The McLaughlin Group: Is The Media Smitten With McCain?
By Nicole Belle Saturday Jun 28, 2008 9:00pm
Download | play 
Download | play (h/t Heather)
Gee, ya think? The McLaughlin Group panel ponders the deep and abiding love the media has for Republican presidential candidate John McCain, affectionately known to him as "his base".
True love. The press has found it. Smitten by the Republican nominee, John McCain, maverick, here's a sampling of journalists saluting McCain in their own words in recent days:
Kind of like a Martin Luther [Chris Matthews - Hardball]
A man of unshakable character, willing to stand up for his convictions [R.W. Apple, NY Times]
An affable man of zealous, unbending beliefs [Richard Cohen, The Washington Post]
The hero who still does things his own way [Richard Cohen, The Washington Post]
Rises above the pack-eloquent, as only a prisoner of war can be [David Nyhan, The Boston Globe]
The perfect candidate to deal with what challenges we face as a country. [Mika Brzezinski, MSNBC]
Blunt, unyielding, deploying his principles, what he does do is what he's always done, play it as straight as possible. [Terry Moran, Nightline]
Wordly-wise and witty, determined to follow the facts to the exclusion of ideology. [Michael Hirsh, Newsweek]
Willing to defy his own party and forge compromise. [Michael Hirsh, Newsweek]
Pragmatic in the service of the national interest, rises to passion when he believes that America's best values are at stake. [Michael Hirsh, Newsweek]
The maverick candidate still. [Terry Moran, Nightline]
It's enough to make you lose your dinner, I tell you. Michelle Bernard claims that they are just as exultant over Obama, and Pat Buchanan insists the McCain Media love affair is "over. Done. Gone." I'm not sure I'm buying that just yet...
Login or Register to post comments.
This shit makes me want to vomit! All of these commentors have MONEY! They would vote for Caligula if he promised them less taxes! What a friggin joke!
Well I'm convinced! He really IS a great guy. **Barf**
These pathetic people actually went to "Journalism School" to write disgustingly simple stupid shit like that. I will never trust the MSM again.
It’s enough to make you lose your dinner...
Well. that is, if you were fortunate enough to have dinner tonight.
What kills me is that some American believe this crap! These aren't journalists, they are elitist snobs who get Bush's tax cuts and feed us tripe!
these assjackets make themselves out to be a bigger joke than ever.
then they lie.
it's perfect to see buchanan on the panel; that gives it so much more credibility.
Another Martin Luther would actually be a very bad idea as a leader. Martin Luther was a nasty piece of work, and was the prototype for Hitler in terms of German treatment of Jews. He was also a religious fanatic with a messianic sense of duty to create his divine world, and who betrayed the peasants of Germany inspired by his works. Luther did far more harm than help in the long run, all these Fundies on TV are the bastard great-great grandchildren of his movement. Damn Luther and may his soul burn in the pits of Hell, for bringing the death and destruction the Protestants have brought in their wake, not just in Europe, but in North America and South Africa, and by inspiration, in China. Whenever someone praises Martin Luther, they're either ignorant or stupid.
Fawning synchophants toss rose petals at his feet as he conives to ascend the throne in the abscence of all inspection.
I'm touched.
Anyone who says Obama is a media darling ask them this:
Name 5 negative stories about McCain in the mainstream media.
Now name 10 negative stories about Obama in the mainstream media.
Explain how a 'media darling' has 10 negative stories in the press and is still a media darling?
General_Rennenkampf @ 7:
Amen
Reverse psycology.
Ron @ 11:
Reverse FISA!
I'm waching CNN right now and it looks like Wesley Clark is going to PROVE that the Main Streem ME-dia loves McCain. His simple comment about how McCain's military experience DOES NOT qualify him to be president... that's going to bring people out of the woodwork to pour ADORATION on to McCain.
Of course... Clark is correct. McCain was a pilot who got shot down and was taken prisoner. What the hell dows THAT have to do with managing billion dollar budgets, ego-maniacs, and feisty world leaders? Nothing.
xoites defends Constituion @ 12:
Keep Tsarism in Russia! Vote American, Vote Obama in November!
Abusive and disrespectful to his wife... a true womanizer... dumped his first wife for a younger and richer model... (Cats r Flyfishn, http://pennsylvaniaforchange.wordpress.com)
CowBoy Bob in Austin @ 13:
Military service, I think, is seen by a lot of people as military people are honorable and can work with others. From what I've seen, a lot of military types are neither. Why killing someone works as a qualification for office works, I dunno. Weren't we supposed to have abandoned that as a leadership qualification after that failure called Maximinius Thrax in the Third Century? After all, Thrax was about as well-qualified for Emperor of the Roman Empire as McPapen was for the Presidency...
Comrade Rou @ 10:
Well, Chris Matthews is just a Catholic - so he's just jealous that the Lutherans have it a lot easier at church on Sunday....
I am convinced after the FISA debacle by Obama, that this is just a passion play. We the people are digging Obama's BULLSHIT
and the media has to root for the born loser McCain. The final act in this theater of the absurd will be in November and we have
several different possible endings...
1. Obama wins in a landslide
2. Obama is killed by a "terrorist" right before the election, Clinton jumps in but McCain wins
3. Massive election fraud elects McCain a la 2000/2004
4. Bush nukes Iran, World War III starts and elections are suspended indefinately
5. Obama picks Clinton for VP, Obama wins election and is killed by a "terrorist" Clinton is president, appoints Feinstein as VP
6. Massive scandal with Obama having long love affair with Scarlet Johansen ends his chances to win
7. Dems say fuck the lying Obama and write in Kucinich, Repubs say fuck the idiot McCain and write in Ron Paul, RonPaul wins
and appoints Kucinich as his VP.
CowBoy Bob in Austin @ 13:
Has anyone ever done a psycological profile of McCain similiar to Dr. Franks on Bush?
General_Rennenkampf @ 16:
Grant was a military man. His Presidency was quite memorable.
Anybody recall it?
Eisenhower became President and warned us about the Military Industrial Complex as he was leaving office.
Both of those men, by the way achieved a slighly higher rank than McCain did. It didn't seem to help much.
Amitola @ 17:
Catholics usually hate Luther and the Protestants. The Catholics didn't like it when Luther left their church to start his own, creating a snowball effect that led to 28,000 denominations in 500 years. Luther is a prime example of unintended consequences and superstition. That Chris Matthews should use him as a positive example for a 300-million-strong, multi-ethnic, multi-religious empire is quite worrisome. First, that he's that stupid, and second, that people actually think Luther accomplished much that was good.
xoites defends Constituion @ 20:
by far the finest administrator to ever be president was jefferson, an elitist intellectual scholar scientist pot grower atheist...
oh how far we have progressed...hmmmm
McCain has reversed almost all of his positions, so pick on and at one time he agreed with you.
xoites defends Constituion @ 20:
Ah, yes, Grant. The one President that made Harding and Dubya look like rank amateurs. Not a good example.
Eisenhower is very overrated. Put him up against a general the quality of Budenny, he'dve run off screaming with his tail between his legs. He fought the dregs of the Nazi army at a time the USSR was fighting and winning battles that make the entire Western Front seem puny.
Plain and simple, none of these media pundits would have risen to the top of the Corporate Media if they did not parrot what their bosses want of them and shill for the Republican party.
I've got another little two-cent's worth about the new McCain Camp Talking Points Memo... regarding McCain's "What's good for the Country... not the Party" position on his FLIP-FLOPS.
Everybody is sucking this krap up... without considering the following:
The Republican has specialized on policy issues in recent years that have been TERRIBLE FOR THE COUNTRY. So McCain takes an opposing popsition, simply because he does not want to support his party line!
From a far RIGHT point of view, that makes he a "maverick."
From a "CENTER" point of view, that's just him covering his ass.
I could only believe that if I knew what his convictions were... he keeps changing his convictions more frequently than an obsessive-complusive washes their hands.
marko @ 22:
No, Jefferson was unrealistic. Hamilton had the right sense of how the US would develop. And Jefferson also owned slaves and only freed the ones he'd fathered...after he died. Jefferson was also an unapologetic racist. So, no, I don't consider him to have been a good leader. Washington remains the only semi-decent leader of the US, and he has the stains of slavery and his actions in the Whiskey Rebellion and against the Indians against him.
CowBoy Bob in Austin @ 26:
And from my point of view it makes it difficult to sleep at night for fear he will win the election.
I need to read up on Mexico.
Tastes like chicken.
[Rachel Ray, 30-minute Meals]Presidential debates prediction:
We'll finish watching, shaking our heads at how pathetic McCain's rambling, simplistic, and contradictory responses were, how Obama creamed him on facts and logic and oratory capability.
And the MSM will subsequently gush forthwith ad nauseum over how McCain "won" the debate.
General_Rennenkampf @ 28:
washington ripped off the veterans in one of history's least known mega scandals!!!!!
The MSM are just nasty whores. After eight years of Hell, the people can clearly see McVomit is simply an extension of President Homicide. The media knows this lopsided race is really all but over but they need to create the false premise that it's "competitive". Obama vs McBush is more about the MSM sluts desperately trying to squeeze out a few extra ratings numbers. The facts and truth don't mean jack shit to these people.
I'm the first person to get on the media on their fawning of John McCain, but didn't R.W. Apple die in 2006? That hardly makes his comment recent.
marko @ 32:
Yup. People look at the Founders like they were immune to the corruption of today, when all of them were involved in stuff that sometimes makes today's scandals tame by comparison.
General_Rennenkampf @ 21:
I've only had one response for people like Matthews when they stary regaling Luther as a great man. Oliver Cromwell.
Left&Left @ 33:
Somehow i feel this quote should be saved for posterior. :)
the more they try to convince me the less i believe it
maybe if i trade my contrarian hat for my tin foil hat i'll see it differently.......there's a better chance this military
grandpa figure is going to set back the middle class even further........the NEOCONS had their cycle it's our turn...if
you think the constitution has been breached just wait
if mccain gets in office
General_Rennenkampf @ 28:
Well the greatest military man to have become president ( actually governor) of another country was Toussaint Louverture.
In a recent Washington Post news story, Karl Vick wrote:
"Only days after calling for an end to moratorium on off-shore
drilling, senator *bravely* visits site of the worst derrick spill in
U.S. history."
Bravely? Really? What ever happened to objective journalism? I think "brave" could have been removed without losing anything from the story.
Gretchen @ 36:
How many people remember the one time that English-speaking Fundies ruled a nation? How many more realize that that little experiment is one reason why Christianity is on the decline in the UK? Christianity has more than enough names of blood on its hands. Cromwell against the Irish was genocidal, all because the Irish were the wrong kind of Christian.
Comrade Rou @ 39:
He was, I think, never ruler of an independent Haiti. He was a great man, but he never saw his nation become independent.
Just this morning on Meet the Press Chuck Todd talked about the Obama decision on public financing, saying it could be used against him...mention of John McCain and his primary campaign financing shenanigans...gee, I guess I must've missed that....
The elitist fucker known as john mccain owes his soul and station in life to a white hat that saved his ass when he was stationed at NASJAX. Having driven his Corvette to Jacksonville Beach to party while Carol, his first wife, was home with the kids, he got drunk and started a fight. The 1st Class Gunnersmate on Shore Patrol recogonized the drunken sailor that the Police had detained as Admiral McCain's son and convinced the cops not to press charges.
Of course John McInsain will never remember that, just like he doesn't remember wet-starting his airplane's engine that resulted in 130+ deaths. What excuse besides age can he give for not remembering these things? None, he just lies and will say it never happened. I tend to believe the sober Gunnersmate story over that of a drunk who can't remember what happened that night.
General_Rennenkampf @ 41:
Unfortunately not enough remember. I also like to use Cromwell as one of the best examples of why we need separation of church and state.
I do wish my history knowledge was better, but my degrees were in music and that leaves one little time to pursue other interests, intellectual or otherwise. It does not give me an excuse to stay ignorant.
Prairie Sunshine @ 43:
Someone should make a commercial promoting John McCain and then half way through in a really fast low voice mention the side effects just in the same manner that they do in drug commercials.
"John McCain should only be taken as a Senator. Never take with higher office. Side effects may include broadening or prolonged war. Flashes of temper and involuntary outbursts of 'c**t' have been noted. Keep out of reach of direct criticism. Degrades quickly in direct light. Never take on the advice of a Corporate Media Putz. Consult a therapist if you vote for him."
After reading what all of these so called insiders have to say, makes me wonder if Mccain has to do any campaigning at all, they're doing it for him. He's getting free tv time every day if you listen to these chumps. These fake reporters or whatever, are in the pockets of corporate media. The only time they will ever say anything bad about him is if they catch him pushing somebody into oncoming traffic on tv.
future headline....McCain snaps and push the button, nations best interest or temper tantrum.
ya know @ 46:
He said he was going to count on the media and they haven't let him down.
xoites defends Constituion @ 46:
Beautiful!
Check out southern Germany as well. Friendly people, food is fine and the beer divine. Right now that's where our escape hatch leads to.
xoites defends Constituion @ 46:
General_Rennenkampf @ 21:
Mostly I agree, but the worry is not about whether Mathews is stupid, is it? Not precisely, I would say. The statement is probably more a shallow comparison on the basis of a single commonality. Its a very, very unfortunate comparison, I agree. But my worry is about how intentional all of this is.
I mean, it could be very smart of him to use this shallow and unidimensional simile. He might be part of an intentional effort to make this old geezer interesting, even sacred to the masses. After all, most Christians are Protestant, and view Luther favorably, indeed, many of them quite favorably. The less they know about him, the more favorably they are likely to view him, if they have even heard of him before. Thus an appeal to Luther...well, as a matter of fact, that is second only to comparing him to Christ, in a way.
Now that, my friends, is worrisome.
You know, 99.9% of the times I can't see conspiracy theories in things. This is the 0.01% time. Is there a (near) all encompassing propaganda machine that these 'journalists'are mere tools of? Or is it simply Journalist groupthink? Mass delusion which affects writers? LSD in the water supply?
What? What? What is causing so many people to spew forth anti-reality?
Saint Augustine @ 44:
What does "wet-starting" an engine mean?
BC @ 53:
That is the prize question, I think.
Dr B @ 54:
are you talking about the uber disaster on the intrepid?
BC @ 53:
It is the will of people who make a lot of money to pay less in taxes. Media Putz's make a lot of money. John McCain wants the rich to pay fewer taxes.
If that was all there was to it it would be dishonest journalism. There is much more but just think about that for a moment. If that assumption is true these people should have their broadcasting licenses revoked. They are not serving in the public interest and should be restricted to pay per view.
Dr B @ 54:
That means his depends sprung a leak.
Ron @ 58:
found some stuff, it was the USS Forrestal
I found this:
marko @ 59:
You mean it wassn't a leak in his depends? Maybe that was a wet fart.
I tried twice to post this without any luck.
Wet statrting an engine, according to the site i found is when a pilot allows fuel to pool before igniting the engine. It makes a really loud bang. It is also very dangerous.
Dangerous enough to kill 130 people and have your dad the Admiral come get you before an investigation can be made.
I'm amazed. This is not a man of impeccable character. This is a man who calls his wife, his wife, mind you, the most despicable word in the world. That's a pretty good indication how he feels about women. As to his POW status, he was a lieutenant -- the lowest ranking officer -- who was unlucky. He was shot down. That's all. And though I cannot imagine the horror of surviving what he did, it's not like he staged some great escape from his captors. Additionally, you must understand the personality traits of a Navy pilots. They are arrogant, controlling and egotistical. He is also a man of uneven temperament. I'm amazed and afraid we're going to go down the same road we did in 2000.
Nancy @ 62:
He crashed five planes on his own, blew up 24 on the deck of the Forrestal (not to mention a big hole in the deck AND took out the bridge) to call this man unlucky is most charitable.
xoites defends Constituion @ 57:
The "much more" you speak of is, IMHO, who owns the media. These corporations are making much more money then the shills. As in most questions of motivation where the government is involved, follow the money trail.
Factor in the state of our educational system and the pop culture mentality, add in the good old American arrogance, a tendency towards ignorance about all things international and general laziness and we've set ourselves up for the mess we're in. Even if the administration would do the unthinkable (or what once was at any rate) and start a third war in Iran, we still have more of our population more concerned with the plot line of The Hills and American Idol than with what is going on in DC. Recipe for disaster.
Gretchen @ 64:
I was trying to be gentle. :)
"Kind of like a Martin Luther"?
For all his faults didn't Luther had the balls to nail on a major Bishops door a list of reasons why (according to him) the Catholic Church was no longer Christian?
And did he not do this in an era when the Catholic Church had the power to boil a person alive for "crimes" lesser than what Luthor had done?
Wet starting a jet engine is when the pilot turns on the fuel pump early, pumping more fuel than needed to start the engine to pool resulting in the situation when the starter is engaged the excess fuel explodes and shoots out of the jet engine rearward. If you are sitting on an aiprort tarmac, no big deal, but on an aircraft carrier where planes are much closer to each other it can be dangerous.
Now if you were a hot-shot-son-of-an-admiral-pilot and a plane from a different squadron happened to be directly behind you, wet starting your engine will throw a ball of flame towards the plane behind you. Now was it the wet start flame ball that was responsible for the 1000 lb. bomb to fall off the wing of the plane behind him or the fact that the hangers were only rated for 500 lb. bombs? I don't know, but if McNasty was a real professional then he would have never even thought about wet startying his engine would he?
Saint Augustine @ 67:
After further reading i have to correct an error i made earlier. 167 men were killed. Thirty five died later from their injuries.
McCain seems to have done more damage to an Aircraft Carrier of any nation on the planet than anyone since World War II.
Cal @ 66:
Luther was a notorious Jew-hater. His writings and teachings urged the rights of Jews to be limited, their homes destroyed and assets seized. Luther's example set up an entire legacy of Protestant intolerance that rivaled the Catholics he criticized.
Not exactly someone I would like to be compared to.
Like Martin Luther? What? Chronically constipated and flatulent?
The comparison to Luther really caught my eye (because i'm such a nitpicker and sucker for these kind of things)...
My mock Tweety-McCain endorsement:
"Vote for this guy, he reminds me of Martin Luther... you know, that upstanding German chap who wanted to do away with those 'whoring Jews,' but not taking everything from them and burning their synagogues to the ground."
McCain '08: Jew-free, it's the way to be! HA! Fair enough!
marko @ 18:
I like this option!
Even today (well, Sunday) Chuck Todd and Tom Brokaw kept calling him a maverick and saying how he voted against his party the past 6 years. These people KNOW better. They aren't smitten or stupid they are getting the talking points handed down to them.
ws84 @ 74:
That is absolutely right. Cold and calculated Mr Brokaw. His favorite players in "the Greatest Generation" must be Quisling and Lavalle - with a bit of Goebbels and Lord Haw-Haw thrown in...
I can see how the media overlooks McCains's flipflops, but how can they ignore his admitted collaboration (google McCain traitor). As for Cindy, sympathize with the addiction, ok, but overlook stealing drugs from a charity?
At least regular folk are seeing things more clearly (than the still lovestruck and adoring msm), "maverick" "...didn't even make the list this year when voters were asked by the Pew Research Center to sum up McCain in a single word. "Old" got the most mentions."
That's not even the half of it. Here is a terrific op-ed piece by Neal Gabler that appeared in the Los Angeles Times. The only point he missed is the compelling bottom line motivation for the so-called "liberal media" to say whatever they can to help Republicans get elected; bad news sells better than good news. Consequently, media SELLS more of their product when Republicans are in office.
BTW, did anyone catch Meet The Press today where Arnold Schwazenneger revealed to Tom Brokaw that, when he first ran for Governor of California, Tim Russert told him privately that if he (Schwarzenneger) won he (Russert) was going to make sure the law was changed so he could some day run for President, too? Some unbiased NBC News Washington Bureau Chief there.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-op-gabler29-2008jun29,...
Cannibal liberals
Why do left-leaning journalists eat their own?
By Neal Gabler
June 29, 2008
Oh, those crazy journalists. You know the ones I'm talking about. The one who described John Kerry as "French-looking" and made up some silly locution to show how out of touch he was -- "Who among us doesn't like NASCAR?" -- even though he never said it. Or the one who taunted Al Gore for claiming that he and his wife, Tipper, were the models for "Love Story" when Gore said no such thing. Or the one who described Bill Clinton as an "overweight band boy" and Hillary Rodham Clinton as "inauthentic." Or the one who tabbed Barack Obama "Obambi" and said that when visiting him at his office, she felt like Ingrid Bergman in "The Bells of St. Mary's," having to teach a bullied schoolboy how to box. Or the one who kept pressing Obama at a debate to fess up to his relationship with a 1960s terrorist.
Of course, what do you expect from right-wing nuts who will do and say anything to demonize Democrats? Except for one thing. All these examples -- and there are hundreds more -- were uttered not by Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, David Brooks or any of the other Republican mouthpieces in our newspapers and on our airwaves. They were all said or written by liberal journalists, and even in a few cases by onetime Democratic operatives turned journalists, such as Chris Matthews and George Stephanopoulos. Indeed, the worst offender by far, the "Ingrid Bergman" in the example above, has been the New York Times' liberal columnist Maureen Dowd, who has never met a Democrat she hasn't disparaged.
And that is the point. Democrats wading into this year's rough media surf don't really have to fear the right wing because the right has staked out its own beach with its own folks and not many Democratic voters go there. For instance, only 7% of regular Fox News watchers voted for Kerry for president in 2004, according to Democratic pollster Mark Mellman. What the Democrats generally and Obama specifically have to fear is what the liberal media -- pundits, TV commentators and even some reporters at reputedly leftish newspapers -- will wind up doing to them. That's because, far from delivering the kind of spirited to-the-death defense that even the widely unpopular President Bush gets from most right-wing commentators, the liberal media almost always eat their own.
It wasn't always this way. As recently as the 1970s, there were liberal columnists like Carl Rowan and Charles Bartlett who defended the liberal point of view, conservative columnists like James J. Kilpatrick and Roland Evans and Robert Novak who stood up for conservatives and their principles, and those like David Broder and James Reston who stayed in the middle -- and the right and the left were equally forceful. But as conservatism gained strength during the Nixon administration, it perpetrated a powerful idea that remains an article of its faith and that has served as one of its most effective political weapons: the idea that the media are really a liberal cabal. This was the essence of Richard Nixon's and Spiro Agnew's war against the media. How could Nixon possibly get a fair shake when the pointy-headed journalists in New York, Washington and Los Angeles were against him?
Liberals being liberals, it only took this nudge to lead to some soul-searching. As Rick Perlstein describes it in his book "Nixonland," Joseph Kraft, an old, unregenerate liberal close to the Kennedys, was among the first to wonder aloud if Nixon wasn't right.Maybe the news media had wandered too far from heartland American traditions and values of which Nixon presented himself as exemplar. Maybe journalists had become too insular, snooty and condescending. These kinds of ruminations tended to push the left-wing media toward the center as their way of proving that they were honest, objective and not beholden to anyone. This certainly accounted for the relentless bashing of Bill Clinton by the liberal press during his administration.
But if the fear of seeming to be overly partisan was generated by the right, there was another fear the left itself created: the fear that in an increasingly ironic and youth-oriented society, it would never do to be earnest. It might be seen as square and uncool. This may have accounted for the left's attitude of snarky superiority when it came to Gore, whom many hammered for being square, and Kerry, whom they ridiculed for being stilted, too sincere and elitist. For some left-wing media stars -- Dowd especially -- earnestness was a sin. They preferred -- or at the very least respected -- candidates who knew how to manipulate them, who knew how to game the system, who were cleverly insincere, even if those candidates were ideologically anathema. In 2000, Bush got much better press than Gore -- from the left. For instance, the idea that you should want to have a beer with a candidate -- a test that Gore supposedly failed -- was spread largely by the liberal media, especially Matthews but also by Joe Klein, who wrote a book about Democratic elitism.
Yet there's a deeper reason than cultural or political fear that may be driving the liberal media to eat their own: professional fears of marginalization. At the same time that the U.S. was lurching rightward politically, the ethos of the media was changing. Thirty-five years ago, journalists perceived themselves as public servants whose mission was to inform their readers and viewers. The best reporters simply got the facts right. The story was the star.
In the mid-1970s, that began to change, for a host of reasons. Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein proved that reporters could be stars. Such writers as Tom Wolfe, Norman Mailer and Hunter Thompson won fame and riches by slathering their personalities all over their reportage. A general cultural trend toward celebrity bled into journalism. The rise of cable television generated a 24-hour news cycle and personalities to go with it. And, perhaps most of all, the news media had to compete for the public's attention with other available entertainment. In that competition, the news media quickly saw the advantage of star journalists, and some journalists quickly saw the advantages of being stars rather than nameless fact-collectors.
So what does this have to do with an illiberal streak in liberal journalists? Just this: One of the surest paths to stardom in movies, television and politics has always been the guise of Everyman -- the person who purports to be one of us and with whom we can readily identify. That guise became even more effective once Nixon had successfully rebranded the Democratic Party from one that protected the working class to one that seemed increasingly elitist and divorced from American mainstream values. Combine the two and the result seems almost inevitable: the Everyman journalist for whom career advancement trumps political loyalty.
What we get, then, is a bunch of wealthy journalistic stars bending themselves into pretzels pretending that they are down-to-earth working stiffs vastly different from the politicians, at least from the highfalutin' liberal ones they cover. This was certainly a large part of the appeal of the late Tim Russert, who frequently mentioned that he was a poor Catholic kid from Buffalo, N.Y., where his father was a sanitation worker. Matthews and Dowd, among others, have also prattled on demagogically about their humble beginnings even as their stars have risen and they have become even less connected to the rest of us.
And it is the liberal politicians who continue to pay the price for the liberal journalists' self-promotion cum self-preservation. Beating up on well-educated, well-spoken liberals is probably the surest means of proving one's Everyman credentials and protecting one's personal brand without also, by the way, losing one's Beltway bona fides. Going on about faith and religion is another.
Which is all the more reason why Democrats' expectations of a favorable November should be tempered by the cold reality that Obama will be taking heavy fire from both sides. After all, hasn't left-leaning Newsweek already told us that this election pits arugula against beer?
Neal Gabler is the author of many books, including "Walt Disney: The Triumph of the American Imagination" and "Life: the Movie: How Entertainment Conquered Reality."
xoites defends Constituion @ 69:
Well the old geezer can't flip flop on this one.
Who the F*ck are these nitwits... especially the old codger barking out random assumptions pulled from his ass! WTF is this crap.... who buys this old fart, McLaughable, and his hackery? I mean, I remember one time he had a foremost expert/biographer on Einstein and spent the whole time mumbling wildly stupid questions about "science" that even the gracious guest was having trouble answering with a straight face (I, on the other hand, was laughing because it was so goddamn bad). That was the first, and last time, I've ever sat through his "show."
This is the worst crap imaginable. Even worse than Bill-O..... at least with O-Reilly, there's some visceral pleasure in refuting his talking points under your breath. With McLaughlin, you're left to pound your head into the wall and cry as random, inscrutable sentences trickle forth from your tv set.........
John McLaughlin is the host of the show, The McLaughlin Group, who presented this evidence to his panel that the so-called "liberal media" was madly in love with John McCain. Those aren't McLaughlin's quotes or those of anyone on this particular week's panel. They are the evidence he presented to his panel for the sake of discussion.
His panel had a hard time believing these were recent comments made by the "liberal media" about John McCain.
It was up to John McLaughlin to set them straight about it and he did.
most americans in their hearts are imperialists and many are war mongers
yes the media is smitten with him
he talks their language
war and deregulated capitalism and free trade and cheap labor
As if I needed another reason to be disgusted with the American media.
I think the list is up to 1000 now, and it's growing at the speed of light. 186,000 miles per second, baby.
Willful blindness. We've been seeing a lot of this lately.
Nancy @ 63:
One correction: in the Navy, a lieutenant is NOT the lowest ranking officer; that would be an ensign. Having said that, all McCain's promotions subsequent to his being shot down came as a result of his being a POW. While one is being held as a POW, promotions are automatic. The individual is automatically promoted as soon as enough time has passed for that individual to be eligible for promotion. Stay in captivity long enough, become a Naval captain - simple.
The CORPORATE CONTROLED MEDIA will see that McCain is installed in the WHITE HOUSE by HOOK OR CROOK. McCain has all of the right people backing him LIE-berman and friends, and Big Money, and the biggest of all the CORPORATE CONTROLED MEDIA, We the People do not stand a chance.
Nancy @ 63:
2nd Lieutenent in the army/AF/Marines is the lowest rank. In the navy the lowest is ensign. A lieutenent in the navy is the equivilent of a captain in the other branches of the military.
I read that list of comments by the media and just started laughing. McCain is none of things.
What planet is this? Who are these people talking about? Can that much irony truly be unconscious? I guess we weren't happy with a Jet Jockey wannabe and decided to go whole hog and get the real thing - wonderful, the Great Santini as POTUS. There was a time when Bismarch said that "God watches over fools, drunkards and the United States of America", perhaps He's gotten bored and has turned his gaze to other things that show more promise. The Fouth Estate has gone over to the "other side" - its a form of advertisement.
More on McCain here...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WztMGVY0zts
McCain the flip-flopper on promises, water-boarding and more:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=s4-PqAXRIRU&feature=user
http://youtube.com/watch?v=axrgFGZYFzE
http://youtube.com/watch?v=WztMGVY0zts
ReelBusy @ 91:
obama is a much bigger flip-flopper AND he is incompetent, too.
blackjack @ 86:
He certainly has my vote.
Dr B @ 52:
Actually, most Christians worldwide belong to these three sects: Roman Catholicism, Anglicanism, and Eastern Orthodoxy. None of them are derived from Martin Luther's teachings, and all of them individually are larger than any Protestant denomination. Luther isn't even a theological concern for Anglicans or Eastern Orthodox, who both look on him as the friar that split the church. Catholics are a minority in the US, yes, but worldwide they account for half of all Christians. That's 1 billion or so Catholics.
If you had said "most American Christians are Protestant", I would agree.
I'm no fan of McBush, but has anyone checked these quotations? David Nyhan hasn't worked for the Boston Globe for years. Some are probably culled from the 2000 election.
Where is the Liberal Media? what channel is it on? what is the name of their paper? because I can't find it...our media is completely supportive of the right and give very little to the left. If someone can please point to where the liberal media is I will tune in. I have been looking for it, and outside of small publications like the Nation I can't find shit worth of liberal media.
I do love how if the media (whatever channel it is) doesn't tow the line 100% for the Republicans then they are being leftist. But when they do tow the line 100% they are not being call conservative news! actually they should be called Criminal Media or at the very least Derelict Media, because that is what they are!
Hey it's simple mcsame is going to lose because more and more people everyday are starting to see what I have been seeing for a while now.
republican = insanity!
pure simple to the point republicans are batshit crazy, no different then the taliban or alqeada except republicans are much more cowardly.
Does anyone wonder why I refuse to own, much less watch, a television?
I don't disagree with the writer's premise, but the quotes ought to be updated (and I'm sure the same kind still are being made, so it should be fairly easy). Nyhan and Apple, for instance have been dead for several years.
The MSM have also had a love-affair with Obama and Clinton.
I would've much prefered a Biden or a Dodd, and Edwards.
Well, I've lost all respect for Mika Brzezinski. This morning ("Morning Joe", MSNBC) she was gushing that McCain's experience as a fighter pilot and POW was an unquestionable qualification as POTUS.
Where was any semblance of support like this for Kerry back in '04?
Jesus Christ! What the hell is this? A film trailer???
Yeah, that's what America needs, another "Pope" McBush.
Martin Luther was correct about Catholics.
Oh for fuck's sake...
The MSM is totally in McCain's pocket because Obama is not one of the 'inner circle'. McCain scratched their backs with the FCC and the reporters return the favor.
Reporters who repeat the lies such as "maverick" should be treated/labeled as McCain surrogates.
is the media smitten with john mccain? Well, they'd have to get out of that line waiting to fellate him in order to answer that, but ask whoever is currently at the front of the line, and i'm sure their answer will be a firm and emphatic "hrmnrmf...slrrrp!"
Consider Eric Alterman's frequent writings about how the media is in absolute love with McCain.
Eric asks us "when was the last time bigfoot reporters and pundits steered you wrong by advising you to ignore significant policy differences between two candidates and the two parties they represent and to trust instead in the steady "determination" and heartfelt "moderation" of a Republican candidate for President?"
See Alterman's piece on the Media Matters website for 25 June.
http://mediamatters.org/altercation/200806250008#2.
How about the Nation article at :
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080707/alterman
"McCain possesses a slight smoky aroma, viscous maybe a little oily, earthy, touch of peat, fairly smooth light firm body, flowery flavor finishes at back of mouth and lingers causing salvation. A favorite when seeking a lighter experience."
It's "Are the Media Smitten with John McCain?" Sincerely yours, The Grammar Police
Robert Lockwood Mills @ 107:
the real question is...am our media learning?
john maclaughlin does make a good point, but he makes a big mistake in delivering it by not including the names of the mediites and the dates on which they are quoted.
the 'filthy liberal media' doesnt care if mccain wins or if obama wins, as long as its exciting, at least exciting enough for people to tune in. so if mccain ever overtakes obama in the polls by a decent amount, he'll get swiftboated again. but for now obama is way ahead, so obama will get swiftboated.
see...this is why guys like jon stewart laugh at the left/right wingers...and saves his genuine attacks for the media, who continues to fail us in their eagerness to be the prom king.
Gretchen @ 70:
Didn't I start out by saying "For all his faults"?
What faults did you think I was refering to?
Umm, McCain is senile. He's a cancerous wind bag that needs to fade away.
xoites defends Constituion @ 20:
Lincoln was our best president. Fighting the civil war and winning, partly because he knew more about how to defeat the Confederates than his own generals like McClellan did, was a monumental achievement.
Pretty good for a guy with NO military experience.
You hear that Republican morons? The guy you say set the current tone of your party (which is bullshit) never served in uniform.
tiredrobot @ 95:
Nice catch there. In fact Niyan DIED in Jan 2005, and his quote is definitely from 2000. This make JMac look foolish when he insists that this is a recent statement. I actually like McLaughlin and his show. He'll bring up topics that no one else touches. But what a hack job on this. He lifts all these quotes from the Nation but gives no credit. True, the quotes are out there anyway, but it's the Nation piece that complied them. I respect this blog greatly, so out of that respect, I think that you could have done a better job of catching these faults. Given the sheer volume of this stuff, it's completely understandable, just regrettable, too (and believe I could write for hours about my regrets...)
Sorry for the typos above, but while I'm being hyper-critical, you guys have got to post the roundtable from This Week. Huffington calls Hewitt delusional for saying that things are improving in Afghanistan. Sweet!
FTR Lincoln was elected Captain of the Illinois militia.
He never saw combat he helped burry bodies and considered his time in the militia to be little more than a joke.
He none the less was in the military.
Apparently regular Citizens has do the media Job for them.
It's amazing how we have so many idiots as journalist starting with Mika and Andrea I am married to the man who endorsed John McCain, Alan Greenspan Mitchell.
http://www.jedreport.com/2008/06/what-wesley-cla.html?disqus_reply=78704...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/30/how-the-media-completely_n_1100...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lt-general-robert-g-gard-jr-/defending-wes...
Login or Register to post comments.