OCCOM BILL wrote:They labeled Dean Crazy to distract the public. No, they capitalized on an unfortunate gaffe on Dean's part.
They'd labelled Dean "crazy" long before the Scream. They didnt like him, he was an outsider, he didnt play court to the established media, pundits and polit-professionals, he went outside all that. So - always looking for a narrative - they happily settled on the "crazy radical" narrative. Happily - and lazily, since any investigation into his tenure as Governor would have told them they were wrong.
OCCOM BILL wrote:I also think your thesis confuses cause and effect.
They made fun of Edward's hair to distract the public. No; he had pretty hair so they made fun of it.
Oh, Edwards is vain allright - there was something to get him on. My point would be that:
a) The media pundits - out of laziness or political journalists' perennial, horizon-narrowing existence in the Beltway acquarium - tend to endless go for this kind of thingemy - so much easier to fit between two lengthy commercial breaks than a discussion of recent events in Fallujah, too (reason #3).
This is
not, I'd argue, a ratings-driven thing; if anything, its the kind of endless Beltway bickering that regular people turn off from. I'm sure they'd be more interested in news about things that actually directly impact their life - unemployment, gas prices, whatever - but a report about the impact of unemployment costs more money and effort to produce than just inviting your regular pundit into the studio to discuss "Edwards' hair and vanity and how they will influence the upcoming debate" or such nonsense.
Just because the audience might be mildly turned off or, rather, bored by this kind of thing, doesnt, however, mean that it doesnt influence them. Nobody likes commercials either, but there's a reason why business keep buying airtime by the boatload anyway: they
work.
My point here being: there is nothing inherently "logical" or "natural" in TV interviewers and pundits -
not in satire shows, but in regular news shows - going on about how Kerry "looks French" for a full year. It was not a spontaneous remark - it doesnt come out of nowhere: note how both the "Breck girl" thing and the "looking French" thing were traced back, by MM, to their first appearance -- anonymously quoted Republican officials in a NYT story. These memes are not just taken up by satirists whose job it is to "make fun" of folk - its the news interviewers and commentators who kept going on about it. And its not a question of a pundit or two having a huh-realisation about it that went as fast as it came up; Edwards' Breck girl hair, Kerry's "looking French" were pursued for month after month after month.
This was why the MM piece was so instructive. There would be nothing 'only logical' or 'merely natural' about the Hussein part of Obama's name coming up more than an initial first one or two "hey, gosh" times either.
b) Selectivity. Dem candidates, in the media's eyes, are always slightly feminized - Kerry, Edwards, Gore, Dukakis, theyve all been there. Dem candidates are ridiculed, belittled. Dem candidates are flip-floppers.
These narratives dont appear from nowhere. They are not mere observations. How many times did Bush get labelled a flip-flopper over the various things he reversed course on? It doesnt fit the traditional stereotype to call those rugged Republicans flip-floppers, so any attempt to put it forward is ignored by the lazy pundits.
These are - see the Media Matters piece - often narratives launched first by smart Republican strategists, and then parroted endlessly by lazy, shallow media talking heads, grabbed at as a familiar narrative that is easily jotted down and sold. Half of it probably happens subconcsiously.
Bush, obviously, has been widely ridiculed for his (alleged) stupidity across the media -
after he was elected. In the 2000 race, he got the easier end of the stick, compared with Gore. And otherwise? McCain, Dole, Bush Sr, Powell, Forbes, Giuliani? Are/were they lacking in such personal character flaws as Edwards' vanity or Kerry's elitism? Doubtful - would be quite the coincidence, wouldnt it? But have we heard endless memes about them?
I am NOT alleging any "conspiracy", thank you for not putting that in my mouth. I am trying to show the lay-out of habitual mechanisms, made up of part smear-machinery, part laziness, part commercialism, part Beltway preoccupations, part culture war, part lack of critical stamina. The nauseous proclivity of the media to ever again be baited into endlessly parroting and rechewing the latest trivial personality meme rather than doing its job and reporting on the hard news and actual issues, which works against the Democrats time and again and is aptly exploited by the Republican machine, is the product of the confluence of these things.
OCCOM BILL wrote:They use Obama's name to associate him with Saddam. No, his name just happens to be the same. Naturally, this hasn't gone unnoticed.
In short, you are missing the point that MediaMatters pointed out here:
Quote:Anonymity should not be invoked for a trivial comment, or to make an unremarkable comment appear portentous. But Nagourney not only granted his Republican source anonymity for the purpose of sneering that Kerry "looks French," he placed the quote immediately after a reference to Republican National Chairman Marc Racicot, who actually is of French descent!
In a sane world, Nagourney would have left his anonymous source's sophomoric name-calling out of his story. Or perhaps he would have noted the absurdist hypocrisy of Racicot's party attacking an opponent for looking French.
The fact that the media talking heads fell into the "looks French" trap, not just once, but endlessly, is more than a mere reflection of Kerry's "European stature" (whatever that is), which would have only warranted the odd mention or two. The endless repetition points to laziness; the original source points to a hardly spontaneous origin; and the failure of anyone to note that you know, the National Chairman of the party that was going on about Kerry "looking French" actually
was French, points to selectivity.
You dont see any of this. You think that the Hussein thing is just a "innocent remark of something odd" thing. OK, if nobody talks about it anymore in four months time, you'll have been proven right. But having previously bought into the whole Iraq thing, back when you lambasted every liberal around for being naive and/or defeatist when they sounded the warnings that everyone's echoing now, should perhaps give you pause... perhaps we weren't the naive ones.
I'd wager 75% of the country doesn't remember hearing the "Breck girl" or "looks French" things even once. The "stupid-liar" thing on the other hand, I'd wager they can't remember the last time they went 3 days without hearing. I can not imagine what's led you to believe that this is a Republican thing. I'll grant you the Republicans have done a better job of it for the last two and a half decades... but your insistence that it's Republican domain is very uncharacteristic of... well... Nimh.
You guys sure are sure enjoying that little I told you so. Perhaps you'll remember that I'm not among those who thought it would go smooth and only ever considered Iraq a good start. I remain convinced it was work that needed to be done, and further believe there's much left to do, so you might consider saving that sentiment for someone more worthy ( or convinced it was a mistake). I will admit the going has been rougher than I thought it would be, but, still infinitely smoother than many liberals predicted. Remember all the WW3 predictions?
)
