem is, many left wing bloggers don't even seem willing to advocate for that.

Mark D,

Read the article I posted at 2:44pm. It discusses MSM reporters.

I am sure that "high school sports reporter[s] in Eastbumblefuck Iowa" dont have the money to make $2000 contributions that are recorded by the FEC.

Kevin, I would suggest you keep George Santayana's admonition in mind, that those who do not remember the past are doomed to repeat it. That's what Bob Somersby is trying to tell us in his own often overbearing and browbeating fashion.

And quite frankly, he has a valid point about the bias of the Beltway-centric mainstream media. I would take such constructive criticism to heart, instead of so personally.

Kevin, your post illustrates Somerby's point. What the media did to Gore from 1999-2000 is old news to us junkies, but most of the public, and possibly casual readers of your blog, are still unaware of the extent that the media brutalized Gore. And that they'll continue to do it to Democratic candidates and Democratic-friendly issues until stopped.

Now, for this example, another round of Social Security Is Doomed is starting, and you wrote "I really don't understand why so many otherwise bright people continue to be fooled by all this." But of course you understand why -- they ALWAYS play dumb on these things.

Maybe you've stumbled onto the solution. Instead of blogging in the moment, it might be helpful both to yourself and your readers to add more historical context when discussing how the media covers political issues.

"MSNBC.com identified 143 journalists who made political contributions from 2004 through the start of the 2008 campaign

WTF, wtf?? Do you know how many "journalists there are in this country? 143 is hardly a fair sampling. There are literally 10's of 1000's of journalists working, so running numbers on less than 1% of that profession is beyond meaningless.

All I know is that I used to read Somerby every day but after a while his schtick gets old. I still read TPM and Drum every day though, and I think he goes way overboard painting everyone and their brother as refusing to acknowledge how the game is played. Basically, if you don't spend 100% of your time documenting inaccuracies in the media then sooner or later the incomparable Somerby will be right there with a "Try to believe he said it!"

It's hard to believe that anyone here could seriously contend that the corporate media is not biased. Broadcast television, for the most part, is run by a bunch of borderline fascists who dictate to their little cable nazis how, what, where, when and why to spin their vile webs of whatever is definitely NOT the news. Hell yes, the corporate media hates democrats.

Bob is entirely right.

Absolutely Somerby is right. Just ask yourself this simple question: considering all the bad stuff the Republican administration and congress has been responsible for over the last 6-7 years, what do you think the reaction would have been if Democrats had been responsible for it?

Sure the right-wingers would be partly responsible for the reaction, but clearly it goes way beyond that.

Can one of you leftist moonbats explain to me how can a profession that votes for democrats at a 9-1 ratio be "anti-democrat"?

Ignoring any possible questions about the source and accuracy of the statistic, the rate at which workers in the media industry vote for Democrats is entirely orthogonal to the political orientation of businesses in the field which are set by the owners and the top executives, not the newsreaders.

For all the wingnuts who claim the media just loves them some Democrats. Tell me which stories got more play:

The John Kerry botched joke, or Fred Thompson not knowing the Soviet Union doesn't exist.

The John Edwards' haircut or Mitt Romney wanting to run the military through his lawyers.

The Hillary Clinton laugh, or Rudy's failures leading up to 9/11.

Again, just because the weather guy donated to a Democrat doesn't mean crap when those who control our nation's political dialog refuse to hold both sides the same standard.

Mark D,

"But when an OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of op-ed writers, political columnists, editors and media owners are flaming wingnuts, it means a lot because they are the ones who control our country's discourse"

Its funny how I agree with that statement, except I would define "wingnut" as the Dan Rather/Mary Mapes "fake but accurate documents" variety.

But I agree with that statement just not for the same reasons that you do! :)

Personally I can hardly stand to listen to Chris Mathews (is he really considered centrist) and the other shills. It is tiresome to constantly point out the obvious pro-GOP bias of the media. I don't think it is even a pro-conservative bias, because much of the GOP is not even conservative anymore.

So I'm hoping that ignoring the shrill shills is the best strategy. You'd pretty much have to pay me to monitor and comment on them. Ugh.

Somerby is right and wrong. He's right as to the broader point that the mainstream media is biased against Democrats and the left, that the left needs to really understand this dynamic in order to succeed longterm, and that studying the 2000 election is a good way to understand this dynamic. However, I don't really get his attacks on Marshall and other liberal blogs. Marshall and others talk about this issue constantly. The fact that they don't match Somerby's level of obsession doesn't mean they're not aware of the issue or don't care about it. Somerby makes a lot of good points, but he needs to get over himself.

cmdicely,

"Ignoring any possible questions about the source and accuracy of the statistic...,

Read my post at 2:44pm

[Yes, we have all seen your post at 2:44 p.m., and for the record, you have made you 9:1/90% comment twice. Repetition is not a debate tactic. --Mod]

Kevin -- I'm not going to try to convince you Somerby is right. I'm going to challenge you:
• 1988 -- Willie Horton ad. Epic smear of Michael Dukakis. Name a left-wing comparable
• 1992-2000 "Clinton Project" including Jerry Falwell selling "The Clinton Chronicles" which flat out makes shit up about Clinton dealing drugs, having people murdered, etc. Name a left wing comparable.
• Gore "invented the Internet," etc. etc. etc. Name a left-wing comparable.
• 2004 Swift Boats. Consider the press response to this ("Gee, maybe guys who weren't in the boat with Kerry and in fact served a year later know more about what happened than guys who actually served with him! Yeah! Let's report that!") Name a left-wing equivalent.
• Today's news cycle -- Rudy Giuliani says, "Giuliani said. "Hillary and Obama are kind of debating whether to invite them to the inauguration or the inaugural ball." Name a left-wing comparable. Now imagine if Hillary had said something like this about any Republican, and then imagine two weeks of mock outrage.

Wake up, Kevin. Until the Democrats do what the Republicans have done -- create their own network of dedicated bullhorns (Fox News, Limbaugh, Drudge, etc.) they'll always play defense, and lose.

Reading through the criticisms of Somerby above...

Yeah, he repeatedly hammers away at the same points. But I'm glad somebody is. Personally, I find the Daily Howler essential reading. But maybe if some prominent bloggers picked up the slack, it wouldn't be necessary.

One of the key distinctions between the Left and Right blogosphere, so I always hear, is that the Right bloggers want to replace traditional media, while the Left bloggers just want the traditional media to do their jobs better. If that is true, I see very few prominent Left bloggers working toward that goal.

wtf--

Read the article I posted at 2:44pm. It discusses MSM reporters.

I am sure that "high school sports reporter[s] in Eastbumblefuck Iowa" dont have the money to make $2000 contributions that are recorded by the FEC.

Actually, I read it when it first came out and have the same attitude toward I did then: those who think a mere 143 people (out of a profession containing more than 10,000) is a representative sample worthy of citing is too fucking stupid to be taken seriously.

Sorry, but you may want to at least take Statistics 101 and learn why that "study" is useless. Well, if you can stand those darned liberal academics and their silly little "facts" long enough.

I 'm a long-time reader of Somerby. He has convinced me that the media was unfair to Gore. (Although Somerby may be prejudiced, since he was Gore's roommate at Harvard.) However, I don't buy Somerby's contention that all Dems are badly treated.

I think Somerby doesn't appreciate just how tough the media routinely are on Republicans. E.g., how many people know that Bush's academic record was substantially superior to Gore's? (They both graduated college, but with mediocre grades. However, Bush got a Harvard MBA, whereas Gore failed to get a Journalism degree and failed to get a Theology degree.)

The question of why the media aren't tougher on the neo-libs is an interesting one, which deserves its own post. One reason may be that there isn't really an alternative. It's easy to point out places where neo-lib policies didn't work. But, it's hard to come up with alternatives.

Its funny how I agree with that statement, except I would define "wingnut" as the Dan Rather/Mary Mapes "fake but accurate documents" variety.

You know what's even funnier?

The fact the basic story Rather reported -- that Bush went AWOL and never actually completed his service -- has never been totally refuted.

Oh, and if all you have is a useless study and an issue that, in reality, was never resolved, then you should just stop now. You're making yourself look silly.

What "Quaker in a Basement" said @2:22. That's pretty much exactly what I had to say (except s/he put it more eloquently).

Republicans understand the importance of history and how the past is framed affects the present. Liberals need to pay more attention.

Somerby makes another point in his post today, besides the one you mention. You may be right that it's not especially useful for liberals today to talk a lot about the 1999-2000 war against Gore; maybe Somerby is wrong about that.

The other point he makes today seems correct to me: the part of the press corps that watches and analyzes presidential politics is a bunch of millionaires, and this clearly biases them towards the GOP. I suspect most of them really are just cluelessly misinformed about Social Security, for example, but it's noteworthy that they are generally clueless in the ways that are favorable to a bunch of millionaires. They aren't going to need Social Security, and cutting costs there seems like a great idea to them. They don't need health care help from the government; an improved healthcare system isn't important to them. They'll all benefit from tax cuts; they don't seem terribly upset about the dire effects of Bush's tax cuts.

I wish you would address this part of his argument, rather than merely the part that may well be incorrect.

Somerby is right.
The point is when is the Democratic Party going to recruit its own Spiro Agnew to rail against the American Media relentlessly, until they cave and readjust their dismissive snide attitude towards us? Disrespect costs elections. Keep hiting them until they stop.

Emet Emet Emet.

Mark D,

That is just asinine. Have you ever taken a statistics class? We take polls of between 200 and 500 people and set those results out as representative of the opinions and beliefs of 300 million Americans. If you are arguing that the sample of 143 journalists is not representative of the 10,000 journalists well assuming it was randomly selected there is no problem with the numbers. Below you'll find a little Statistics 101. Schools in session!

Any sample size randomly selected with a number above 30 people has "some" statistical significance (plus or minus 10 points or so). By the time you reach a sample size 1,000 (plus or minus 2 points) WHile 143 journalists cannot be used to measure the exact number of liberals in journalism a 125-16 ratio is pretty overwhelming. Even with a margin of error of 10 percentage points a 90%-10% margin is definitive.

Schools Out!

Somerby is right. The truth about Hillary's Yankees thing is that she apparently was, indeed, a fan as a child (she's not the only person who had a favorite team from each league as a child, is she?); but no one hears that and instead, as trivial as it is, it gets plugged into a dominant meme about Clinton and all the other dems being hopeless fakes. Same with Edwards's haircut (did anyone ever research how much the rest of the field spends on personal grooming and presentation?). It's pathological and maddening. It doesn't matter what the cause is, or how journalists vote; it's happening and somehow it has to be pushed back.

The War on Gore might be eight years old, but the model is still alive and well in the mainstream media. The War on Democrats carries on long past Gore.

What is kind of silly is that Somerby thinks that a show with a tiny audience like Matthews' has some sort of measurable influence

I don't know about that. I frequently hear my friends reciting bits of conventional Village wisdom of the sort that Matthews and his cronies dispense nightly. Hillary C. is "polarizing;" John McCain and Lindsey Graham are "independent" and "honest;" Kerry "waffled." Etc, ad nauseam.

Yeah, Somerby is correct.

He states this has been on a long time and cites examples. Gore 2K is one. There are a Swiftboat-load of them. The mainstream press is front and center in this. They seem to think it sells, and maybe it does. You seem to have a problem with Somerby's stuck record, but it needs to be said on a daily basis.

I have highly educated, intelligent friends who puke out that the NYT is rabidly liberal and SS is in crisis. Hillary has a irritating laugh and she stole silverware from the White House. What crap. The other side is winning and the mainstream media is at fault, IMO. I'm a stuck record myself.

I have never seen an accurate discussion of Social Security in any of the mainstream media. The 1983 amendment, which fixed every problem that we are told is going to wreck the system, has gone down the memory hole.

Just in the last month or two there were three inaccurate stories in the WaPo that talked about e.g., SocSec "going into the red" in 2017. One story was in the first page of the Style section, one on the first page of the business section, and one on the front page of the paper. You think that's coincidence? Or maybe there's a paper-wide policy?

These guys haven't even gotten the equivalent "Seven Dwarfs" label.

I prefer to call them the 'Top 10 Conservative Idiots' (hat tip to DU).

But now that Huck has bailed, there are only nine of them. Oh, well.

I'm a big fan of Somerby's but he does seem to get unduly bent out of shape when other bloggers don't focus on things with the exact amount of emphasis he would like.

Other than that, I think he's generally terrific. Reading the Howler regularly for the past few years has really changed the way I view the media. And it's made me realize how dismally pervasive is the type of conventional wisdom I cited above. Heck, everyone I know thinks John McCain is a reasonable moderate. I tell people, "Just check his voting record," but it's hard to counteract the fawning coverage McCain gets (or used to get, maybe not so much now).

ex-liberal:
[H]ow many people know that Bush's academic record was substantially superior to Gore's

I don't know. How many people know that Gore said he invented the Internet? Or that he said something inaccurate re Love Story? Or something inaccurate re Love Canal? Or that he was advised to wear earth tones by Naomi Wolf? And so on... (All these are false.)

Look, Gore graduated from Harvard with honors. Maybe you can make a case that Bush had a better academic record, I don't know. But I bet it would be pretty strained. And why should anyone care? Why is this important? I care about various Gore trivia not because they are important in themselves but because the media made them important (and got them wrong).

Mark D,

Did you get a "D" in statistics or what?

Try to imagine Chris Matthews laughing on his show about how old and sickly Fred Thompson looks. I can't really imagine it.

Try to imagine a Washington Post style section article about how silly Giuliani dresses like a self-important junior high school principal. Nope, I can't do it.

Where's the New York Times series of reports about some Texas land deal that might have occurred under Bush Jr.'s governorship between someone close to Jeb and someone close to someone who was once arrested for something? There's no such thing.

But man, every liberal I know knows how to chuckle about Gore's earth tones, Hilary's grating voice, Edwards' fancy hair. They didn't come up with those "zingers" by themselves. And they don't listen to Limbaugh.

So is Bob right? Or is it easier to make fun of his writing style so you don't have to think about it?

The greatest trick the conservative media ever pulled is convincing people it doesn't exist.

I only partially agree with Somerby. I agree that a lot can be learned by looking back on the last few elections and that the media behaved like a bunch of apes, which led to the election of a horrible President.

However...

If Democrats do not attack Republicans and Conservatives, then they cannot expect the media to attack Republicans and Conservatives. Gore and Kerry did not go after Bush or unleash their attack dogs, so they deserve part of the blame. The other part of the blame goes to the media, which was willing to repeat the pablum provided by Rove and Company. The Democrats should have countered with their own pablum, but they were too busy being dignified.

The letter to TPM was correct--Democrats need to go after Republicans. They need to do it all the time. Listen to a Conservative talk show or Republican debate, and you will hear about the Clintons and Liberals every three seconds. They never talk about Republicans unless they're dead Republicans a la Reagan and Lincoln. You can't listen to a Liberal talk show because MSM has banned them, but if you watch a Democratic debate, every third word should be Bush, Cheney, Romney, or Giuliani. Those guys never get mentioned.

Another part of the problem is the grassroots. Conservatives forward emails to their friends and talk BS around the watercooler. Liberals aren't wearing their Liberalism on their sleeve, and they don't spend their time talking about how badly Bush is destroying the country and the Republican Party is bowing before him.

wtf?

If you are a respected journalist, you don't give any money to any candidate. That's why the journalists you see on TV and read in the newspaper were not counted on MSNBC's study.

Your point is completely useless and stupid. Have a nice day.

Somerby's point is simply that the MSM has, for the past 15 years, repeated and amplified every lie told about big Democrats.
And as he documents, in the cases of Maureen Dowd, Frank Rich, "Kit" Seelye and "Ceci" Connolly, they made up some of these lies themselves.
And these lies put George Bush in the White House.
Spend a few hours at "The Daily Howler" going through the archives and see the abomination that is the MSM.
Josh Marshall, Kevin Drum and all the fine young libs are quick to decry the outrageous lies of the right-wing nuts and Fox News but stare into space when these same lies are put out by the NYT or the WaPO or MSNBC.
Somerby's larger point is that the same pattern will emerge in 2008. Big Democrats will be slimed and lied about, not only by the wing-nuts and Fox (that is to be expected), but by the MSM.
And us liberals are so practiced at ignoring their behavior that in 2009 we will wonder "How the hell did Rudy end up in the White House?" and in 2009 we will blame it on the lies and slander from Fox News.
And in 2015 someone will leave a comment on a blog: "Yea, the MSM was unfair to Hillary (or Obama) in 2008 but s/he brought a lot of it on themselves".
Those (like Kevin) that have a platform must push back aggressively in real time.

Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it.

If you want to see how biased the msm is, watch the debate tonight and take notes on Russert and Williams. The same pair that has never asked a tough question or follow up to Republicans regarding corruption, ethics, character will come up with some ridiculous gotcha questions over some past judgments of no merit and will proceed to hound the candidate over and over. The Timmy technique seems to be ask a question that is designed to expose the person as a liar or a fool and then hound them with a look of "I can't believe you're telling this whopper" and a question like "But how could you say this and do that?". Also take note of which candidate he goes after. You can bet this will be the one the Republicans are most afraid of. You can also bet GE Tim won't touch the issue most voters cited in the '06 exit polls - the culture of corruption in DC.

Somerby is half right. And his own worst fuckin' enemy. He is smart...and knows it. He can holler all he wants about Gore...and often his hollering is accurate. But in the end it was Gore's decision to walk away from Clinton that killed Gore. Although all the things Somerby notes had softened Gore up. Gore picked Lieberman. Who can Somerby blame that on? Besides being the asshole the years have shown him to be (and there were those of us who knew it at the time) Lieberman was Clinton's biggest foe in the Dem party. So what message was Gore sending?

But that said...a lot of what Somerby is selling about today is dead on point.

The corporate ownership of media and the organization of the right wing media have common interests. The RW media machine supplies the scripts and the MS media peddles them.

They will be critical of Repugs, but the criticism of Dems will always be more severe, especially when it comes to character.

And journalists are complicit because they too want to live on Nantucket and make fabulous fees for speeches and books and mingle with the glitterati.

If Democrats do not attack Republicans and Conservatives, then they cannot expect the media to attack Republicans and Conservatives.

Posted by: reino

Exactly. And I would extend this to include: If Democrats do not attack the media (when wrong), then they cannot expect the media to stop attacking them. The media fear the wrath of the repugs; if they don't fear the dems, they will continue to mouth repug themes.

FWIW, Olberman has shown the way here in his very succesful attacks on O'Reilly. When a Dem is attacked through the media, ALL dems -- not just certain blogs -- must attack the media.

My problem with Marshall and Drum is that they think this is about ideas and policies. It's not. They think ideas and policies can trump lies and distortion. They can't.

This is about personality and character. Dems are portrayed by repugs as liars and cowards. The media passes these themes along, afraid to correct them. Ideas and policies can't break this cycle.

On the playground, there are bullies, their victims who won't band together and fight back, and those who stand around and watch -- afraid that the bullies will turn on them if they speak the truth.

Politics follows the same model. Pick your group. I don't think it's hard to know where repugs, dems, and MSM are in this scheme of things, is it?

Somerby is not complaining because bloggers aren't historians. He harps on the past because the same thing is happening now and to fight it it helps to know the historical context. Ridicule is an extremely effective tactic because apparently there are lots of weak minded voters who vote on the basis of not wanting to be associated with the guy who is being ridiculed by the Kewl Kidz. For the last 25-30 years Republicans have built their campaigns around bullying, racism, and ridicule. Lee Atwater admitted it himself. For the riducle part they enlist the media's help. It can be funny and entertaining, so the Chris Matthews' of the world love it. I don't want to see
Democrats do that themselves, but I do want to see them call the press out on it whenever it is in evidence on my teevee. I've never seen a Dem on Hardball challenge the way Matthews frames the conversation. I'd like to see one of them say, 'You know Chris, you never make fun of Guiliani's voice or sex life, or call Romney a big phoney. Why is that?' In fact I'd like to see all of them say that, every time.

Matthews is just one example - and he is not just on Hardball. He also runs much of the post-debate and other election coverage for NBC.

I actually received an A in stats ... which is exactly why I know the study is bullshit. Per the STORY TO WHICH YOU LINKED:

MSNBC.com identified 143 journalists who made political contributions from 2004 through the start of the 2008 campaign, according to the public records of the Federal Election Commission.

Sorry to inform you there, sparky, but that is not a statistically representative sample.

There's also a bit more in the way the numbers were compiled, such as this bit that explains who they included and who they left out:

— Donors in news jobs, not corporate executives or publishers, who are allowed by nearly every news organization to donate.

Shockingly, those are also the folks who tend to control the flow of our nation's discourse. The fact they were left out brings the study into question even more.

There's also one other thing: I dropped a zero. There are, according to their methodology, nearly 100,000 journalists in the country. So picking just over a hundred news professionals (sans execs and owners) from a list of only those who donated, and then trying to extrapolate that across the entire industry, without doing more research, may make for a story the rightwing loves, but has very little basis in hard statistical analysis.

Of course, you have to hang on to that little "study" because it's all you got. Every other shred of reality proves that the media treats Democrats way, way more harshly then it does Republicans.

But that's okay. I understand the rightwing need to make shit up. It's all you guys got left since the facts are against you.

It may very well be true that the majority of journalists usually vote for Democrats. However, Somerby's point is precisely that Liberals have unconsciously internalized some of the Republican memes, consider them as established fact, and regurgitate them pretty constantly - all the while considering themselves balanced, liberal and, yes, voting Democratic. Somerby deconstructs articles, interviews or speeches, and always points out the assumptions that underlie the words. Like all of us, he occasionally a bit overboard, but not usually. The boy who sees that the emperor is naked is simply flabbergasted at the fact that his neighbors all seem to admire the new clothes....

Sorry, I left out the word "goes" ...
He occasionally goes a bit overboard... etc.

I think the problem isn't directly about plutocracy. Maybe indirectly it does, as people get to thinking coverage has to happen the way it does, and can't practically be improved. It's just the nature of things...

What about, though, the powerful medium that drives the discourse? It tends not to favor a Gore-like figure:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amusing_Ourselves_to_Death#Medium_is_The_Metaphor

Somerby is entirely spot on.
Ask yourself this. Why did candidate Kerry hem and haw when asked the question "are you a liberal?" Why is the term "liberal" to be avoided but "conservative" doesn't carry a particularly negative connotation. Either the citizenry sat down and deliberatively weighed the pros and cons of the two philosophies (if they can be called that) or something else happened. I vote for #2, and I'm assuming that this isn't simply the doing of Fox news corp. Of course it's easy enough find out by simply word searching and noting which if either term is more often associated with negative concepts (weakness, indecision, calculation, polling, etc.) in the media. There's a reason "socialized medicine" makes folks weak at the knees and I simply can't believe that the MSM is not part of this.

Flipside of the same coin: After the Nobel Prize this year, I couldn't watch MSM without seeing a clip of GHWB (the older, scintilla-of-honor one) calling Al Gore "The Ozone Man" during the 1992 joust.

What was the frame?

And when did the mainstream press start revering the near-raving utterances of a one-term president, in a losing campaign, seventeen years ago?

It'd help, folks, when you dis a Matthews or a Russert, if you remembered who these guys are and how they do what they do.

Matthews was a speechwriter for Carter, IIRC, then worked his way up on the Hill to become Tip O'Neill's top aide. His book "Hardball" is the best primer on practical politics I know.

Tim Russert worked for Pat Moynihan.

One of Matthew's formative experiences was working for Tip during the Reagan years, when O'Neill was identified by Republicans as an emblem for what was wrong with Democratic control of Congress: 'fat, bloated, and out of control', the out of gas TV ad. Matthews realized that Reagan had become the stuff of legend when he cracked jokes after being shot ("I hope you guys are all Republicans" is hard to top), so he focused O'Neill on being the liberal lion, Horatius on the bridge against Reaganomics.

Russert was Moynihan's top aide when he noticed that the rising Republican star in the primary to run against Moynihan had committed essentially a typo in his standard campaign biography: instead of saying "Vietnam ERA vet", they had left "era" out. But -- he said nothing, watching as that standard campaign bio was used, unchanged, all the way through this nomination, sending Moynihan campaign staff out to collect examples of the bio at different places around the state, and finally -- with two weeks to go -- blasting the guy for lying about his military service, for falsely claiming to have served in Vietnam.

Over a typo. The guy didn't know what hit him.

These guys got to what they do now (not unlike Stephanopolous) because they can generally see the Conventional Wisdom as it's forming, and to a degree they help to form it.

Stop BLAMING 'em for that, already. Sort out when they are accurately describing what they see, from when you think they're getting it wrong.

Somersby's argument is that if bloggers pounded on the media more, that would somehow change what the convention wisdom or the narrative looks like, but at best that's only part of the story -- and it's the part that TAKES the longest to change. (Conservatives spent decades on "the liberal media"; future technologies are more important than ideology, anyway.)

Know what the narratives are, and promote the ones that benefit you, NOT the ones that cost you.

I notice that some commenters wonder why Somerby is hard on TPM. To me the answer is obvious: Josh is playing the same game as all ambitious journalists. If they start exposing the intent behind the coverage and name names, they'll ruin their own chances. So the question is what does Josh want more: to be true to the progressive cause or to be a successful journalist.

Somerby is right, there's no debate. The MSM just doesn't want to talk about serious topics seriously.

When's the last time you heard, in any discussion of Social Security that in the last fiscal year, the SS tax took in over $150 billion more than was spent on benefits. And when is the last time a journalist pointed out that that $150 billion reduced the budget deficit making an abysmal financial record worse?

When is the last time, in any discussion about health care costs, did the LIBERAL on the panel say what Krugman says (7/9/07) The UK has similar health outcomes and spends 40% of what the US does?

When? Right, never. Instead, even when there's a supposed liberal on with Mathews or Williams or on CNN, you never hear any of this stuff. Read Somerby on the first Gore-Bush debate. Bush got his clock cleaned and what's the news? Gore sighed.

Oh, and wtf, from your e-mail address, all I can say is I'm really happy I talked my oldest out of going to GWU. If there are people as clueless as you (those 143 people weren't even all journalists, they worked for a media organization) at that school, the educational quality has fallen
dramatically.

Somersby overstates the case but he is correct that the mainstream media gloms on to anti-Dem storylines being heavily pushed by the right-wing. The right-wing has been spreading dirt on Dems for eons but since Reagan's time, it has become a growth industry.

There are a lot of reasons conservatives have developed this tactic so much better than liberals, but I think there are two big ones: conservatives are better financed and Americans tend to be disinterested in politics until catastrophe strikes the massess. Thus, the simple, but stupid and unreasoned arguments that are floated out through the vast number of right-wing media outlets (there are vastly greater numbers of right wing outlets than left-wing outlets) is picked up by largely unthinking, uncritical citizens who do not read much.

I often wonder why the stupid crap that comes out of the mouths of right-wing "pundits" resonates with so many otherwise reasonable, educated people. I think it is that most people do not have the interest and therefore do not allocate the time necessary to understand how complex policy matters work. Feeling a need to have an opinion on public mattters, they just adopt what is most available in the public domain, which just happens to be flooded with right-wing crap. (In my area of Long Island, NY, the most likely cable channel for a TV in a public place to be tuned to is Fox; and a very commonly heard talk-radio show is Rush Limbaugh.)

This apathy can go on a long time as long as the general populace is doing reasonably well, or at least OK in their private life. It seems pretty clear to me that that has been the case these last seven years with an idiot like Bush systematically destroying our Constitution, our national reputation, and the lives of many innocent people in foreign lands.

Eventually, when things get bad enough here at home for a large portion of the citizenry, or cataclysmic events shake them out of their apathy, then Americans will start paying attention. When that happens, the right-wing arguments don't work.

I read The Daily Howler almost everyday along with TPM and Kevin. I sometimes think the Bob goies a bit overboard in some of his comments but that he is essentially correct. It drives me to distraction that a Republican canidate can say anything and it is reported without anyone pointing out the veracity of the commnet. These guys out and out lie everyday. No one challenges them. Romney was an ineffective governor, Rudy is a thug at best -- seen any articles about the police riot he instigated.

"I think the problem isn't directly about plutocracy. Maybe i