« September 2004 | Main | November 2004 »
October 07, 2004
Media Matters (Not!)
This is what passes for critical assessment of media coverage on the Media Matters web site. Here is a typical headline "Network fact-checks equated possible Kerry misstatement with flagrant Bush distortion" (see the story). So, let me see if I have this right. Bush "distorts" while Kerry possibly "misstates," and the reason is that Bush's numbers about the current moment were off while Kerry's numbers about the current moment were not way off when we consider possible future numbers. Yeah, right. The amazing thing is that Bush's projections regarding Iraqi trainees were actually lower than the actual numbers, so if we use Media Matters logic, then Bush also had a "possible misstatement." In point of fact, both speakers' statements misrepresent (fudge) the current facts--by about the same factor of two--but are brought into line when considering anticipated trends. So what is the big deal?
Media Matters is a classic example of how progressives view their work. Essentially, they do the same sort of media meta-criticism that Rush Limbaugh does, but they deploy the visual and verbal rhetoric of the Established Institution--think of Frontline's narrator, the Voice of Truth--with all of the fake sanctimony that goes with it. They are outraged that Ann Coulter used the word "jock strap." Oh dear! I'm shocked, shocked that she would use such language! In the end, Media Matters is way worse than Limbaugh could ever be because they pretend to be something other than they are. They cloak their sophomoric rants in a rhetoric of the Official, while Limbuagh speaks as an individual and understands the value of irony and humor.
Posted by admin at 09:51 AM | Comments (16) | TrackBack
October 04, 2004
The Democratic Narrative
Just saw the clip on the New Dem web site. It's the most condensed version of what I call the Democrat narrative (story, meme) that I have seen. It goes like this: The prosperity of the 90s was purely the result of the Clinton Administration, and the economic downturn of 2000 was caused by the Bush Administration. Never mind (1) that the downturn began before Bush entered office--it can be traced to the DOJ case again Microsoft, actually; (2) that Clinton had his agenda stuffed in the first term and had to lift the Rebuplican platform for his second, even as he trashed it verbally; (3) that the most significant events of the 90s regarding the economy were (a) the birth of the Web and (b) the Rebublican majorities in the House and Senate.
But aside from the gross historical errors of the Democratic narrative, there is the more insidious assumption that I call the Rain King hypothesis: Democrats tend to regard their presidents as divine kings who are responsible for the economy just as many peoples have believed them to be responsible for the weather. If it rains and the crops grow, then, hey, "Long live the King!" This not the belief system within which out political system is supposed to operate. It is, quite franky, pretty scary. And Reagan is not an example on the Republican side. Republicans trace the good things that occurred during his terms--fall of the Soviet Union, for example--as the specific results of specific strategies. Clinton, on the other hand, gets praised for just Being There.
Posted by admin at 10:22 AM | Comments (10) | TrackBack