Go Mobile

  • Bookmark the mobile version of First Draft HERE!


to First Draft

Tip Jar



Ad Network

  • advertise_liberally

Paying the Bills

Blog powered by Typepad

First Draft Krewe in NOLA

  • Click above image for our Hurricane Katrina coverage, including photos and stories from our recent First Draft New Orleans trip.

Lower 9th Ward: March 2006

  • 23
    These are stills captured from video shot March 2006 in the Lower 9th Ward of New Orleans specifically the area between N. Claiborne, Florida Ave, Tupelo and Tennessee.

Lower 9th Ward: August 2006

  • 9th_marking_side
    These are photos and stills captured from video taken August 2006 of the Lower 9th Ward specifically the area between N. Claiborne, Florida Ave, Tupelo and Tennessee.

Paying The Bills

« Sunday Morning Video: The Jayhawks On Austin City Limits In 2004 | Main | Today on Tommy T's Obsession with the Freeperati - same old, shame old edition »

February 17, 2013


lawmakers who said Bush was horrible were unserious commie traitors who couldn't be listened to by anyone who wanted Washington street cred

And that contines -- look at Chuck Hagel, who, best as I can tell, is still mostly full-on wingnut (I sure as hell wouldn't want him running Health and Human Services), but gets the treatment for the unpardonable sin of apostasy from pricks and prissies like McCain, Graham, Cruz, et al.

Krugman makes a related point now and again -- the wingers tend to have a pretty simplistic view towards not just issues themselves, but the left. They think we're their mirror image, i.e., they claim to want "less government" (a lie, but for the sake of argument...), anyway, they think liberals ALWAYS want more government (even though pro-choice or pro legalization of marijuana is explicitly ANTI government), etc.

And some time back I remember a winger commentor (at Your Right Hand Thief, I think) asking me why I didn't just accept his "Obama is a socialist" argument, because basically, who cared about actual policy and wouldn't socialists like to have Obama on their side? Seriously...

The media doesn't care about facts, they care about perceptions. They shouted SHUT UP when we were all saying Saddam didn't have WMD or attack us on 9/11. If they don't care about the facts that lead us to war, they won't care about any other facts, either.

It's appearances that they care about. They build up these memes ("Republicanas are strong and reliable and disciplinarians, Democrats are soft and mushy and Mommy-ish") and then find the stories to perpetuate these memes, until one something happens to so thoroughly debunk the meme they can't ignore it anymore.

I keep wondering when they'll get over their "Rand Paul is sane" meme; they still seem to be protecting him:


as if. they have ben gazi to bash obama w/. sanity is still far away.

I don't think that the national press corps has "truth" in its sights any longer. They're in the business of accentuating controversies, because, their editors think, that's what attracts eyeballs and sells newspapers. In doing so, there's no need to determine truth, and that approach also has the convenient advantage of not antagonizing advertisers.

Editors and reporters today, generally (there are exceptions), do not want to wade into complex issues to determine some core truth, or provide exegesis, because the more complex those stories are, the more likely it is that some group or individual will take umbrage--and make no mistake about it, the right-wing screams of "liberal media!" have been effective in cowing the national press. And yet, in terms of influences on life and the state of the world, we're living in the most complex times in history.

It's also a shitload of work to tease out all the intertwined threads of complex stories and to make them all understandable, and ignorance and laziness are factors. If one doesn't know fission from fusion, MOx from Tex-Mex, one is never going to be able to tell if the spokesperson for the local nuclear power plant is blowing off a problem, and the inclination will be to simply repeat what was said, rather than parse the statement for weasel words and for what a better-informed person would recognize as PR bamboozlement (or, for that matter, to know that one's colleagues are over-dramatizing a minor issue just to create some buzz). And, it's often no help to call up the local university for background information if one's training is insufficient to understand the answers provided.

There's a reason why there are so many Fred Hiatts and so few Dana Priests in journalism today.

all that should matter is whether I am right or wrong. Not where I'm coming from, or what my affiliations are.

You're making the assumption that others operate on the worldview shared here based around facts, reason and evidence, and a search for truth, testable hypotheses and predictive power.

Instead we have the festering DC/corporate media suckpile of authoritarianism, butt-covering careerism, craven conformity, court-jester storytelling, might-makes-right and money-shouts-loudest.

In the modern American media/political landscape, the one unforgivable sin is to be CORRECT about an important issue.

And that's why the media has so many love&kisses for the GOP.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Contact Info

  • Adrastos
    adrastos at bellsouth.net
  • Athenae - Allison Hantschel
    athenae25 at yahoo.com
  • Jude
    jude_t at live.com

Athenae's Books