I thought his whole column was great except that last part about "dragging" the media to the right, which implies the media doesn't want to go there. "Chasing" the shiny ball of fake controversy is more like it.

When Rush Limbaugh sneezes or Newt Gingrich tweets, their views ricochet from the Internet to cable television and into the traditional media.

Joe Conason identified this phenomenon years ago in Big Lies.

It's true-- the political spectrum on teevee stops cold somewheres in the center-left. Wasn't always that way-- I recall when there used to be a no-kidding leftist on the old MacNeill-Lehrer show, every now and then.

And we counter their yells of "Socialism" with, "No, look how right-of-center we really are!"

In ye olden days, the news programs had some sense of a respectable middle view and, just as importantly, some sense of manners, honesty, and polite discourse. The current crop of hosts and editors think of the "middle" as being their Beltway social circle, favor noise over discourse, and have been taught that there are no "facts" or "truth," just opinions. This leaves anyone free to lie as much as they care too on the air. Since most of the entertaining, well connected noise-makers are right-wing, they hog all the air time. Moderates and liberals, particularly Democratic liberals, are virtually invisible, even on "liberal" news outlets.

Your mainstream Beltway media: moral relativism at its worse.

I'm not convinced that Limbaugh does any more to move the political Overton Window than Michael Jackson did to advance gay rights. Most people perceive him as a gasbag of bigotry, and the more conservatives agree with him and mimic his talking points, the more they are dismissed. I would agree, however, that that is the intention of the media, and that reasonable liberal voices like Steve Benen and Josh Marshall are left out. What disturbs me more is that people like Ed Schultz and Chris Matthews give airtime to people like Frank Gaffney, or that they have people like Elizabeth Edwards on, but mostly to talk about her husband's affair.

Absolutely. Some of my friends who are very reasonable people, who are even anti-war, think that Obama is a fascist for his bank and auto 'bailouts', and 'socialized medicine' plans.

I try to convince them otherwise, but the word 'socialist' or 'fascist' becomes a "conversation ender". And that's because Limbaugh and Hannity and Gingrich are practically ambient in the atmosphere these days, on cable, network as well as radio.

It is a real problem and there needs to be a concerted citizen effort to break this bubble.

The reason that Gingrich and Limbaugh are called upon to speak for conservatism is because moderates like Rudy Giuliani have been hounded out of the public sphere by the liberals.

Democrats are complicit in building up Gingrich and Limbaugh as the main spokesmen for the Republican Party

Based on what comes out of their mouths, isn't this something the Democrats want?

Seriously, Obama and the White House could have nipped this in the bud by not taking on Limbaugh personally. Democrats are simply following suit.

If you want to marginalize someone, ignore them.

The idea of raising taxes to improve the budget outlook is characterized as ridiculous.

No, the media is simply following Obama's lead: Obama said he wouldn't raise taxes on anyone who makes less that 250k. Why would the media trump up a tax hike that could damage Obama?

"Democrats love to think that Limbaugh and Gingrich are weakening the conservative side. But guess what? By dragging the media to the right, Rush and Newt are winning."

What the media is doing is making money. Writing stories, not talking points. Do you think anyone would buy a paper if all they did was show the Democrat point-of-view? Sure, a small percentage of Democrats might like this, but the papers won't make much money. If people want the Democratic spin on something, they can go to the DNC website.

What papers want to do is make money. And by giving guys like Limbaugh and Gingrich and Cheney airtime, they are making more compelling stories. Stories that people want to read for various reasons: they agree with the Democrats, they agree with the Republicans, or simply want to see some nasty politics play their course.

Do you guys really think Murdoch is a conservative? Heck no. He's a businessman and he saw a market for conservative-leaning news. If the winds changed, so would he. He'd turn Fox liberal if it would make him more money.

" .. moderates like Rudy Giuliani have been hounded out of the public sphere by the liberals."

That was hilarious, Al. Thanks for the laugh.

Time to take back the media yet??? Anyone had enough? http://www.freepress.net/about_us/staff

moderates like Rudy Giuliani have been hounded out of the public sphere by the liberals.

Bernie Kerik.

About fucking time somebody in the MSM recognized this phenomenon, which everybody else has been well aware of for, like, forever.

i agree. we need more high profile, mainstream "eat the rich" commentary by big bucks commentators... (sigh) i'll do it...

Dionne doesn't get it, or more likely, he gets it and won't say it.

Gingrich and Limbaugh aren't "dragging" the "traditional media" anywhere.

The so-called "mainstream" mass media and the openly partisan right-wing extremist media are both parts of the corporate-owned propaganda machine that we call "the media" in the USA and they work hand-in-hand in close coordination to propagandize the American people in furtherance of the corporate agenda.

And a key part of the corporate agenda today is to undermine public support for and confidence in the Obama administration and the Democratic majority in Congress, in order to thwart or at least water down any number of initiatives from Obama or the Democrats that might cost the ultra-rich corporate oligarchs a few bucks.

The relationship between the corporate-owned so-called "mainstream" media and the corporate-owned so-called "conservative" media is not unlike the old "good cop, bad cop" routine, and it is just as phony and just as scripted.

No more than a half-dozen giant corporations own and control virtually ALL of the mass media in the USA.

And surprising as it may be to Mr. Dionne and to "sensible liberal" bloggers, those giant corporations don't use their near-totalitarian control over the mass media to impartially educate and inform the American people as a public service, out of the goodness of their hearts and their idealistic commitment to high journalistic standards.

Instead, they use that power to propagandize the American people in furtherance of the ruthless, relentless, rapacious class warfare of America's Ultra-Rich Ruling Class, Inc.

Pop-psychoanalysis of "the Villagers" is irrelevant and pointless. They do what they do because they are paid big bucks to do it. They lie to the American people for money. that's their job. It's as simple as that.

If you watch and listen to the corporate-owned media, you will see and hear corporate propaganda. To expect anything different is foolish. To scratch one's head over why it is so, is oblivious.

Also check out http://www.fair.org/index.php

Are we going to change this, or let it continue unchallenged while we play "aint' it awful"?

If far-right voices are characterized as mainstream, it shifts the center of political gravity. For all the talk about media adulation of the president, this dynamic produces "a deep and largely unconscious conservative bias in the media's discussion of policy. The range of acceptable opinion runs from the moderate left to the far right."

Of course, Gingrich has been actively engaged in moving the Overton window as far back as I can remember.

And not to quibble with Dionne, but it isn't just "Rush and Newt are winning" -- the extremists are winning. The dominant conservative point of view in the media comes straight from the John Birch Society.

The media has been tilting and favoring the right for the last 20 years so why is this writer just noticing it. Look at conservative radio (which is all either far right or looney far right) which dominates the industry and has pushed out or limited oposing views even when comercially successful. Look how Fox news caters to only one opinion and cares not for how accurate or fact checked thier propaganda is... any other news network or reporter would be disgraced for the deliberate errors and obvious tilting of all its views. Then look at fearful all the networks and reporters are of being labeled liberal. Finally look how when analazing all that is wrong with the economy none mention Saint Ronald Reagan who started the whole trend primarily among the GOP but also among "moderate Dems". The media has been giving extreme views legitamacy for a long that it has become the norm and part of its culture. While the walls of this culture have been shaken the last few years it one still often has to go to the Comedy Channel to hear someone point out how easily our "liberal media" is really the pawn of the right.

Isn't it a tad ironic for Steve to bemoan the fixation?

It's not even a matter of giving liberal pundits or blowhards equal time with Limbaugh/Gingrich/Cheney.
Anyone notice the complete lack of coverage that senior, sitting Democratic Senator Levin gets when he makes a major speech refuting all the bs that the Cheneys have been spreading?

Writing stories, not talking points. Do you think anyone would buy a paper if all they did was show the Democrat point-of-view?

When you do nothing but allow Republicans to repeat their standard attacks and talking points in print and on television ad nauseum, that's not "writing stories", that's repeating GOP/wingnut talking points. No one is demanding that they only repeat DNC talking points, that's just your own ridiculous strawman. Easier than actually debating real arguments, I guess.
How you would know that people wouldn't listen to reasonable points of view from the left on par with Republicans is beyond me, because the MSM as a whole doesn't even come close to trying.

And by giving guys like Limbaugh and Gingrich and Cheney airtime, they are making more compelling stories.

Giving unlimited airtime to rightwing nuts so they can repeat the same ridiculous talking points and attacks on Obama ad nauseum without challenge or debate is not a "compelling story", it's just propaganda, and there's absolutely no evidence that the public agrees with them or finds them "compelling"--if they did then Obama wouldn't have sky-high approval ratings, and the GOP approval ratings wouldn't be in the toilet.

See...I don't mind the fact that Limbaugh and Gingrich are being put out as the faces of the Republican Party, as they have volunteered as their spokesmen, and seem to represent where the party wants to go politically.

The problem isn't that they're being boosted up as faces of the party. It's the fact that they're allowed to say what they do uncritically for the most part. Where Democrats and liberal figures tend to get dogged quite a bit, the only real figures I know of on the right that got any serious amount of critical examination are John McCain and Sarah Palin. Deservedly so,but they can't be the only ones. And look at how much the Cheney media blitz has been framed: a "debate" between Obama and Cheney, when it's Obama trying to speak...and Cheney doing his best to undermine him in a fairly unprecedented way, and being given free pulpit for the most part.

This is plainly ridiculous. I usually agree with Dionne, but he's flatly wrong here. Using Rush and Newt for conservative caricatures doesn't pull the center of gravity of the media to the right, it does the exact opposite. For the center of gravity to move, people actually have to buy into what is being said. Putting those two weirdos out in front of the right side of the spectrum helps the left by making them seem more sane in comparison. The worst rants by Olberman pale in comparison to calling Sotomayer racist, or any number of things that dribble out of Rush's mouth every week.

It would help if Dems in Congress would quit moving to the right as well or at least quit repeating the rights arguments.

Obama has really been leaning to the right by keeping the Bush policies surrounding Gitmo detainees and national security. Warrantless surveillance, state secrets, military tribunals, and on and on. I really had high hopes and slowly the change I voted for is becoming more of the same.

So one can say that Rush, Newt, and the media are dragging us to the right, but I don't see any pushback. If we can't win the obvious debate on torture how exactly are we going to win the highly more complicated debate on Health Care ?

That isn't anyone's fault but our own. The public at large voted left, yet here we are 6 months later getting run over by the right and not putting up much of a fight.

if we knew democrats to be clever politicians there is an argument to made for identifying limbaugh and gingrich as republican leaders as a way of casting aspersion on all republicans. But since we only know democratic "strategists" [cough] to be stupefyingly incompetent, spineless, fools, we know with certainty that were they able to hatch such a scheme (which they probably are incapable), they would certainly not be capable of pulling it off.

So yea, dems are losing the game - same as always. Their only saving grace is that republican positions and policies are so horrendous, that eventually Americans figure it out in spite of the media bias. Trouble is the massive damage republicans inflict until voters figure them out.
.
.

Dionne concludes with a very compelling point that bears repeating: "Democrats love to think that Limbaugh and Gingrich are weakening the conservative side. But guess what? By dragging the media to the right, Rush and Newt are winning."

Are you sure?

It looks to me like constantly quoting Gingrich and Limbaugh, and by quoting Republican assents (when they occur) to Gingrich and Limbaugh, "the media" are separating the Republicans from the swing voters.

While I agree that there is a right leaning bias in the media, I disagree that it is dragging the country to the right or that Limbaugh et al are "winning". I actually think that the right are getting farther and farther behind and the disconnect between the mainstream media and the opinions of the majority of Americans is widening. I have no idea what will happen going forward but I don't see that the media is as powerful as Dionne thinks in shaping American opinion towards the right. It does have some influence but that is waning and will continue to in my opinion.

something like 90% of the information Americans receive they get through 5 mega media corporations:

ABC Disney
Viacom (CBS)
GE (NBC)
Fox
Time-Warner

Those corporations are run by corporate boards inhabited only by the wealthiest of plutocrats - the multi-million dollar compensation babies. It is safe to assume that those 50-100 people in those corporate board rooms run about 99% staunch republican in their political persuasions.

A half-wit could figure out that given the above, the information Americans receive is indisputably heavily biased to the republican position, and that progressive positions, particularly anything counter to corporate interests will never fall on American ears.

That any American ever bought into the notion of a left leaning media just because a bunch shrieking harpies say so is distressing, let alone that most Americans have bought into it hook, line, and sinker. .

By dragging the media to the right, Rush and Newt are winning.

And that's why we need to eject Evan Bayh and those like him so they can collude with Schwarzenegger to create a non-goofball conservative party.

Newt and Rush are not winning. If anything they both are losing credibility and being pegged as trolls. If you whine about EVERY issue most thinking people are going to start to ignore you.

Having a Republican "News" Network that is highly profitable makes the others think they too should lie, or at least obfuscate, in order to make more money.

One word, two syllables

BULLSHIT.

EJ misses a key factor. It's not Rush and Newt that are moving the discourse to the right, it's Rush and Newt and the Republican Party. If their execrable messages weren't mouthed by Congressional leaders on a daily basis, and Republican leaders didn't make Rush their de facto head, then their rhetoric probably wouldn't gain so much traction.

Steve, please take a look at your own posts for the last few months. How many posts do you have about the wacko right? My impression is that the rightwingers have dominated your posts. If *we* are doing it, can we expect the MSM to do otherwise?

By dragging the media to the right Rush and Newt are establishing goofballism as a normative state.

A non-goofball Conservative party, dull and uninteresting as it might be, would occupy Republican brain-space on the one hand and would be able to form functioning legislative compromise with everyone else, marginalizing the people who foment mob violence and 'hot buttons'.

It looks to me like constantly quoting Gingrich and Limbaugh, and by quoting Republican assents (when they occur) to Gingrich and Limbaugh, "the media" are separating the Republicans from the swing voters.

Which is a pleasure, knowing dishonest toads like you will continue to vote with -- and carry water for -- the Gingrich / Limbaugh Republicans because they promise those sweet, sweet tax cuts.

It's cute when you tone down the right-wing talking points to pretend to be an honest commentator, but it's still bad faith and every bit as dishonest. And it fools no one, least of all the many of us who remember all the right-wing bullshit you signed your name to. Shame on you, Marler.

Dragging the media to the right?

The media's been firmly ensconced on the right since at least the eight years of the Bush administration.

As for Rush and Newt winning. What exactly? The May sweeps?

Naive I might be, but I'm not as concerned about the media's conservative bias as much as I was nine years ago. The growth of alternate information sources (the World Wide Web, specifically search engines, bloggers and YouTube, and Twitter) and the means of communicating that information (modems, email and cellular phones) has diminished the value of the biased traditional sources (newspapers, newsmagazines and broadcast TV and radio).

I agree with Dionne's analysis. The scary thing is, it's going to get worse. Another big factor really hurting the progressive movement?

The GOP is shedding people. Becoming a rump party. Regional, etc. etc. Where are those former GOPers going? Either "independent" or to the Dems.

Which means the Dems are becoming more conservative, or will over time.

Even before that shedding process, the Dem leadership, time and time again, cowtowed to the right. How much worse will that be when the Dems absorb former GOPers?

The Media will reflect this. They won't put on progressive voices. If anything, they'll try to reflect the voices of conservadems even more. There will be more of those voices TO reflect.

The only hope for progressives is to be loud, proud, aggressive, organized, create our own media, and get our message out there in as many venues as possible. History has shown that well-organized minorities can achieve tremendous power. That's our route. Relying on the MSM to help us is a complete waste of time and counterproductive.

Democrats are complicit in the truncation of the political spectrum, every time they disinvite those to the left of them to important discussions.

If single payer can't even be discussed, then that means that Obama's idea of a mostly-private system with a public option becomes the left-wing proposal.

A smart centrist would make sure that there are as many voices to his/her left as to his/her right, so that the normal "let's meet in the middle" process leads to getting that centrist's proposals enacted.

To paraphrase an old lawyer joke... The difference between a reporter and a shark? There are some things the shark will not eat.

You folks know the civilization we live in. Why are you suprised? I'm only suprised that the Repubicans are suprised their "message" is not working.

When the Four Horsemen of the Republican Apocalypse combine with Chicken Little naturally citizens are going to ignore them.

The Four Horsemen of the Republican Apocalypse are Pat Buchanan representing Intolerance; Dick Cheney representing Torture; Rush Limbaugh representing Hate; and Newt Gingrich representing Pomposity. We know who Chicken Little was.

The Republicans should remember that:

The late impeached Arizona Governor Evan Mecham always complained that his message (a forerunner of Today's Republicans) was not getting out -- when in fact it had, for hours on end. The people of Arizona rejected it and him.

E. J. Dionne concluded, "... Rush and New are winning." Maybe. But I think Newt, Rush et al, if they are winning anything, it is a media whose influence on public opinion is shrinking. I don't think Rush, Newt and the media are winning the hearts and minds of America in general.

Dems ridicule Newtie & Rushbo because they are ridiculous. If there were any moderate or center-right Republicans we would debate them too.

Have you seen any moderate Republican politicians lately? Yeah, very very few and they're not the leaders or policy-makers of the party.

All hail Rush, leader of the Republicans. Idiots.

EJ is doing a good job, and this needs to be said ESPECIALLY on TV, and especially ABOUT TV. David Gregory is proving to be such putty in ReThug hands that it's driving me crazy.