Willing Tools

It’s most amusing to watch the reception of Joe Klein – “… not so much a political writer as a bad theater critic” – the Slate columnist and alleged liberal is getting as he sheds his designer bathrobe and dips his carefully-manicured toes into the choppy waters of the blog sea, via the safety of Time/CNN’s new astroblog, Swampland.

(Btw did you notice Ana-Marie Cox is now Time Washington Editor? And they call it serious journalism? Wahahahahaha.)

Myself, I’m amazed by Klein’s chutzpah: after having spent the past few years basking in journalistic comfort onshore, idly cursing the swimmers, he seems to have expected a sedate Hamptons water-polo match in which position and seniority would give him innate advantage.

Surely blogging would be a doddle for such a fine figure of a pundit and anonymous novelist as Klein, if so many provincial neanderthals were doing it, wouldn’t it?

Of course, having no editor to save his skin or tone down his vainglorious self-certainty and belligerence he floundered badly straight away – hysterically accusing the blogging left of being illiberal, anti-American and hoping for US defeat and in the process lying, saying that he’d never supported the Iraq war when his own words said otherwise.

Oh dear. He didn’t want to do that…

Understandably he’s getting an ass-whupping from the real bloggers:

Late yesterday I was mulling why exactly Klein feels the need to presuppose the worst motives on the part of unnamed liberals and Democrats — whom he regularly accuses of rooting for America to “lose” — when Klein went ahead and unwittingly revealed a possible answer in his new post. It’s vanity.

[…]

To look into the mirror and see a brave and heroic pundit staring back, of course, you need to flatter yourself into believing that you’re challenging entrenched ideas and the people who hold them in some way, even if you aren’t. This impression can be created in several ways. One is to simply dream up a whole class of people, claim they hold “extreme” opinions based on nothing at all, and set yourself up as a lonely warrior against them — preferably while standing shoulder to shoulder with other lonely heroes of moderation like John McCain and Joe Lieberman. That’s David Broder’s preferred approach. Another way is to dream up a whole series of nefarious but nonexistent motives driving colleagues’ opinions, so that you can deprive those colleagues of credit for those opinions, and position yourself as, again, braver and more heroic than they are — even though you agree with them. That is Klein’s approach — and I submit that at bottom it’s all about vanity.

Klein issued a challenge in his post that has already been deftly parried by Boo Man. So here’s a challenge for Klein: Back up your arguments with facts and evidence. Produce one example of someone whose comments betray the fact that they’re tacitly rooting for American failure. Quote this person. Explain why this person’s quotes should be interpreted that way. If you manage to get that far, then maybe consider finding a second example, and even a third. That doesn’t sound all that hard, does it?

One might think that a journalist who has had the very basis of his reporting skill challenged in such a very public way might be a little shame-faced that his lack of professionalism had been so devastingly exposed. Not Klein.

But why is this little blogospheric kerfuffle of any importance at all in the larger political media picture?

There appears to be yet another evolutionary change happening with political blogs as the big news corporations switch their loss-making paper operations online and the group and community blogs become, in their turn, more corporate. The online operations of the media conglomerates are now being recast, falsely, as group or community blogs themselves, a direct marketing challenge to the likes of Kos and Atrios – the use of folksy names like Swampland is one way of fooling visitors that what they are reading is the voice of the average American.

This is not just about Joe Klein spouting his outdated and overexposed mouth off, entertaining though that is. This is about TimeWarner using its online presence to take on the liberal blogs – ‘We, the corporate establishment are patriots; you, the liberal bloggers, are unwashed hippies” – using Klein as its willing proxy.

They’re slapping down any attempt at encroachment on one of their markets, of course; it’s a fiduciary duty to maximise shareholder value and dividends. What else can they do? They won’t be happy until until they own or control all the media outlets, it’s what conglomerates do, and liberal independent blogs are a direct challenge to corporate dominance of the news markets and public opinion.

“The largest media company in the world is the standard bearer of synergy and vertical integration in the modern digital age. The marriage between “old” media Time Warner and “new” media AOL in 2000 was heralded by many experts as a sign of a new era. The belief was that traditional media companies had to align themselves with online partners or risk the chance of finding their business model and methods obsolete. A weak ad market, subscriptions for new online users hitting a plateau, and a less than expected demand for broadband Internet service are just some of the reasons why AOL Time Warner never jumped started an overhaul of the entire media industry as first predicted. The company dropped AOL from its corporate name in 2003 in an effort to show Wall Street that it still valued its core assets. With such influential brands as CNN, Warner Brothers studio, Sports Illustrated and AOL Instant Messaging, a Time Warner property is never too far away from any consumer’s fingertips.”

Supposed journalists like Klein don’t see this at all: First Amendent? Democracy? Accountability? Phooey. Blogging is for them just an opportunity for further personal aggrandisement and for unencumbered-by-truth-or-editing, vainglorious ranting in which they can get back at all their percieved enemies. And get paid for it!

Klein has confused the immediacy of blogging and the fact that the posts scroll off the screen with the notion that what he’s written is gone, because he doesn’t see it any more: he thinks there’ll be no consequences from his lies: that was yesterday and besides he’s got TimeWarner at his back. He’d better think again.

Read more: Media ownership, Blogging, Media conglomerates, CNN, Time magazine, Time/Warner, Joe Klein

Comment of the Day: astroblogs

The comment of the day today was written by Node of Evil and comes once again from a Digby comments thread. The comment is about what to call that class of faux-blogs that are nothing more than fronts for the Beltway establishment to enable them to claim popular support:

Ooh, ooh, I’ve got it — we can call those sorts of sites (HotSoup, Swampland, Pajamas Media, etc.) “Astroblogs”:

Astroblog (adj.):

1.)A blog or collection of blogs set up to look like a public forum, when really it’s just a soapbox for the proprietor.

2.)A blog or collection of blogs set up with much fanfare and venture capital but no real readership and/or original content.

Read more about:
,

Hell Hath No Fury Like A Media Exposed

Digby is justifiably angry that the US news media has slipperily flipped the story of the Democrats’ victory into a narrative that paints the Republicans as poor put-upon victims being targeted by evil far-left partisans.

Again.

I understand the anger but I really don’t think that the media could have done anything else, given how much they have invested in Bush and the Republicans.

Unfortunately the reversal of power in Congress has not been replicated in the DC government and media infrastructure, which remains defiantly and unashamedly right wing. This is an arena where someone as patently batshit crazy as Pat Robertson can be described, straight-faced, as moderate.

It’s not only the media who are well-drilled inself-deluding GOP cant: the Republican-appointed and so far unremarked (other than for the disastrous effects of their undertrained and overpromoted incompetence: see Katrina, Iraq et al) flocks of obedient minor wingnut polibots and Patrick Henry grads still scurry along the corridors of power. Patronage still flourishes like the proverbial green bay tree.

The Republicans may no longer be officially in power in Congress, but sensibly and foresightedly, during their tenure as supreme rulers over all three branches of government they installed a whole machinery of loyal placemen and women to carry on the good work should they fall out of public political favour. The formerly Trotskyist neoconerati know all about entryism.

Margaret Thatcher also knew about this tactic: she used to ask meaningly of her aides about any new civil servant she encountered, “Is he one of us?”. Thus she ensured that a whole generation of government administrators would be an impediment to any government that came after.

The news industry has been deeply politicised in the same way. Media owners and ambitious industry media types alike saw in the nineties which way the political and financial wind was blowing , quickly realised that a mix of rightwing ranting, jingoism, god and advertising made the moneymen happy and set about hiring their staff from the Republican pod-farms thinktanks magazines and schools. or from the children of influential GOP figures.

These unapolagetically partisan pundits have edged out the Nixon/Ford/Carter/Reagan era reporters and news anchors and have acted as unquestioning cheerleaders for the Bush government, right across all major US news media platforms, promoting as holy writ the President’s cruel and stupid policies. You might almost think their jobs depended on parotting the party line.

Even with those journalists who started out at the beginning of Bush’s tenure trying to objective, well you know how it is with spin: one small lie goes unchallenged so as not to offend someone who can do you some good ( maybe get you invited to a WH dinner or help your child get into a good school) that lie begets another and another and another and before you know it you’re describing waterboarding as humane and the mother of a dead US soldier as a traitor.

So having constructed this floating world in which Bush is a hero, freedom reigns and the Democrats are meanies who want to spoil everyone’s fun and where they rather than the voters are the sole arbiters of anyone’s fitness to govern its understandable the punditocracy want to keep their cosy, privileged, well paid and influential positions and they’ll go to some lengths to do it.

A lot of people have a lot to lose if exposed as the incompetent political hacks they are.

It’s advantageous to multiple parties in the media and politics alike that all sorts of incompetence and corruption in government and collusion in the reporting of government activity conveniently never see the light of day. To allow the Democrats the room to expose this would be plain stupid.

The Right’s mode of attack is quite clever though : as Digby says, Ford’s death provided the perfect pretext for Republicans and their media enablers to make what appears to be a perfectly reasonable plea for moderation and civility. In reality it’s a demand that all their former trangressions be swept under the rug, with the implied threat that if the Democrats insist on doing what they were elected to do and uncovering misdeeds then the media, egged on by the even more rabid wingnutosphere, could get very uncivil indeed.

In short- don’t fuck with us or we’ll fuck you over first.

Back before the last Presidential election (though ‘election’ is hardly the right word) when it looked as though Kerry might just make it to the White House, there was much discussion on the blogs about the necessity for a purge in Washington. It didn’t happen then, for obvious reasons, but it needs to happen now, and soon.

George Bush and his strategists have threatened to fight the Democratic congress to the death if they issue investigative subpoenas: In fact, when it comes to deploying its Executive power, which is dear to Bush’s understanding of the presidency, the President’s team has been planning for what one strategist describes as “a cataclysmic fight to the death” over the balance between Congress and the White House if confronted with congressional subpoenas it deems inappropriate. The strategist says the Bush team is “going to assert that power, and they’re going to fight it all the way to the Supreme Court on every issue, every time, no compromise, no discussion, no negotiation.”

And all the loyal footsoldiers of the press corps, beltway and the lobby firms will be marching lockstep into battle with him, despite everything – because far too many of the rightwing establishment have too much invested in the precarious construction of outright lies, propaganda and half-truths of the past few years to even consider letting go of it. The cognitive dissonance alone would kill them, not to mention the well-deserved years in the slammer some are well overdue.

A cataclysmic fight to the death, Bush said: this is going to get a lot uglier yet before it gets better.

Read more: US politics, US Media, Framing , Democrats

Comment of the day

Over at Hullabaloo, in a comment thread discussing the Jameil Hussein clusterfuck, commenter Bob makes a good if depressing observation:

[…] It seems to me that you don’t need biased news organizations to control the news, you merely need overworked reporters working for companies who don’t really care about the quality of their product. Once you have that, the political organizations who work hardest at framing (message discipline, etc) can control the stories that get told.

There are obviously many problems with this as the fundamental mechanism for informing society, but I’ll just point out one: Groups that are more strongly organized (top-down, disciplined, anti-democratic) will probably do a better job of framing stories than groups where everyone thinks and speaks for themselves.

Read more about:
, ,

Unfair & Unbalanced

Whilst we’re on the subject of nasty attacks on prominent women, Fox News has referred to US antiwar activist Cindy Sheehan (who let us not forget, lost her son to the Bush Iraq disaster that the Fox channel pushed for so desperately) as “The Infamous Cindy Sheehan” .

Even from the abyssal depths of an umpty-years-old law degree I’d call that actively defamatory.

Infamous:

  • Having an exceedingly bad reputation; notorious.
  • Causing or deserving infamy; heinous: an infamous deed.
  • Law.
    • Punishable by severe measures, such as death, long imprisonment, or loss of civil rights.
    • Convicted of a crime, such as treason or felony, that carries such a punishment.

infamous adjective

Known widely and unfavorably: common, notorious. See knowledge/ignorance. So objectionable as to elicit despisal or deserve condemnation: abhorrent, abominable, antipathetic, contemptible, despicable, despisable, detestable, disgusting, filthy, foul, loathsome, lousy, low, mean2, nasty, nefarious, obnoxious, odious, repugnant, rotten, shabby, vile, wretched. See good/bad.

I think we can be reasonably sure that word was not chosen by accident. How long before it becmes a regular appendage to Sheehan’s name on rightwing media outlets?

Rupert Murdoch’s Fox News is also available in the UK, where libel laws are notoriously easier to negotiate than in the US.

Is there an ambitious young legal team somewhere who’d like, given Sheehan’s permission, to take Fox to court for libel and a peace-loving billionaire who’d like to fund them? It could make the lawyers’ career, a la the McLibel trial, and the philanthropist would have the eternal gratitude of the world’s population for giving media megalomaniac Murdoch a big poke in the eye with a sharp stick.

Read more: US media, Fox News, UK courts, Defamation, Cindy Sheehan