It's the Media, Stupid.
www.dailyhowler.com: Stepford!! No other word can
describe the work of your post-human “press corps”
this weekend. The scribes provided a range of
examples. Just try to believe that they did it:
PART ONE—FOREVER IN BLUE JEANS: In this morning’s
Washington Post, John Harris gushes over George Bush’s
style on the stump. And he stresses the candidate’s
casual clothing. Headline: “Shirtsleeves Style Is a
Strong Suit for Bush.” Indeed, Harris just loves
Bush’s clothes:
HARRIS (pgh 1): President Bush has formidable
obstacles to reelection, but he served a reminder last
week that he is a politician with formidable
strengths.
(2) Anyone who doubts it should spend some time
watching the shirtsleeves campaign. In five days of
energetic campaigning through five swing states, Bush
looked and sounded like someone dropping by a
neighbor's lawn party—no coat, no tie, rolled-up
sleeves, and conversational speeches in which he
implored voters to "put a man in there who can get the
job done."
(3) In loosening his style, Bush tightened his
message. Fielding friendly questions at “Ask President
Bush” forums, or lathering up the crowds at pep
rallies like the one here on Saturday afternoon, he
presented his case for reelection with a force and
fluency that sometimes eluded him at important moments
over the past year...
Why is this piece by Harris so striking? Because of
the way his cohort treated this non-topic four years
ago. In Campaign 2000, Candidate Gore appeared in
casual clothing right from the start, in March 1999,
when he spent his first weekend out on the trail. And
early profiles of Gore’s campaigning sounded much like
Harris’ piece. Gore had “[l]ost the suit and tie to
demonstrate that he can connect with voters,” Susan
Page wrote in USA Today in May 1999. Other scribes
noted Gore’s casual clothes, and explained his
wardrobe is much the same way. It’s true, the subject
was barely worth mentioning. But, early on in Campaign
2000, everyone knew why Candidate Gore was appearing
in shirtsleeves, not suits.
Break the Corporatist Stranglehold on the "US
Mainstream News Media," Show Up for Democracy in 2004:
Defeat Bush (again!)
http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh081604.shtml
STEPFORD! No other word can describe the work of your post-human press corps this weekend: MONDAY, AUGUST 16, 2004
STEPFORD: Stepford!! No other word can describe the
work of your post-human “press corps” this weekend.
The scribes provided a range of examples. Just try to
believe that they did it:
PART ONE—FOREVER IN BLUE JEANS: In this morning’s
Washington Post, John Harris gushes over George Bush’s
style on the stump. And he stresses the candidate’s
casual clothing. Headline: “Shirtsleeves Style Is a
Strong Suit for Bush.” Indeed, Harris just loves
Bush’s clothes:
HARRIS (pgh 1): President Bush has formidable
obstacles to reelection, but he served a reminder last
week that he is a politician with formidable
strengths.
(2) Anyone who doubts it should spend some time
watching the shirtsleeves campaign. In five days of
energetic campaigning through five swing states, Bush
looked and sounded like someone dropping by a
neighbor's lawn party—no coat, no tie, rolled-up
sleeves, and conversational speeches in which he
implored voters to "put a man in there who can get the
job done."
(3) In loosening his style, Bush tightened his
message. Fielding friendly questions at “Ask President
Bush” forums, or lathering up the crowds at pep
rallies like the one here on Saturday afternoon, he
presented his case for reelection with a force and
fluency that sometimes eluded him at important moments
over the past year.
A Post photo also stresses Bush’s clothing. “A
casually dressed President Bush holds a baby at the
end of a campaign rally in Sioux City,” the caption
says.
Why is this piece by Harris so striking? Because of
the way his cohort treated this non-topic four years
ago. In Campaign 2000, Candidate Gore appeared in
casual clothing right from the start, in March 1999,
when he spent his first weekend out on the trail. And
early profiles of Gore’s campaigning sounded much like
Harris’ piece. Gore had “[l]ost the suit and tie to
demonstrate that he can connect with voters,” Susan
Page wrote in USA Today in May 1999. Other scribes
noted Gore’s casual clothes, and explained his
wardrobe is much the same way. It’s true, the subject
was barely worth mentioning. But, early on in Campaign
2000, everyone knew why Candidate Gore was appearing
in shirtsleeves, not suits.
Yes, Gore was campaigning in casual clothes, just as
Bush is doing now. But in Campaign 2000, the press
corps conducted a War Against Gore, and soon they
started attacking Gore’s clothes as a symbol of, yes,
his unsuitability. In the fall of 1999, Ceci
Connolly—right at Harris’ paper—made up a phony tale
about Gore. Gore had recently “ditched his suits,” she
falsely said, because Bill Bradley was gaining in the
Dem Party polls. This explanation was patently bogus,
as Connolly and others clearly knew, but every
reporter knew to repeat it. Soon, Brian Williams was
worrying hard, night after night, about Gore’s deeply
troubling wardrobe. Gore was “wearing polo shirts
twenty-four hours a day,” he complained on his 10/6/99
MSNBC program. The polo shirts “don’t always look
natural on him,” he grumbled again two nights later.
Williams pretended that Gore was wearing the shirts in
some sort of effort to fool female voters; he
repeatedly asked his guests when Gore’s clever
strategy would “all start becoming so transparent
[that] no one is fooled” (October 6) or (October 8)
whether the strategy would “become absolutely
transparent when they go out into the hinterlands and
try to sell it?” Incredibly, Williams raised the
question of Gore’s polo shirts five separate nights in
one eight-day period, from October 4 through October
11. A few weeks, the press corps (once again prompted
by Connolly) created a major flap about Gore’s
troubling use of “earth-toned” clothing. The clowning
was endless, disturbed, universal. But today, Harris
notes Bush in casual clothes—and praises him for his
brilliant good judgment. When Gore did it, he was a
fake. When Bush does it, he’s a great candidate.
Harris, of course, pretends to forget what happened to
Gore four years ago. But then, Harris, like the rest
of his Android Chorale, is programmed to hide his
group’s recent history. Other colleagues simply lied
when they trashed Gore for his casual clothing (links
below). We’ve told this story many times. But Harris
is programmed to forget it.
No, there’s nothing wrong with Bush’s clothing. But
something was wrong four years ago when the press
trashed Gore for wearing such clothes. But you won’t
recall that in this morning’s report. Stepford
then—and Stepford now! Harris is wired to “forget.”
PART TWO—TROUBLING JOKES: If you want to think your
“press corps” is human, you have to account for Jodi
Wilgoren. Most recently, you have to deal with
Sunday’s report in the great New York Times. Wilgoren
spent an entire report puzzling about a remarkable
fact—Kerry tells different jokes in different
locations! Only an android could find this surprising.
But it’s Big News in the Times:
WILGOREN: Asked aboard his campaign plane Thursday
night where he gets this material, Mr. Kerry hurried
back to his cabin without answering.
But then, what normal human wouldn’t run from someone
asking such oddball questions? Finally, a Kerry aide
is forced to answer. He pretends that it all makes
good sense.
Yes, aides have to put their suspicions aside. But for
those who claim Wilgoren is human, one part of her
kooky report will surely be hard to explain:
WILGOREN: The local crowds generally eat it up, their
laughter and applause drowning out the collective
groan from the traveling press corps.
Oops! Normally, reporters describe their colleagues
groaning in pain when they hear the same speeches
night after night. With her wiring somehow crossed,
Wilgoren says the tribe now groans when they hear
different jokes.
May we offer an explanation? Wilgoren, like the rest
of her group, is programmed to look for “flip-flops”
from Kerry. When the hopeful changed his jokes,
inadequate programming led her to pen this plainly
post-human report.
PART THREE—WEIRDLY INSENSITIVE: When Chris Wallace
asked the first time, Richard Lugar tried to duck.
Lugar was guesting on Fox News Sunday. Note how the
solon tried to avoid his host’s query:
WALLACE (8/15/04): Senator, I want to switch subjects
with you, and I want to play a couple of clips from
the campaign trail in recent days. Take a look:
KERRY (videotape): I believe I can fight a more
effective, more thoughtful, more strategic, more
proactive, more sensitive war on terror that reaches
out to other nations.
DICK CHENEY (videotape): America has been in too many
wars for any of our wishes, but not a one of them was
won by being sensitive.
WALLACE: Senator, in the context in which Senator
Kerry was speaking, “being sensitive to reach out to
other countries”—anything wrong with fighting a
sensitive war on terror?
Wallace was begging Lugar to state the obvious—this is
a ludicrous, fake, phony issue. And Lugar, a
Republican, is known for good sense. Sensibly, he
attempted to duck:
LUGAR (continuing directly): Well, we should reach out
to other countries. And we're doing that in North
Korea, obviously, with the six-power talks and with
all of the talks that are involved in Iran—and, for
that matter, with Iraq. We are eager for anyone to
come in and to help us; encouraging people to do that.
So there's no difference really in the reaching-out
process here. I think I would just say Senator Kerry
is really moving against a false target. The
reaching-out process is really profound.
Knowing how stupid this whole topic is, Lugar, a
moderate, tried to avoid it. Indeed, he seemed to say
that we’re already being sensitive. But Wallace saw
that Lugar had basically ducked. So he asked again—and
Lugar relented:
WALLACE (continuing directly): But when he says, “I
want to fight a thoughtful, effective, sensitive war
on terror,” is there anything wrong with sensitive?
Because the Republicans have been making fun of him
for saying that.
LUGAR: Well, I think the word “sensitive” has become a
campaign issue itself. And you saw, as I did, the two
clips that were brought at the fore. It is not an
appropriate word, given, I suspect, the dangers that
are involved.
Principally we've been talking about Iraq. There's
nothing sensitive about the situation there for the
moment. This is a tough business as to who is going to
prevail and what kind of winds of political change
could make possible a democracy in a tough situation.
It is not an appropriate word! It was sad to see Lugar
stoop, pretending this was a serious issue.
But Lugar, of course, is a GOP pol. Major TV pundits
are not. But so what? It was almost impossible, over
the weekend, to find a pundit willing to say that this
whole foolish flap was a big, screaming joke. On a
Sunday night Hardball, Chris Matthews continued to
trash Bush and Cheney for promoting this fake, stupid
issue. But strings of pundits on weekend shows
struggled and strained to gloss over the question. No
one seemed to think this was phony! Indeed, on Meet
the Press, guest host Andrea Mitchell offered some
comic relief. When John Harwood pretended the
“sensitive” matter was serious, she offered this comic
reaction:
MITCHELL: Of course, George Bush has also used the
word "sensitive," but that gets kind of glossed over.
Anne Kornblut, you've been out with the Kerry
campaign. You've watched him in action. Why is he
having such a hard time explaining his vote on Iraq?
Saying that Bush’s use of the word gets “glossed
over,” Mitchell glossed over the issue itself! No tape
was played of Bush and Cheney saying the things for
which they trashed Kerry. Instead, Mitchell quickly
threw to Kornblut, who gave a skillful non-answer
answer about the whole “sensitive” foofaw:
KORNBLUT: I would say on the question of the word
“sensitive,” it's not a debate that's over yet. We had
John Edwards come out a couple days ago and defend
John Kerry. It's part of the sort of rhetorical
back-and-forth that they're having. George Bush was
using the phrase "turn the corner" for a while, and
Kerry fought him on that. And so each of them is sort
of parrying and sparring over specific words that they
then drop and abandon.
Thanks for saying nothing at all! But on to Roger
Simon we went. Sadly, Simon was eager to tell a
“French” joke—and to describe the Stepford Logic that
rules your android press corps:
MITCHELL (continuing directly): Roger, I see you
nodding.
SIMON: "Sensitive" is the kind of word a French
candidate for president would use. [Laughter] It's not
a word that Kerry needed. He went one adjective too
far in responding to that question. George Bush has,
indeed, used the same word in approximately the same
context, but no one has ever accused George Bush of
being overly sensitive about anything. John Kerry has
been accused of being overly sensitive and overly
nuanced.
Could any human follow such logic? Bush has used the
same word in the same context, Simon says. But it’s OK
for Bush, and not for Kerry, based on what people have
previously charged. The merits of this don’t make any
difference. It’s all about what folks have said.
If the Washington press corps was actually human,
don’t you think that someone would take offense at the
nonsense these pundits described? If the press was
actually human, wouldn’t someone say something like
this—perhaps with a hint of real feeling?
WHAT SOME HUMAN WOULD SURELY SAY: But Bush and Cheney
have said very similar things! This is a totally fake,
phony issue. Out on the trail, Cheney is acting like
Kerry was recommending “sensitivity” toward
terrorists. Obviously, that isn’t what Kerry was
saying, and Cheney knows it. Cheney is totally faking
on this. [To panel] I’m amazed you don’t come out and
say so.
If your pundits were actually human, wouldn’t someone
say something like this? But if you watched their
recitals this weekend, you didn’t see that statement
made. For the record, the androids on Washington Week
were the worst. But we didn’t tape their performance,
and the show hasn’t posted it yet.
PART FOUR—WHAT THEM WORRY: How do you know your
pundits aren’t human? On Saturday, Nicholas Kristof
published Part 2 of his ongoing Times report (see THE
DAILY HOWLER, 8/11/04). His headline read, “The
Nuclear Shadow.” Here’s the way he started:
KRISTOF: If a 10-kiloton terrorist nuclear weapon
explodes beside the New York Stock Exchange or the
U.S. Capitol, or in Times Square, as many nuclear
experts believe is likely in the next decade, then the
next 9/11 commission will write a devastating critique
of how we allowed that to happen.
As I wrote in my last column, there is a general
conviction among many experts—though, in fairness, not
all—that nuclear terrorism has a better-than-even
chance of occurring in the next 10 years. Such an
attack could kill 500,000 people.
Yet U.S. politicians have utterly failed to face up to
the danger.
Experts predict a domestic nuclear attack in the next
decade. Kristof reported this two times this week. If
your pundits were actually human, wouldn’t
someone—somebody, somewhere—have reacted this weekend
to that? But your pundits aren’t programmed to talk
about that. They talked about clothing, fake claims,
stupid jokes. Substance “kind of gets glossed over,”
Mitchell said. Someone should tighten her wiring.
GLOSSING HARD: Harris keeps glossing a Standard Bush
Charge. For about the ten millionth time, he penned an
Official Preferred Recitation. He had lots of space to
discuss it:
HARRIS: [T]his background serves mostly as preface to
an attack on Kerry. At each stop last week, Bush
regaled his audiences by noting that the Democrat
voted for the Iraq war resolution and then "declared
himself the antiwar candidate" in last winter's
primaries, and now, having "found a new nuance," has
said he still "agrees it was the right decision to go
into Iraq."
"And I want to thank Senator Kerry for clearing that
up," Bush chortled. "Although I caution you, there are
still 80 days left where he could change his mind
again."
He continues by noting that everyone in Congress voted
for his $87 billion appropriations request on Iraq
except for a "small what I would call
out-of-the-mainstream minority of 12" Democrats, "and
two of those 12 are my opponent and his running mate."
"You might remember his initial explanation," Bush
told partisans at the Iowa event. "He said, 'I
actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted
against it.' That doesn't sound like the way people in
Sioux land talk. The pressure got on a little bit
about that vote. Then he said, well, he's proud of the
vote. And he went on to say, the whole thing is a
complicated matter."
Then came what is becoming one of the standard
applause lines in Bush's stump speech: "There's
nothing complicated about supporting our troops in
combat."
Harris wrote over a thousand words in all. He had
plenty of time to describe Bush’s clothes—and five
grafs to lavish on this Standard Story. But why
wouldn’t a human who had words to waste give readers a
few basic facts?
WHAT HARRIS COULD HAVE WRITTEN: "You might remember
his initial explanation," Bush told partisans at the
Iowa event. "He said, 'I actually did vote for the $87
billion before I voted against it.' That doesn't sound
like the way people in Sioux land talk. The pressure
got on a little bit about that vote. Then he said,
well, he's proud of the vote. And he went on to say,
the whole thing is a complicated matter."
Then came what is becoming one of the standard
applause lines in Bush's stump speech: "There's
nothing complicated about supporting our troops in
combat." Of course, though Bush says this matter
wasn’t complicated, he himself threatened to veto the
$87 billion six days after Kerry’s “no” vote. Bush was
concerned that the bill might include loans to Iraq,
not outright grants.
Omigod! Harris could even ask the Bush camp a
question. He could ask why Bush keeps saying “nothing
complicated” when he himself said he would veto the
bill! But functioning androids don’t do things like
that. They just type Approved Press Corps Stories.
VISIT OUR INCOMPARABLE ARCHIVES: The press corps
trashed Gore’s clothes for two years. The extent of
this story is hard to believe. See THE DAILY HOWLER,
3/4/03, with links to prior reporting.
STARTING TOMORROW: Don’t read Clinton’s book, the
Times said. In four parts, we help you know why.
ALSO: The Androids have agreed on some pro-Kerry
stories. More on those topics this week.