Start reading Somerby--then begin analyzing what's on your TV, radio, and covered in your paper and its op-ed sections.

Then, please, revisit your current thinking.

Back in early 2000 I was visiting relatives and had not yet discovered blogs and their monitoring of news coverage. The first I heard of Al Gore saying he'd discovered Love Canal was on Jay Leno. Then there was some actual news coverage of the same thing.

I felt sick to my stomach--I knew Al Gore never claimed to have invented the Internet because I'd actually followed his legislation and knew he was responsible for laying the groundwork to bring the Internet to the public. I knew he held hearings on industrial pollution--and I knew he had not "discovered" Love Canal. I couldn't believe he would make such a claim--but important, highly respected newspapers published articles that said he had done so. And their articles were picked up and talked about.

I wondered if I could work for him, given this "claim" by him. Which, as we now know, was not his claim at all--simply two reporters' not really listening, then not wanting to admit to their error. Plus, having him say he discovered Love Canal fit into their narrative of the serial exaggerator, liar, overly ambitious, too political politician.

I was back home, cross country skiing and listening to This American Life when the story of Al Gore and the class of students came on. In their own words, the teacher and students told what happened and in Gore's own words, on the video the class had made of his appearance in their classroom, it was irrefutable that Gore never said he "discovered" Love Canal. What he had said is that a young student had written to him about Love Canal and that became his impetus to look into that kind of ground water pollution and then hold hearings. He said Love Canal started it all.

I was so relieved! I could now work for the person I thought would be the best president with full commitment, not feeling perhaps there were ugly sides to this man.

It was the objective of the RNC and Bush campaign to highlight anything which drives down enthusiasm for Gore or any other Dem. If it required leaving out words or shading or misleading, that is a political decision. It is a political weapon.

It should not be the objective of the MCM* to do the same thing. The MCMers* should not be doing the work of any political party.

But they have been doing that. This year, Edwards' numbers, imho, have been stymied by the work of the MCM using stories which have a glimmer of truth but are not at all despositive.

As Somerby points out, the MCM sees "character" as of the utmost importance when examining Democratic candidates. Just this past week, the WaPo made a huge issue of one of Edwards' donors, Feiger, being indicted for some kind of donations laundering. Edwards did not know and could not have known. He was no part of the indictment. The article threw in some campaign donations issues for Hillary (Hsu) and something for Obama, iirc.

Republicans were not mentioned, even tho' a state campaign chairman for Romney had just been indicted and other high placed leadership for other candidates had been forced to step down due to other illegal actions.

Wonder why only Dems were focused on?

Over the weekend, the WaPo had an editorial attacking Edwards for the Feiger thing.

Gee--wonder why....

So, go to DailyHowler.com (no caps necessary). Keep reading. Check the archives. See if you can figure out why the MCMers tend to attack mostly Dems. If you do, please let me know, bcz I surely haven't figured it out.

BTW, the story about Gore and Love Canal also pointed out that the MCM had developed a narrative about Poppy Bush--and we all know that one: That he saw a grocery store scanner and was all agog, as if he'd never seen one. Press was all over that one, followed by the comics. It fit the narrative.

Except...it wasn't accurate! What Bush remarked on was a new type of scanner which did things which had not been available previously. But that didn't fit the narrative, so the press just changed the facts to fit the story.

I feel guilty every time I think about that, bcz I thought it did sum up Bush I. I joked about it. There were plenty of reasons to not have his as president--his knowledge of grocery scanners was not one of them. But it's now "history," just as the one about Al Gore "inventing" the Internet. (I think Frank Rich or Maureen Dowd had something to do with spreading that meme.)

*MCM--Mainstream Corporate Media
*MCMers--Members of MCM

Posted at September 5, 2007 1:46 PM in response to Going After Gore?

And I replied to your post with this:

Atrios has made the very pertinent observation that it is not enough that a fact be printed or spoken--once or twice, even more, on the back pages of the NYTimes or WaPo. Or on Democracy Now. Even on blogs. Many true facts about the run-up to the Iraq Invasion were made available before the war began.

But hardly anyone talked about them in the MCM*.

[Most of us were probably yelling at our radios or TV's that February day in '03 as Powell made his now infamous argument for war against Iraq at the UN--there were only two points he made which I didn't know were dead wrong or had strong contrary interpretations. The blogs answered one the next day, pointing out the Arabic translation Powell used was far from accurate. I can't recall the other point. But the alumuminum tubes, the mobile bio labs had all been thoroughly debunked. And never reported effectively, or talked about thoroughly, on the MCM.]

Atrios thinks most people get their knowledge about current events and politics from the "talking about the news" venues, whether broadcast, cable, or written (op-eds, plus opinion, snark, and "analysis" inserted into big name papers' actual news articles. Yes, I mean you Ceci and Kathryn, plus loads of others.).

When the MCM primarily parrots the talking points of one party, it becomes extremely difficult for the message of the other party to become known and understood.

That is what must be fought over and over and over again. It must become seriously embarrassing for an MCM reporter/pundit to appear on a program and just let fly with party talking points, hackneyed and false conclusions, even lies drawn from, say, The Drudge Report. It ought to be job threatening to write or speak such junk.

That will happen only when people such as yourself [Todd Gitlin] who have some access to the MCM outlets actually call MCMers on the games they play with journalism standards. Now, it may be that you will feel you'll lose that access if you speak unkindly, albeiet justly, of those in the MCM.

That is a very real risk. Witness Chris Matthews having an on air hissy fit when Naomi Wolf "spoke out of order." She apparently said something which Matthews considered off topic, and told her so--very sharply. IIRC, he told her she would not be back on if she couldn't stick to the topic--fuzzy on exact wording. I have never heard him do such a thing to a Republican spokesperson. But, then, I stopped watching his show if I can help it.

*MCM--Mainstream Corporate Media
*MCMers--Members of the MCM

BTW, Jim Lehrer told the host of a program on Wisconsin Public Radio a year or more ago that he did know who Amy Goodman was.... Good indication of how limited the range of information access is for the insiders of the MCM.

Posted at September 5, 2007 1:11 PM in response to Going After Gore?

Exactly! Messages matter. Big time.

My brother refused to wear his seatbelt, saying he was a big guy and it was easier to escape from the car if necessary without one on. And he was a good defensive driver....

When his kids were old enough to understand the seat belt messages, they would beg him to put his on. They didn't want him dead or injured unnecessarily.And he didn't want them crying in the back seat.

Then, being the bro I love, he started demanding everyone else wear theirs!

Actually, because of his kids, and his getting seat belt religion, I got it too....

Posted at September 5, 2007 12:57 PM in response to Going After Gore?

Atrios has made the very pertinent observation that it is not enough that a fact be printed or spoken--once or twice, on the back pages of the NYTimes or WaPo. Or on Democracy Now. Even on blogs. Many true facts about the run-up to the Iraq Invasion were made available before the war began.

But hardly anyone talked about them in the MCM*.

Atrios thinks most people get their knowledge about current events and politics from the "talking about the news" venues, whether broadcast, cable, or written (op-eds, plus opinion, snark, and "analysis" inserted into big name papers' actual news articles).

When the MCM primarily parrots the talking points of one party, it becomes extremely difficult for the message of the other party to become known and understood.

That is what must be fought over and over and over again. It must become seriously embarrassing for an MCM reporter/pundit to appear on a program and just let fly with party talking points, hackneyed and false conclusions, even lies drawn from, say, The Drudge Report. It ought to be job threatening to write or speak such junk.

That will happen only when people such as yourself who have some access to the MCM outlets actually call MCMers on the games they play with journalism standards. Now, it may be that you will feel you'll lose that access if you speak unkindly, albeiet justly, of those in the MCM.

That is a very real risk. Witness Chris Matthews having an on air hissy fit when Naomi Wolf "spoke out of order." She apparently said something which Matthews considered off topic, and told her so--very sharply. IIRC, he told her she would not be back on if she couldn't stick to the topic--fuzzy on that. I have never heard him do such a thing to a Republican spokesperson. But, then, I stopped watching his show if I can help it.

*MCM--Mainstream Corporate Media
*MCMers--Members of the MCM

BTW, Jim Lehrer told the host of a program on Wisconsin Public Radio that he did know who Amy Goodman was.... Good indication of how limited the range of information access is for the insiders of the MCM.

Posted at September 4, 2007 4:29 PM in response to The Bulldozer and the Big Tent

Someone on a blog I read mentioned that his son, white, got into a special program based on race: In his school system, it made him the only white kid many of the students had ever had a chance to get to know.

Wow.

Posted at June 28, 2007 2:08 PM in response to Supreme Court Undermines Racial Integration- What's Left?

Well, the Supreme Five did select the current occupant of the presidency. So, maybe the executive is an extension of the judicial which is an extension of the executive which nominates all its members. And the Senate can advise and consent, which has meant mostly consenting to the right of the executive to select.

We now see how well that's worked lately.

Obviously, losing the Dem control of Congress didn't do all of this (Thomas and Scalia came in under a Dem Senate, iirc), but it sure helped. Yikes...Thomas, Scalia, Roberts, Alito. The Four Justices of the Apocolypse? And pulling Kennedy right along with them.

Posted at June 28, 2007 2:06 PM in response to Supreme Court Undermines Racial Integration- What's Left?

Link:

http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0303/031203h1.htm

Posted at June 27, 2007 3:41 PM in response to Profile in Courage: EPA Admin Christie Whitman Resigns Over Principle!!!!

There were two fairly high level Foreign Service career employees who resigned, with letters of explanation, over Bush's Iraq Invasion plans.

Second Foreign Service officer resigns in protest over Iraq
By Shane Harris sharris@govexec.com March 12, 2003
A second career diplomat has resigned from the State Department in protest of the Bush administration's policy on Iraq.
John Brown, a veteran of more than two decades in the Foreign Service, informed Secretary of State Colin Powell in a letter Monday that he was leaving the department immediately "because I cannot in good conscience support President Bush's war plans against Iraq." He joins a fellow Foreign Service officer, John Brady Kiesling, who also resigned this month in protest of the administration's policy.
In an interview Wednesday with Government Executive, Brown said the Bush administration is pursuing a narrow-minded strategy in Iraq, jeopardizing relationships with long-time allies around the world.

A third resigned on 3/21/03.

But these were all career employees, not Bush appointees. So, anyone who's resigned in protest who was a Bush appointee? So far, can't think of any.

Posted at June 27, 2007 3:39 PM in response to Profile in Courage: EPA Admin Christie Whitman Resigns Over Principle!!!!

Spork of A Spork in the Drawer--

http://sporkinthedrawer.typepad.com/blog/2007/06/shooting_fish_i.html

--linked to this Richard Cohen column from post-election 2006 (11/20/06), where he explains his changes of heart about the Vietnam War and the Iraq Invasion--he was for both before he was against both, btw. But what is astonishing is his reasoning about the Iraq War:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/20/AR2006112000965.html

...I thought. We are a good country, attempting to do a good thing. In a post-Sept. 11 world, I thought the prudent use of violence could be therapeutic. The United States had the power to change things for the better, and those who would do the changing -- the fighting --

This phrase, "the prudent use of violence," is--and I'm searching here--amazing, shocking, arrogant, cruel, thoughtless, so inside the Beltway...any other reactions?

Posted at June 20, 2007 7:05 AM in response to Richard Cohen Cries for Scooter

I've been turned off to Bernstein's book by his somewhat weird book tour interviews--where he kept saying incredibly outrageous things, then walking them back.

I'm gathering that the book is much more temperate, although, according to Somerby, somewhat thin about her Senate years.

Any comments on those things?

Posted at June 20, 2007 6:48 AM in response to Hillary, Tony Soprano and Carl Bernstein