Sunday, May 07, 2006
the Daily Howler: fascinating analysis
It's often said that a democracy depends on an informed electorate, and Americans have been poorly served by ours. While it has become fairly common to expect politicians to lie, we still depend on the press to accurately report and dig out the truth. During the last election I paid closer-than-normal attention, and using the internet got a very different perspective than ever before. One resource which I turned to again and again was the Daily Howler for its analysis of the press.
For example, there are the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth [sic]. Their baseless attacks on Presidential candidate John Kerry were given wide play in the press, and undoubtedly undermined the combat veteran's chances to persuade more voters to give him their support. How did the nation's press handle this affair? They published the reckless charges without analysis, and barely followed up on the factual counter-claims. In the minds of many Americans, the mud slung by one side was to be considered equal to historical truth, in part because the press wouldn't distinguish between the two.
The pattern was established years before. You would have thought that Al Gore would be a shoo-in for election in 2000 as part of a team that had brought this country to incredible levels of prosperity and security. But there was a fly in the ointment: the nation's press. By the time the election rolled around a years-long war had already been waged against the Vice-President that undermined his credibility in the minds of many voters. Had the press done its job with integrity and honor the outcome might have been very different, for America and the whole world.
And the sad part is, this is the supposedly liberal press we're talking about. The press used to be considered a watch-dog for the people, but I guess it's up to the people to keep a close eye on the press.
For example, there are the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth [sic]. Their baseless attacks on Presidential candidate John Kerry were given wide play in the press, and undoubtedly undermined the combat veteran's chances to persuade more voters to give him their support. How did the nation's press handle this affair? They published the reckless charges without analysis, and barely followed up on the factual counter-claims. In the minds of many Americans, the mud slung by one side was to be considered equal to historical truth, in part because the press wouldn't distinguish between the two.
The pattern was established years before. You would have thought that Al Gore would be a shoo-in for election in 2000 as part of a team that had brought this country to incredible levels of prosperity and security. But there was a fly in the ointment: the nation's press. By the time the election rolled around a years-long war had already been waged against the Vice-President that undermined his credibility in the minds of many voters. Had the press done its job with integrity and honor the outcome might have been very different, for America and the whole world.
And the sad part is, this is the supposedly liberal press we're talking about. The press used to be considered a watch-dog for the people, but I guess it's up to the people to keep a close eye on the press.
# posted by newbie @ 6:32 AM 
Comments:
<< Home
The press coverage of Steven Colbert's appearance and the White House Correspondent's dinner is another example of how they run in fear of people who freely speak the truth, while suckling the teat of the conservative right.
Colbert's routine was hysterically funny, and ripped apart both the President and press who cover him. In character as a right wing Bill O'Reilly clone, he complimented the press for ignoring the truth during the first five years of the Bush administration. He nailed the President to the wall for the war in Iraq, failure to safeguard the environment, and illegally spying on American citizens.
How did the press respond?
Well at first they tried to completely ignore Colbert and pretend he wasn't there at all. As the truth started spreading, despite their best efforts to suppress it, the press went on the attack. They stated that Colbert's routine wasn't newsworthy because it wasn't funny.
The truth is that the press were caught offguard and didn't expect to be called out for being worthless mouthpieces of the Bush administration. Combine that with fear of retaliation from the Bush administration (saying the routine was funny could be grounds to revoke press credentials) and denouncing Colbert seems like an obvious choice to the gutless wonders we call the media.
Post a Comment
Colbert's routine was hysterically funny, and ripped apart both the President and press who cover him. In character as a right wing Bill O'Reilly clone, he complimented the press for ignoring the truth during the first five years of the Bush administration. He nailed the President to the wall for the war in Iraq, failure to safeguard the environment, and illegally spying on American citizens.
How did the press respond?
Well at first they tried to completely ignore Colbert and pretend he wasn't there at all. As the truth started spreading, despite their best efforts to suppress it, the press went on the attack. They stated that Colbert's routine wasn't newsworthy because it wasn't funny.
The truth is that the press were caught offguard and didn't expect to be called out for being worthless mouthpieces of the Bush administration. Combine that with fear of retaliation from the Bush administration (saying the routine was funny could be grounds to revoke press credentials) and denouncing Colbert seems like an obvious choice to the gutless wonders we call the media.
# posted by 
: 11:41 AM
: 11:41 AM << Home
