Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

September 13, 2009

WHAT CONSTITUTES FRONT-PAGE NEWS..... In recent years, Josh Marshall has talked many times about the ways in which the Washington establishment is "wired for the GOP." The Washington Post offers a helpful example today.

Behold the media's glaring double standard. Today, the Post puts the "tens of thousands" of Obama-hating tea bagger protesters on A1; makes it the lead story as a matter of fact.

Compare and contrast.

And just so there's no doubt in people's mind, the blanket coverage the mini-mobs are lapping up (i.e. the mobs are hugely important!) stands in stark contrast to the way the press often did its best to ignore liberal protesters who spoke out against the war in Iraq.

For instance, in October 2002, when more than 100,000 people gathered in Washington, D.C., to oppose the war, The Washington Post put the story not on the front page, but in the Metro section with, as the paper's ombudsman later lamented, "a couple of ho-hum photographs that captured the protest's fringe elements."

Not that crowd size is the be-all, end-all of an event's significance, but it's worth remembering that no credible count of yesterday's right-wing protest puts it in the 100,000 range. (And the anti-war protestors didn't have the advantage of a highly-rated cable network promoting their event every day for months.)

So, 70,000 far-right activists protesting a general sense of anger with progressive government are a major story, 100,000 liberal activists protesting a specific war policy are an afterthought.

This isn't just about the WaPo in particular. I suspect if we compared the coverage on, say, CNN of both protests, yesterday's coverage was more extensive.

There are competing angles to explain something like this, and some can make a compelling case that the media just overcompensates -- outlets are so afraid of being accused of "liberal bias," they go out of their way to promote one side's concerns over the other.

But I still think it gets back to the fact that D.C. is just "wired" for Republicans. Anti-war protestors, the thinking goes, were liberal hippies out of step with the mainstream. After all, there was a Republican president and Republican House in 2002, and polls showed reasonably strong support for the war in Iraq. Why pretend the liberal protestors are important?

In contrast, seven years later, Tea Baggers have to be considered a major political movement. There's a Democratic president and a Democratic Congress in 2009, and polls show reasonably strong support for the administration's economic agenda, but the right-wing cries can't be relegated to a few throw-away paragraphs in the Metro section.

On "60 Minutes" tonight, the president will note, "In the era of 24-hour cable news cycles, the loudest shrillest voices get the attention." That's only partially true -- it depends on what the shrill voices are saying and from what perspective.

Steve Benen 2:45 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (64)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

When was the last time you heard a true voice of the left, let alone a shrill one, on the TeeVee?

You get the voice of the corporations, and the voice of the loonies.

Posted by: Go, Sestak! on September 13, 2009 at 2:50 PM | PERMALINK

Good summary of what the problem with Republican-enabling is, but we need more direct and deep reporting on why it is that way. Steve, please collect or do some digging and get back to us with: specific connections between media owners and Republican interests, etc. We have heard your general lament and seen the examples, now it is time for the autopsy report.

Posted by: Neil B on September 13, 2009 at 2:51 PM | PERMALINK

I mentioned the same thing yesterday when I heard the AP on-the-hour news report on satellite radio. They led with the 9/12 teabaggers including quotes from a protester. I don't recall any major outlet covering any anti-war or other Bush era protests.

More liberal bias, I suppose.

Posted by: MsJoanne on September 13, 2009 at 2:57 PM | PERMALINK

Finally. Too much is written about the corrupt media giving excuse after excuse for their extreme bias against Democrats.

Posted by: Jan in Stone Mtn on September 13, 2009 at 2:57 PM | PERMALINK

CNN is my home page, and yesterday I searched in vain to find out how many people came to Obama's rally in Minneapolis. There were, of course, many stories on-site about those lunatic tea-baggers. (Do you think any of them even knows what "tea-bagging" is?)

Posted by: phoebes-in-santa fe on September 13, 2009 at 3:08 PM | PERMALINK

I am so done with explanations like "fear of accusations of liberal bias".

The media bias is predominantly a right-wing elitist bias. The people at the top genuinely believe that we should be governed by a conservative (to say the least) aristocracy, and democratic principles are at best (i.e., when they result in the election of conservative aristocrats) window-dressing, and at worst (when they don't), a terrible, horrible, very bad, no-good idea that will sink us forever in the fever swamps of multi-cultural egalitarianism.

They have one culture, and one class; they see all of the rest of us as a different class (without culture, as it happens -- we just "do stuff"); and the claim that all of us are equal nauseates them.

This is a conservative media, even a reactionary right-wing media. It has never, ever, been a liberal media.

A supposed fear of accusations of liberal bias does not come close to explaining the media. Right now, if they're afraid of being accused of anything, it's of being accused of being aristocrats, because far-right mob rule is the flavor of the day to bind the voters (remember voters? although they know in their hearts that voting really shouldn't be allowed, they also know it is, so they still need voters) to the Cause.

Conservative media. Conservative editors. Conservative slant. Conservative media bias.

It's not so hard. It is what it is. You can say it ... we're among friends.

Posted by: Fleas correct the era on September 13, 2009 at 3:16 PM | PERMALINK

Our edition of the NY Times had a picture on page 1 which referred to a story on page 37, only the story was actually on page 33. An appropriate level of emphasis, I thought. The picture included a clever poster of Obama as “Che”, which I had to admit showed a lot more wit and style than the usual crude depictions of him as Hitler or the Joker.

Posted by: J. Frank Parnell on September 13, 2009 at 3:19 PM | PERMALINK

No, it goes back to Fred Hiatt is just "wired" for Republicans. The Washington Post is rightwing Republican paper under Hiatt and should never be considered a fair and balanced newspaper. One of the reasons why it and other newspapers are losing money. Democrats and Independents are the people who used to admire the print medium of newspapers. Now, that most newspapers have gone rabid rightwing, there is no reason to read them.

Posted by: Bonnie on September 13, 2009 at 3:20 PM | PERMALINK

whaaaaaa! Whaaaaaaa! Someone call the Whaaaaaaaaambulance!

Whiny-ass-titty-babies!

Posted by: a on September 13, 2009 at 3:21 PM | PERMALINK

And remember the worldwide anti-Iraq war protests on February 15, 2003. I was at the New York protest, and it was incredible in terms of numbers--definitely hundreds of thousands of people. I went home, eager to see the coverage because I was so amazed so many people came out. I'd never seen anything like it.

The protest barely registered a blip with CNN.

Posted by: Neely on September 13, 2009 at 3:25 PM | PERMALINK

Of course DC is wired for conservatism-- it's a town of social elites & power brokers, and they require a defined (if not completely rigid) hierarchy to feel comfortable. Republicans provide that structure-- you know who's in & who's out, whose ass to kiss & whose calls to ignore, that the lobbying powers are openly ascendant instead of working in the shadows, and the media knows how they need to behave in order to be rewarded with carefully-controlled information to fill their column inches/airtime-- while Democrats bumble along with more fluid & ill-defined, often overly academic, social organization. It's just a much tidier & more efficient town when the GOP's in charge, because everyone knows where they are and how to behave in the pack hierarchy.

Posted by: latts on September 13, 2009 at 3:27 PM | PERMALINK

And remember the worldwide anti-Iraq war protests on February 15, 2003.
------------------------------

And remember the New York Times' interactive timeline "Iraq 5 Years In" published last year, which somehow forgets to even mention them.

(The march in Manhattan alone numbered some 500,000 ... that's about a third of that borough's population. You might think they would have noticed it.)

Posted by: Fleas correct the era on September 13, 2009 at 3:34 PM | PERMALINK

Thanks Steve,

I suspected as much, good to see it confirmed. For outfits like the Post, elections don't seem to have consequences.

Posted by: angler on September 13, 2009 at 3:38 PM | PERMALINK

"A"obviously standfor A-HOLE.

Posted by: capatalistpig on September 13, 2009 at 3:38 PM | PERMALINK

Good perspective Steve. Wish this were on 60Minutes tonight.

Posted by: bjobotts on September 13, 2009 at 3:57 PM | PERMALINK

What gets covered is theater, drama, outrageousness. If you have a calm and sensible argument to make, you may as well send it to Debating Society Quarterly.

Death Panels? Nazi Youth Militia? "We're all over it." Going to war with a country that doesn't threaten us? "Not newsworthy."

Posted by: tamiasmin on September 13, 2009 at 4:06 PM | PERMALINK

The media is "wired" to hate Arabs and Muslims. Completely aside from any bias towards belligerence in general, or towards right wing arguments. Lefties mostly opposed the war, Democratic politicians were about evenly split, and the media itself isn't necessarily as hawkish when it comes to invading and killing non-Muslims and non-Arabs.

On Middle East issues, our media is much more hawkish than our population or politicians. (Even more hawkish than old-school conservatives, who don't mind killin', but don't really have a dog in the Israel/Arab fight).

Posted by: flubber on September 13, 2009 at 4:15 PM | PERMALINK

I happened to hear the hourly 'news' on NPR several times yesterday, and was appalled by the amount of time the protesters got compared to coverage of Obama's speech in Minnesota.

Thinking back to the run up to the Iraq invasion, NPR hardly covered the huge protests in many cities and countries. Suddenly these lunatics are worthy of coverage as a movement. Rather a mini-movement that likes to talk to itself.

What do NPR, CNN, Wapo, and the NYT have in common? They're in the bag for the Rethugs.

Posted by: rrk1 on September 13, 2009 at 4:18 PM | PERMALINK

I think you have a valid point, and unlike many if not most of your readers and commenters, I remember when it was the other way. I think it can be said that from the FDR presidency up to the Reagan presidency, the establishment media was wired for Democrats, which means that they saw the Democratic party as the country's majority party and the natural party of government, abetted in this view by the fact that during all that time, there was a Republican President and Congress for all of two years (1953-55). No one who lived through that period can deny that in the 1960s and 1970s, liberal and leftist viewpoints and protests were taken much more seriously by the establishment media than rightist ones, even by those who were moderate or conservative.

The reverse has been true since at least the early 1980s, abetted by the fact that between 1981 and 2009, there was a Democratic President anc Congress for all of two years (1993-95). There should be no surprise that conservative and rightist viewpoints and protests are taken much more seriously by the establishment media than leftist ones, even by those who are moderate or liberal. How long this viewpoint will persist, and whether it will reverse itself as it did during the Reagan years, will depend on how successful the Democrats are in power and how long they retain a hold on Congress and the Presidency.

Posted by: Steven J. Berke on September 13, 2009 at 4:20 PM | PERMALINK

steve, once you say it the first time (i still remember my first time...) it becomes a lot easier to say it again:

Say it: "The corporations rule the media."

(and here's a hint: it fits that strange metaphor you use: that "DC is just 'wired' for Republicans" -- now, why do you suppose that is? because journalism has a hard time catching up with history? i don't think so...)

Posted by: neill on September 13, 2009 at 4:33 PM | PERMALINK

'media'- newspapers, TeeVee, AM radio- are all businesses. A business is IN business to make money. Who has money? Rich people.

If you want to be HERD, join the procession.

If you want to be HEARD, don your buckskins, pack some jerky, and take your flintlock to the woods.

-Metaphorically speaking, of course. . .

Posted by: DAY on September 13, 2009 at 4:42 PM | PERMALINK

This is nothing. Wait a few months till the Supreme Court opens politics to massive corporate funding.

Posted by: Bob M on September 13, 2009 at 4:43 PM | PERMALINK

MSM took the lead in promoting the Iraq War; never asked hard questions about the 8 years of lies of the Bush/Cheney era;now they are the voice for the right wing GOP.

Posted by: antiquelt on September 13, 2009 at 4:52 PM | PERMALINK

During any given hour of the day, 300 million U.S. citizens are NOT watching any cable or broadcast news program, including the right-wing-monopolized ones.

During any given hour of the day, 300 million U.S. citizens are NOT listening to any of the right-wing blowhards on right-wing-monopolized radio.

By U.S. publishers, editors, programmers, show producers and reporters aligning themselves with the radical wingnut fringe of the Republican Party, they've alienated countless American citizens, Democrats, Independents and "thinking" Republicans alike, and watched their number of viewers, listeners and readers decline, cutting sharply into their revenues.

Posted by: The Oracle on September 13, 2009 at 4:57 PM | PERMALINK

I found it interesting (not reported on the blogs) that the organizers used hundreds of buses to bring in protesters. This seems more significant to me than the size of the protest: this wasn't simply a grass-roots thing. How many would have shown up without the help of corporate organizers?

Posted by: tomj on September 13, 2009 at 5:12 PM | PERMALINK

Don't buy their newspapers; don't click through to their Web sites; boycott their advertisers. Put the bastards out of business.

Posted by: kw on September 13, 2009 at 5:31 PM | PERMALINK

holy fuckin' shit!!!

listen at 2:30 to the cheer for the public option...

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2009/09/its-not-dead-yet-by-digby.html

Posted by: neill on September 13, 2009 at 5:39 PM | PERMALINK

Screw the Washington Post and NPR. They turned a while back and they think we haven't noticed.

Posted by: Steve on September 13, 2009 at 5:51 PM | PERMALINK

Why are the soft-headed, thick-skulled and thin-skinned the same people?

Posted by: cld on September 13, 2009 at 6:01 PM | PERMALINK

"For instance, in October 2002, when more than 100,000 people gathered in Washington, D.C., to oppose the war, The Washington Post put the story not on the front page, but in the Metro section"

* And more than 100,000 demonstrated in New York City in a march that stretched for 45 blocks.

* More than 300 events took place across the United States

* Demonstrations were also held in more than 45 countries

Posted by: Joe Friday on September 13, 2009 at 6:12 PM | PERMALINK

Charles Darwin biopic can't get a US distributor because of freaked out weirdos,

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/6173399/Charles-Darwin-film-too-controversial-for-religious-America.html

"The film has no distributor in America. It has got a deal everywhere else in the world but in the US, and it's because of what the film is about. People have been saying this is the best film they've seen all year, yet nobody in the US has picked it up. . .

Posted by: cld on September 13, 2009 at 6:40 PM | PERMALINK

I was one of those antiwar protesters in 2002. As far as I could tell, and believe me, I looked, there were no public toilets available on the Mall for the 100,000 of us. Next day I called an editor I knew from my days at the Post to suggest that this might be worth looking into. Apparently it wasn't, as no mention was ever made of it in the paper.

Posted by: Jerome Doolittle on September 13, 2009 at 6:41 PM | PERMALINK

Okay, I was in DC in January with my two sons and the fiance of one of them. We four had standing tickets in the infamous "Purple Zone" on the Capital lawn, courtesy of my ex-husband, who's a big DSCC donor.

Anyway, I KNOW what a million plus people in one place looks like and what the DC city government/law enforcement/the Inauguration Committee did to prepare for the onslaught of people. Toilets everywhere, all along the Mall and other streets and park areas. Cops - fairly ineffective at telling the crowds where to go - everywhere, as well as Inaugural volunteers - also fairly ineffective, but at least pleasant.
No hotel rooms available for miles, and the ones booked were at sky-high prices.

My question is - what did the DC authorities do to prepare for these lunatic tea-baggers? Was the setup prepared for the 500,000 that Glenn Beck claims were there? IF the city did do much special, then they were not expecting and nor did they receive the number of tea-baggers.

One of my sons lives on K Street - no he is NOT a lobbyist! - and was around yesterday. I'm going to ask him if he saw anywhere near the setup we saw in January. I bet not...

Posted by: phoebes-in-santa fe on September 13, 2009 at 6:51 PM | PERMALINK

I think the fact that the media cater to the rich (and, largely, are the rich) is only part of it. For every social or political question, the media has decided it can only make money if the conflict is a thrilling, suspenseful, photo-finish horserace. When one of the horses is a moderately decent runner, and the other is a decrepit and developmentally disabled creature with three legs, the media has no choice but to put the substandard animal on steroids. Let's just hope the steroids eventually kill the damn thing.

Posted by: rabbit on September 13, 2009 at 6:55 PM | PERMALINK

OT but this needs to be shown and you need to respond. Carmedla's cell phone is authentic; I just called it and got her voice on voice mail. RSVP to this event and let them know what you think!

From David Sirota at commondreams.org yesterday:

"This announcement came just hours before Steve Elmendorf, a registered UnitedHealth lobbyist and the head of UnitedHealth's lobbying firm Elmendorf Strategies, blasted this email invitation throughout Washington, D.C. I just happened to get my hands on a copy of the invitation from a source - check out this OpenLeft exclusive:

From: Steve Elmendorf [mailto:steve@elmendorfstrategies.com]
Sent: Friday, September 11, 2009 8:31 AM
Subject: event with Speaker Pelosi at my home
You are cordially invited to a reception with

Speaker of the House
Nancy Pelosi

Thursday, September 24, 2009
6:30pm ~ 8:00pm

At the home of
Steve Elmendorf
2301 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Apt. 7B
Washington, D.C.

$5,000 PAC
$2,400 Individual

To RSVP or for additional information please contact
Carmela Clendening at (202) 485-3508 or clendening@dccc.org

Steve Elmendorf
ELMENDORF STRATEGIES
GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS SOLUTIONS
900 7th Street NW Suite 750 Washington DC 20001
(202) 737-1655"

Let Nancy Know she is a traitor to her constituents and all Americans. She is disgusting!

Posted by: st john on September 13, 2009 at 7:23 PM | PERMALINK

Russ, only Catholic women are allowed to "pope" kids.

Posted by: dr sardonicus on September 13, 2009 at 7:33 PM | PERMALINK

My last contribution was in response to a deleted comment. Glad to see the moderators are on the job tonight...

Posted by: dr sardonicus on September 13, 2009 at 7:34 PM | PERMALINK

the little piece of shit reich wing rag paper here in the sw corner of michigan ( the herald palladium ) ran BOTH the national ap coverage of the assklown tea baggers in washington dc and also the LOCAL tea bagger losers - so you get a two-fer in the sunday downsized rag. wonderful. and of course it is a very pro war pro cheney / bush anti democrat anti obama very reich wing owned by some reich wing family out of kentucky piece of crap paper with rapidly falling circulation numbers which it tries to blame on the economy but will not recognize its reich wing ideology and biased slanted coverage is driving it out of business. retards. morons.

Posted by: urinates me off on September 13, 2009 at 7:38 PM | PERMALINK

It's news if the Money Party says it's news. Otherwise the story will be buried. The talking heads on TV say exactly what the Money Party wants them to say or they are replaced. Nothing difficult to understand about that, right?

You're counting seashells on the beach and building sand castles while a mighty Tsunami of corporate power is looming over you with the special term of the Supreme Court's look at corporate campaign funding freedom of speech. Individual rights will be washed away for the remaining years of America. Better pay attention now.

Posted by: anonymous on September 13, 2009 at 7:43 PM | PERMALINK

Wasn't there supposed to be a pro-single payer march on Washington today?

Posted by: Mike on September 13, 2009 at 7:45 PM | PERMALINK

Last Sunday, there was a sizable march in Seattle (pro-Healthcare reform). It was not covered by even the local news outlets.

Posted by: judyo on September 13, 2009 at 7:48 PM | PERMALINK

I'm having a real hard time believing that the Republicans and Democrats aren't in cahoots with each other on killing all populist movement for government plans, e.g., single payer.

Obama's not for ending employment-based, insurance company health care, and yet everyone I talk with and everyone that they talk with hate their insurers and want something like medicare.


Posted by: Mike on September 13, 2009 at 7:49 PM | PERMALINK
The protest barely registered a blip with CNN.

Not only do we need a revolution in government, we need a revolution in media.

It's not enough to just change the elected representatives every two and four years.

Posted by: LavaLennie on September 13, 2009 at 7:51 PM | PERMALINK

This local paper, with the usual financial, advertising and circulation problems has an idea to radically change the writing of editorials. Op-ed minus ed. Democrats, liberals and progressives like ideas. Republicans, not so much.

Posted by: anonymous on September 13, 2009 at 8:12 PM | PERMALINK

whoops here's the link

http://www.onlineathens.com/stories/091309/opi_492521472.shtml

Posted by: anonymous on September 13, 2009 at 8:13 PM | PERMALINK

And yet, the right will claim how they are constantly ignored by the MSM, claiming liberal bias...and it will be believed. Up is down, black is white...the tea-baggers game will continue.

Posted by: H.Finn on September 13, 2009 at 8:44 PM | PERMALINK

Steven J. Berke at 4:20, I agree with what you say. The media WAS liberal in the 70s -- the were slow to catch on to the middle-class alienation from the counterculture. And when Nixon was toppled -- for reasons apart from ideology -- they mistakenly thought the brief flirtation with GOPism was over. The Reagan victory cured them of that misapprehension for good, and led to the "GOP rules by divine right" mind-set that still applies today.

But my question is, what will it take to disabuse them of the notion? Democrats have now won the popular vote in 4 of the last 5 presidential elections, and their electoral victories have been by hefty margins, while the GOP "wins" have been by the margin of one state each time (even assuming 2000 was legit). Obama's win last year was the equivalent of Reagan's '80 win -- validation that the previous win by his party was no fluke, with an even greater Congressional majority. Yet the media, far from surrendering the way they did to the GOP starting in 1981, appear to have doubled-down on their Republican boosterism. As Reaganite Bruce Bartlett says, they're even giving Bushies -- who ought to remnain discredited for decades -- more credence than an administration elected by a wide margin. What possible justification can there be for this?

Posted by: demtom on September 13, 2009 at 9:40 PM | PERMALINK

Bob Shiefer (Face the Nation) ought to be fired.

For David Axelrod, he asked questions from a contrarian rightwing perspect (i.e. 'when are you dumping the Public Option'). Then instead of taking the same contrarian approach to Olympia Snow asking her why the hell she _isn't_ supporting the Public Option, instead he kissed her ass with softball questions like 'are you worried about being the only GOPer voting for this'?

After Axelrod and Snow, he had on Roger Smith from that radical website Politico and well known lefty Kathleen Parker.

Posted by: leo on September 13, 2009 at 10:51 PM | PERMALINK

I live near DC, paid attention to local news in 2002, and didn't even know there had been a protest in Washington against the war until days later...

Posted by: pol on September 13, 2009 at 11:41 PM | PERMALINK

I've noticed that on national news on the radio, the announcer will say a one-sentence tease, like, "The Democrats are proposing thus and so...," then there will be a Republican, giving his opinion of the action. That opinion is always negative, yet there is no chance for a Democrat to defend the stated course of action.

Posted by: pol on September 13, 2009 at 11:51 PM | PERMALINK

Y'know, whether it's been said before or not...I hope a lot of tea party protesters left DC with a bad taste in their mouth thinking, "I don't want anything more to do with these angry nut jobs."

Posted by: bassface127 on September 14, 2009 at 12:07 AM | PERMALINK

'Freedomworks', Dickhead Armey's corporate lobbyist group that organized the D.C. Teabagger demonstration, claimed that 30,000 people showed up.

From David Shuster's Twitter account:

"Freedomworks says their dc demonstration attracted 30,000 people. Park police official says that is being 'generous'."
Posted by: Joe Friday on September 14, 2009 at 12:10 AM | PERMALINK

There are competing angles to explain something like this, and some can make a compelling case that the media just overcompensates -- outlets are so afraid of being accused of "liberal bias," they go out of their way to promote one side's concerns over the other.

But that's just pushing the question up to a meta level, since only one side, conservatives, gets that kind of response. No amount of accusation that the media are conservative, or controlled by the corporate interests of their owners ever causes them to overcompensate (or even "compensate" at all) by trying to present a more liberal viewpoint.

Posted by: Redshift on September 14, 2009 at 12:24 AM | PERMALINK

While Democrats are doing most of the heavy lifting on the budget, the economy, the war and health care reform a few shrill tea baggers grab some easy headlines by saying outrageous falsehoods on the Mall.

Grabbing a few headlines with some outrageous, confrontational words spoken in an angry tone should not be confused with running the country. It's like we've come full circle since the media coverage of anti-war protests in the 60s.

After 25 years I'm seriously considering canceling my hard copy edition of the Post on account of their tea bagger coverage. The Post under Fred Hiatt has gone downhill.

Posted by: pj in jesusland on September 14, 2009 at 1:33 AM | PERMALINK

Maybe the WaPo was doing you a favor in 2002 by downplaying the anti-war demo by "liberal activists" as you put it. That rally was sponsored and organized by the ANSWER Coalition, well-known to all as basically a front for the Workers World Marxist-Leninist Party. At the time, of course, Congress had authorized military action against Saddam's Iraq with the widespread support of leading liberal Democrats in the House and Senate. Many of those liberals have since made the point that they supported getting tough against Saddam but not necessarily pulling the trigger. So, that means that the ANSWER crowd was protesting not the war, which was not to commence for nearly six months, but getting tough with Saddam. This was understandable coming from a group that has made no bones about its "anti-imperialist" alignment against the U.S. In fact, ANSWER protested the US intervention in Kosovo -- no doubt, because of its knee-jerk support of any policies made in Moscow (where it will be recalled, the Russians were Milosevic's only backers, if tepidly so).

So really, are those folks "liberal activists" in the view of Washington Monthly and Media Matters.

Posted by: John Burke on September 14, 2009 at 2:10 AM | PERMALINK

I don't know whether or not they will succesd (my guess is they won't), but the media..and it does seem to be across the board...is setting up Obama as a one term failure. That seems to be where their narrative is leading ("All the promise, all the hope, how could it have gone so wrong. An American tragedy).

Posted by: Saint Zak on September 14, 2009 at 6:56 AM | PERMALINK

ALAN J GERSON - the best choice for solving the prevailing issues like overcrowded schools, massive budget cuts, high unemployment rates, and unprecedented cuts to our social services.
So on September 15th when you march to polling station please vote for the humble Alan J Gerson to continue his reform works for a cleaner, greener, safer New York City.
www.gerson2009.com

Posted by: SAM on September 14, 2009 at 7:13 AM | PERMALINK

Alan Gerson is a good candidate but a change can make a difference ..lts try gleason or kim

Posted by: Snick on September 14, 2009 at 7:14 AM | PERMALINK

Steven J. Berke at 4:20, I agree with what you say. ... But my question is, what will it take to disabuse them of the notion? Democrats have now won the popular vote in 4 of the last 5 presidential elections, ... Yet the media, far from surrendering the way they did to the GOP starting in 1981, appear to have doubled-down on their Republican boosterism. ... What possible justification can there be for this?

Three words: A.Strong.Leader.

While owned by huge corporations, the MSM deals in narratives. The most popular and successful narrative? A strong leader -- despite what the opposition says -- gets what he or she wants.

Dems don't get this. BHO doesn't get this. The only way for us to break through is to insist on doing what is right, even if it takes completely fucking the opposition. Then the MSM will reluctantly side with us.

More and more, dems and BHO are seen as weak -- losers. The MSM hates losers and piles on.

Posted by: Econobuzz on September 14, 2009 at 7:43 AM | PERMALINK

so wait? The 60's were a love in with the media and the left?
I was under the impression that the 60's, outside of kennedy looking sexy for the ladies, and nixon looking like a sweaty old man were the days of police beatings, and the media ignoring the protesting when they wanted.

But I guess "liberal media" is again treated as negative, as if they do cover MLK RFK JFK and lennon and all other great youth culture, that's LIBERAL!

Posted by: oh the 60's. on September 14, 2009 at 10:37 AM | PERMALINK

At the anti-war protest in Houston in February 2003, people were to congregate in a below-ground atrium, then marched a few blocks through downtown till we got to Sam Houston Park, which slopes down to the bayou below the main roads, then along Allen Parkway to a below-street level area along the bayou, where passing cars could not see what was going on. They kept us out of sight as much as possible. Of course there was also little coverage in the local paper. Plenty of police to make sure we didn't cause trouble.

Posted by: rosie on September 14, 2009 at 1:31 PM | PERMALINK

And to address a comment that was moderated, isn't it funny that the Tea Baggers named themselves Tea Baggers? From wiki:

Origins A protester's sign at the April 15, 2009 Hartford, Connecticut Tea Party reads: "Teabag Washington? They have way too many NUTS Already!"

In February, David Weigel of The Washington Independent photographed a protester holding a sign that read "Tea Bag the Liberal Dems Before They Tea Bag You."[115] The verb "tea bag" is used by others including Fox News Reporter Griff Jenkins and reteaparty.com where it is used self-referentially.

http://www.reteaparty.com/2009/02/27/rick-santelli-is-as-mad-as-hell-chicago-tea-party/

Yes, it's funny.

Posted by: heh on September 14, 2009 at 2:59 PM | PERMALINK

GOP 2009: No Balls...but Plenty of NUTS !

Posted by: mr. irony on September 14, 2009 at 4:55 PM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly