Waldman: Story punches reporters in face; goes unnoticed
Mon Apr 06, 2009 at 09:50:03 AM PDT
He just believed in our right to bear arms. He believe that hard economic times were going to put forth gun bans and that sort of thing. He basically believed in what our forefathers had put before us, and was being distorted by the Zionist-controlled government, and he didn’t believe in that.
He just basically told me he didn’t like the Zionist control over our government, he didn’t like that there was about to be military policing, he didn’t believe in the fact that there was about to be a gun ban. He didn’t like anything that was going on in the political forefront, and he was basically very politically active, and he didn’t agree with what was going on right now in the United States of America.
Dude just stood there and told reporters -- twice, and matter-of-factly both times -- that his friend who just killed three cops was motivated "by the Zionist-controlled government," and was upset, "that there was about to be military policing," and by "the fact that there was about to be a gun ban."
Zionist-controlled government. Was about to be military policing. The fact that there was about to be a gun ban.
Not a single one of these reporters says, "Hey, wait a minute. What?!?"
Guy says, "Zionist-controlled government," and the reporter's follow-up? "Did he have a lot of guns?"
Second reporter was even worse! He believed there was a Zionist-controlled government. That there would be military policing. That there would be a gun ban.
Follow-up: So there was never anything that made you think there could be a situation like this?
Are you kidding me? Everything that guy just told you should have been an indicator that there could be a situation like this!
These reporters -- like the wingnuts unsure whether they're better off treading cautiously or furiously trying to turn a 180 by insisting that they're outraged that there would be outrage (because all non-wingnut outrage is by nature "political," whereas theirs is "patriotic") -- want desperately for this story to be about guns and/or wound-up loners.
Wingnuts want it to be about guns because they feel like they can win the gun argument. Make the argument about how abso-effing-lutely irresponsible and crazy it is to be running a 24 hour cable news network filled with frothy-mouthed rantings from eliminationists, black helicopter freaks, world currency nutbars and various other paranoid pants-sh*tters selling Jonestown-style compound-squatting not just as political theory, but as news, and the ship of what's unfortunately emerged as modern conservatism is sunk.
Reporters want the story to be about guns, too, because the reality that modern conservatism has so completely surrendered to nervous-ticked, sweaty-palmed McVeigh-ism that it would actually coddle and nurture it with its own "news" network is simply too crushing a concept to contemplate.
People in our industry are doing this! Under the guise of "news!" Where have our heads been? Did I really apply for a job with them once?
It's a little shy of two years now since reporters at the press conference at the last event held under the Yearly Kos banner in Chicago expressed amazement at having been shown the FOX Nutwork record of "mistakes" in reporting basic facts that were embarrassing to Republicans. And it seems clear that even now, traditional media reporters are unable to come to terms with the fact that there are people masquerading as "their kind," yet who not only can't and won't work in the same fact-based reality as they do, but actively beam out a steady stream of incendiary, counter-factual rhetoric that you'd have to be willfully blinding yourself not to connect to shooters who end up parroting, well, pretty much exactly what they're broadcasting on FOX.
Wake the hell up, people. There's a 24-hour eliminationist "news" nutwork broadcasting poison to already-fevered minds. Call it what it is. Be aware of what they're doing. And reporters, be clear on what they're up to, and whose profession they're using as cover.
And really, when a cop killer's best friend tells you casually that he was consumed with Zionist control of the government and imminent martial law and gun confiscations... that's actually the story!
When a shooter's best friend tells you he killed cops because his mind was being controlled by aliens from planet Xoltron, you have a sad and inexplicable illness on your hands, and "just the facts" reporting is all you can responsibly do.
When a shooter's best friend tells you he killed cops because he believed fake stories you can hear reported as "news" on a well-known (and even "respected!") 24-hour cable television network, you've got a very serious story on your hands that it's actually irresponsible not to look deeper.
This stuff isn't just appearing from out of nowhere. It's being beamed out under the protections you've worked hard to protect for your profession.
To the extent that you refuse to call FOX out for their nonsense, you become partly culpable for its continuance.
Take the reins and lead.
Smooth like Remy: "You Can't Just Make Up Your Own Facts"
'POLARIZING'...If only David Shuster could host Hardball everyday. Oh wait he DID have a show then the geniuses at MSNBC decided that he was expendable. What a frikking joke.
Well at least he was there today to connect the dots from the cop shooting in Pittsburgh to the hate talk from the wingnuts on Tee Vee and radio. And he pretty much sent the 2nd Amendment guy running home with his tail between his legs. Good on him for that and good on Charles Blow for calling the guy's argument "laughable".
EnjoyVisit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
The Pew Research Center released a poll a few days ago showing -- surprise, surprise -- Democrats like President Obama a whole lot more than Republicans do. In fact, according to the Pew report, Obama "has the most polarized early job approval ratings of any president in the past four decades." There's a 61-point partisan gap -- 88% of Democrats approve of the president's on-the-job performance, while 27% of Republicans say the same.This has led more than a few conservatives to argue today that this gap is, of course, the president's fault. Peter Wehner argued, for example, "It became apparent quite early that bipartisanship was a fictional commitment for Barack Obama; shutting Republicans out of negotiations and promoting what ranks among the most left-wing domestic agendas in our lifetime was all the evidence some of us needed. Apparently most of the rest of the nation understands that as well."
First, I hardly think it's accurate to say that "most" see the president is overly partisan. In reality, most of the nation approves of Obama's job performance, and remain unconcerned about partisanship.
The 61-point partisan gap in the Pew survey, while obviously large, is partly the result of Democratic satisfaction. As Andrew Sullivan noted, "The percentage of Republicans approving of Obama at this point is almost identical to that approving of Clinton in 1993." Obama is, therefore, more "polarizing" because he enjoys more support from Democrats now than Clinton did 16 years ago.
Indeed, Michael Dimock, Pew's associate director, told Greg Sargent that conservatives are misreading the results of the survey when they blame Obama for the broader dynamic, calling their conclusion "unfair."
Dimock says the divide is driven by long term trends and by the uncommonly enthusiastic reaction to Obama by members of his own party -- by what he calls "the way Democrats are reacting to Obama."
Interestingly, Dimock also said this phenomenon is partly caused by the recent tendency of Republicans to be less charitable towards new Presidents than Dems have been.
In contrast to the 27% of GOPers approving of Obama now, more than a third of Dems (36%) approved of George W. Bush at a comparable time in 2001. Before that, only 26% of Republicans approved of Bill Clinton at the same time in his presidency, while 41% of Dems approved of both George H.W. Bush and Ronald Reagan at comparable times.
"Polarizing" is an overly used buzzword, anyway. For most of his second term, George W. Bush wasn't polarizing; he was just spectacularly unpopular among almost every group and constituency. Dems, Republicans, and independents couldn't wait for Bush to go. But at least he wasn't polarizing!
Obama, in contrast, enjoys fairly broad support, including more than one in four Republicans. Conservatives want to say that makes the president "polarizing"? Whatever makes them feel better.
I’ve Lost His Mojo
I just can’t think of anything clever to say regarding the latest outburst from Bachmann:
I believe that there is a very strong chance that we will see that young people will be put into mandatory service. And the real concerns is that there are provisions for what I would call re-education camps for young people, where young people have to go and get trained in a philosophy that the government puts forward and then they have to go to work in some of these politically correct forums.This woman is clinical. And considering how bad our eduction system is right now, re-education shouldn’t scare Republicans that much. Then again, maybe some kids will go to a charter re-education school or get into a voucher re-education school. That could be cause for concern.
- Benen has more on THE SCOURGE OF NATIONAL SERVICE....
About a week ago, the Senate easily approved legislation to expand national community service programs. The House had already easily passed a similar measure, and the president is anxious to sign it into law. As part of the effort, the number of positions available in AmeriCorps will increase from 75,000 to 250,000.The right's reaction has been fascinating. One right-wing blogger compared community service programs to "Hitler youth." Malkin called funding for the programs a "left-wing slush fund."
But, as usual, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) is in a league of her own. This was Bachmann's response over the weekend to the Serve America Act:
"It's under the guise of, quote, 'volunteerism.' But it's not volunteers at all. It's paying people to do work on behalf of government. [...]
"I believe that there is a very strong chance that we will see that young people will be put into mandatory service. And the real concerns is that there are provisions for what I would call re-education camps for young people, where young people have to go and get trained in a philosophy that the government puts forward and then they have to go to work in some of these politically correct forums."
Now, I feel kind of awkward fact-checking obvious madness, but I suppose it's worth noting two quick points. First, there's nothing in the legislation requiring public service. It's about expanding service opportunities for those who choose to pursue them.
Second, support for the expanded community service programs was bipartisan. The bill passed the Senate with 79 votes, and passed the House with
321275 votes. Bachmann apparently believes some of her own conservative Republican colleagues backed an initiative to mandate public service and force young people into re-education camps that only exist in her twisted imagination.Stepping back, though, this reminds me of a great post Kevin Drum had over the weekend in which he pondered why, exactly, so many on the far-right are feeling besieged and panicky.
"Who, exactly, is their enemy these days?" Kevin asked. "I'm not sure they know themselves. But maybe that makes it worse.... Like a horror movie where you're surrounded on all sides by something you can never quite make out, I guess it seems to them like there's something horrible going on, but it's something so insidious that they're only allowed to catch occasional foggy glimpses of it."
Right. And to take this one step further, I think this also helps explain why truly batty conservatives like Bachmann and Glenn Beck fabricate dire threats that don't exist in our reality. They're struggling to deal with legitimate progressive policy ideas, so they're stuck manufacturing make-believe policy ideas that suit their worldview. Obama wants to adopt a global currency! He wants young people in government-sponsored re-education camps! He wants to take medical decisions away from doctors and give them to bureaucrats! He's going to impose a tax on every time we flip a light switch!
These ideas are clearly delusional, but for those who need to see a political apocalypse, they apparently don't have a choice. Debating real ideas on the merits is proving too difficult, so they're creating their own reality and hoping their supporters play along.
John also says Surprise, Surprise
I’m sure you’re as shocked by this as I am (via the GOS):
This last comment was a reference to popular right-wing conspiracy theories about Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)-constructed prisons and concentration camps for U.S. citizens. Such conspiracy theories had long been staples of the militia movement, but received a reinvigorating shot in the arm following the election of Barack Obama as president. Almost overnight, right-wing conspiracists across the country revived all of their 1990s militia conspiracy theories about the “New World Order,” planned gun confiscations, and government plots against the citizenry. Once more, wild speculations about SHTF (“s—t hits the fan”) and TEOTWAKI (“the end of the world as we know it”) scenarios became rampant.Poplawski bought into the SHTF/TEOTWAKI conspiracy theories hook, line and sinker, even posting a link to Stormfront of a YouTube video featuring talk show host Glenn Beck talking about FEMA camps with Congressman Ron Paul. When the city of Pittsburgh got a Homeland Security grant to add surveillance cameras to protect downtown bridges, Poplawski told Stormfronters that it was “ramping up the police state.” He said, too, that he gave warnings to grocery store customers he encountered (but only if they were white) to stock up on canned goods and other long-lasting foods.
No one could have predicted…
BTW- the first time I ever heard this FEMA trailer stuff was late night when I could not sleep a couple months ago and I turned on Coast to Coast. There was a fellow talking about it who was QUITE exercised.
Benen:WHEN THE RIGHT DEMANDS JINGOISM....
It's hard to guess what far-right media personalities are going to find worthy of a feeding frenzy. Apparently, President Obama's comments -- four days ago -- about renewing the U.S. partnership with our European allies are the new rallying point for hysterical conservative whining.It started in earnest on Saturday when Sean Hannity engaged in a little creative editing and blasted the president for acknowledging that there have been times in which the U.S. had "shown arrogance" towards our friends in Europe.
This line of attack didn't seem to go anywhere. There was no buzz on the morning shows yesterday, little from Drudge, nothing from Politico, nothing from Halperin. Hannity's condemnation came and went, except for those who noted Hannity taking the president out of context.
And yet, today, Fox News seems to be talking about little else. Hannity, Karl Rove, Nicole Wallace, Steve Forbes, Mike Huckabee, and a variety of Fox News personalities are positively outraged that the president dared to say something mildly critical of previous American attitudes. Obama's speech, they insist, is evidence that the president doesn't love America as much as they do.
Even by the (low) standards of the Republican network, this is idiotic. Consider exactly what Obama said in Strasbourg on Friday that has them so worked up:
"It's always harder to forge true partnerships and sturdy alliances than to act alone, or to wait for the action of somebody else. It's more difficult to break down walls of division than to simply allow our differences to build and our resentments to fester. So we must be honest with ourselves. In recent years we've allowed our Alliance to drift. I know that there have been honest disagreements over policy, but we also know that there's something more that has crept into our relationship. In America, there's a failure to appreciate Europe's leading role in the world. Instead of celebrating your dynamic union and seeking to partner with you to meet common challenges, there have been times where America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive.
"But in Europe, there is an anti-Americanism that is at once casual but can also be insidious. Instead of recognizing the good that America so often does in the world, there have been times where Europeans choose to blame America for much of what's bad.
"On both sides of the Atlantic, these attitudes have become all too common. They are not wise. They do not represent the truth. They threaten to widen the divide across the Atlantic and leave us both more isolated. They fail to acknowledge the fundamental truth that America cannot confront the challenges of this century alone, but that Europe cannot confront them without America.
"So I've come to Europe this week to renew our partnership, one in which America listens and learns from our friends and allies, but where our friends and allies bear their share of the burden. Together, we must forge common solutions to our common problems.
"So let me say this as clearly as I can: America is changing, but it cannot be America alone that changes. We are confronting the greatest economic crisis since World War II. The only way to confront this unprecedented crisis is through unprecedented coordination."
Just how twisted must one be to think these remarks represent a U.S. leader "running down America," as Karl Rove insisted?
Again, Obama's comments were aired live to a national television audience on Friday morning, and it wasn't considered remotely controversial. Now, the far-right is apoplectic because, well, just because.
Given that Fox News didn't care on Friday, but cares about little else today, what do you want to bet that some Republican National Committee staffers, after strategizing over the weekend, sent out a memo this morning to Fox News, encouraging them to hit this "story" as the "scandal" of the day?
No comments:
Post a Comment