Part 4—We have a dream today: Is it possible that the forbidden discussion will, at long last, take place?
We still have seventeen months to go before the public votes! On the other hand, the discussion in question has been forbidden for at least twenty years.
We’re imagining a full discussion of a peculiar journalistic phenomenon. We refer to the apparent loathing within the insider press for Clinton and Clinton (and Gore), along with the journalistic conduct which flows from that apparent loathing.
Within the past year, an unusual thing has occurred. In the lower reaches of the press, it has become fairly common to see career journalists refer to the press corps’ hatred of Clinton.
As we noted yesterday, Matt Yglesias recently described this apparent loathing and the journalistic misconduct which allegedly results.
“Journalists don't like Hillary Clinton,” he recently wrote at Vox. “For Clinton, good news is never just good news. Instead it's an opportunity to remind the public about the media's negative narratives about Clinton.”
In recent weeks, a range of scribes have made similar comments at Salon.
“As my colleagues Jim Newell, Heather Digby Parton and Elias Isquith have variously observed, the political media has a long-term relationship of mutual hatred with Hillary Clinton,” Andrew O’Hehir wrote last weekend. According to O’Hehir, the press corps “appears determined to cover [Clinton's] 2016 campaign...as a story of low-rent Freudian conflict between the candidate and the press corps.”
Does the political press corps hate Candidate Clinton? Does this hatred affect the way her campaign is being covered?
On their face, these are very serious charges. They’re now being made, on a fairly widespread basis, by recognizable writers at recognizable news orgs.
That said, Vox and Salon represent the provinces of the establishment press. The vast majority of American voters won’t hear about allegations and discussions which occur at such sites.
Will a discussion of these allegations move to higher-profile news orgs? The outcome of next year’s election may well turn on that question.
Let’s make an amazing observation. At this point, you can even make claims of this type if you write for the Washington Post, as long as your comments are confined to the lesser region of the newspaper’s blogs.
On June 2, Paul Waldman proved it! In a post at the liberal Plum Line blog, Waldman mused about the reasons why “journalists as a group seem to have such an intense dislike for Bill and Hillary Clinton.”
At this point, we’ll make you a guarantee:
The vast majority of voters have never even heard it alleged that “journalists as a group seem to have an intense dislike” for the Clintons. Even today, such observations are largely confined to the press corps’ provincial outposts, where few voters tread.
Those voters are even less likely to have heard the type of allegation which followed in Waldman’s post. Good lord! As he continued, Waldman suggested that the press corps’ “intense dislike” for the Clintons is tied in part to the Clintons’ “ability to emerge relatively unscathed from the innumerable mini-scandals and faux-scandals with which the press becomes temporarily consumed.”
Really? Over the years, has the American press corps “become temporarily consumed,” in serial fashion, with “innumerable faux-scandals” concerning the Clintons?
That seems to be what Waldman said—and that's a very serious charge. Our question:
In the last few years, have you seen that allegation discussed at the nation's high-profile news orgs? Do you see it being discussed at high-profile sites even today as our latest endless campaign is taking its obvious shape?
Please understand! Perhaps because he works for the Post, Waldman went on to semi-blame Candidate Clinton for the intensity of the way she is disliked by the press.
In our view, his reasoning bordered on the absurd. Beyond that, it displayed a type of self-regard often found in the upper-end press corps:
WALDMAN (6/2/15): To a degree, Clinton has a right to campaign however she wants. If she wants to do eight public events a day, she can do that, and if she wants to do one event every two weeks, she can do that too. But she does have an obligation to treat the press like what it is at the most fundamental level: the public’s representative. If you’re not an Iowan, you’re going to need the media to understand what Clinton wants to do as president, so the campaign has to enable the media to meet that need (after all, you aren’t going to learn much from Clinton’s twitter feed). Clinton doesn’t have to treat reporters like royalty, but she has to afford them the basic level of respect necessary for them to do their jobs.Waldman is a good, smart, decent liberal. But in our view, that’s borderline nuts, in at least two ways:
But if they’re going to convince her to do that, many of them are going about it the wrong way. I’ve suggested before that part of the reason journalists as a group seem to have such an intense dislike for Bill and Hillary Clinton is that their ability to emerge relatively unscathed from the innumerable mini-scandals and faux-scandals with which the press becomes temporarily consumed is an implicit rebuke to the press’ power. You can see that in the argument some in the media are now making about this troubled relationship: that Clinton should work to improve it because her numbers in this or that poll are slipping.
The problem with mistreating reporters isn’t that it might hurt her with this or that voting bloc, or that it “plays into a narrative” she wants to avoid. It’s that reporters are there on the public’s behalf, and when you intentionally make it hard for them to do their jobs, you’re shortchanging the public you want to represent.
“To a degree, Candidate Clinton has a right to campaign however she wants?” Can someone explain when the emperor died and made Brother Waldman boss?
Earth to Waldman: You may not like the way some candidate conducts a campaign. You may have perfectly sensible reasons for the judgment you reach.
That said, every candidate has the right to campaign however he or she wants! A journalist can applaud or denounce those practices. But it’s amazing when journalists question a candidate’s right to campaign as she wants.
Even stranger is Waldman’s attitude toward his employment group:
Reporters are “the public’s representative?” Reporters “are there on the public’s behalf?”
Waldman almost seems to think that reporters at the Washington Post have been elected to office. Did that occur before or after they started promoting all the fake scandals to which he refers? When they created all those fake scandals, were Waldman’s colleagues doing that “on the public’s behalf?”
There is no lack of self-regard within the upper-end press corps. “I continue to be struck by the self-importance of the media.” So Joan Walsh wrote at Salon on June 2, in a piece where she avoided criticizing anyone by name.
This self-importance and self-dealing lie at the heart of our question today. Here’s what that question is:
Twenty years into the game, journalists are now alleging that the upper-end, mainstream press corps seems to hate Candidate Clinton. That said, these discussions are largely taking part at lower-level sites, out of the public’s view.
Is there any chance that this discussion will start migrating upward? For starters, will you ever see Chris Hayes or Rachel Maddow conduct this important discussion on MSNBC, where many more people will hear it?
Last night, Maddow continued her embarrassing faux-coverage of the current campaign. Simply put, Maddow is currently conning her liberal viewers, presumably in a ratings search. There’s no other way to put it.
Hayes hasn’t been doing that. That said, on last night’s show, he chided the New York Times for its recent report about Candidate Rubio’s alleged overspending.
We’ll discuss that segment in our next post. But this means that Hayes has now vouched for the Times when it ran a giant scam aimed at Candidate Clinton, but has chided the Times for unfairness to Candidate Rubio!
The corporate-paid liberal world has played it that way for a very long time now. Will liberal viewers tolerate this ridiculous pattern for the next seventeen months?
Will Maddow, Hayes or Lawrence O’Donnell conduct the discussion we've described on MSNBC, from which point the discussion might even spread? In fairness, this would be a fairly hard play at The One True Liberal Channel, since two of its prime time hosts—O’Donnell and Chris Matthews—have been among the most destructive Clinton/Gore haters on the past twenty years.
(After 2008, Matthews completely flipped. Presumably, this was a business decision.)
For better or worse, people are dead all over the world because of Matthews’ disgraceful past conduct. Millionaire hosts on that corporate channel would have to thread a delicate needle if they did the obvious thing and let the discussion spread.
That said, we have a dream today. Our dream involves several figures, even including Gene Lyons.
Twenty years ago, Lyons tried to start this forbidden discussion. In 1996, he published Fools for Scandal: How the Media Invented Whitewater, a book about the bungled reporting in the Washington Post and the New York Times which created a decade of pseudo-scandal.
The book was published and promoted by Harper’s magazine, one of the greatest names in American publishing. The book had originated as an article in the October 1994 Harper’s—Fool for Scandal: How the Times got Whitewater Wrong.
Despite the lofty provenance of Lyons’ book, the book was widely ignored. From that day to this, the upper-end press corps has avoided the discussion which has finally started to bubble up from voices at Vox and Salon.
Will that discussion migrate upward to higher-profile platforms? We have a dream today:
Our dream is very hard to picture. But we can almost imagine Maddow and Hayes conducting that obvious, long-delayed discussion on their cable programs.
We can imagine them interviewing Lyons about the way this history started. We can imagine them interviewing Lyons and his co-author, Joe Conason, about the contents of their 2000 book, The Hunting of the President: The Ten-Year Campaign to Destroy Bill and Hillary Clinton.
We can even imagine viewers being told about the press corps’ concomitant war against Candidate Gore, the war which sent Bush to the White House. Even after all these years, they could surely find someone who was able to discuss those remarkable, appalling events.
Can you imagine these discussions on The One True Liberal Channel? Can you imagine this discussion migrating upwards from Vox and Salon?
Can you imagine Yglesias being asked to discuss what he wrote? Can you imagine this discussion being conducted from a visible platform?
At Vox and Salon, we’re being told that the upper-end press corps hates Candidate Clinton. We’re being told that this apparent “intense dislike” has led the press to become consumed, down through the years, with “innumerable faux-scandals.”
We’re being told that the press corps’ “hatred” of Candidate Clinton is causing them to cover her campaign in ridiculous ways. But on The One True Liberal Channel, absolutely none of this is being discussed.
None at all.
Instead, Maddow continues to offer ludicrous, dumbed-down “campaign reporting” of the most worthless kind. Hayes chides the Times when it seems unfair to Candidate Rubio, hails it when it conducts a scam aimed at Candidate Clinton.
This is the way the liberal world has played it for the past twenty years. On the bright side, Maddow is paid $7 million per year for her incessant, low-IQ campaign clowning.
With President Walker waiting to serve, does that seem like such a good deal?
When will people like Maddow and Hayes let the discussion at Vox and Salon migrate upward into the sun? This discussion was forbidden during campaign 2000.
Are you happy with how that turned out?
Coming next: Hayes sinks the luxury speedboat
The bombshell report and the Swift boat ride: Lyons makes the comparison in his new column. For full perusal, click here.
Warning to casual readers of this blog: These comments are unmoderated. They are infested by one or more trolls who routinely attack the blog author in a variety of ways, rarely substantive. Such attacks are not an indicator of the level of interest of other readers, the validity of the content posted nor of the esteem in which the blog author is held by others. Political opinions of the commenters do not necessarily reflect those of the blog author.ReplyDelete
"That seems to be what Waldman said—and that's a very serious charge."
"I’ve suggested before that part of the reason journalists as a group seem to have such an intense dislike for Bill and Hillary Clinton is that their ability to emerge relatively unscathed from the innumerable mini-scandals and faux-scandals with which the press becomes temporarily consumed is an implicit rebuke to the press’ power.
So Waldman "suggests" there is a reason "in part" for a group emotion that can be described as "intense" dislike. It is because the Clinton's have "implicity" rebuked the power of that group.
That is one serious allegation. But since it is all "suggests, seems, and implies" we can only heed the advice of a very wise man who often gets results:
Since the Clintons have emerged "relatively unscathed" then the press can be excused:
"Their conduct seems to have been ridiculous, but it seems that little harm was done. Little harm, or perhaps none." TDH 1/22/14
You've pulled some quotes out of context. We don't know what TDH said that in reference to.Delete
It is hard for me to see how Hillary Clinton emerged unscathed from the 2008 primaries after being mistreated by the press consistently during that campaign. How was Bill Clinton unscathed by the impeachment that occurred during his administration? What might he have accomplished had he not been distracted by defending himself, and what might they have done instead with the millions of dollars they had to pay legal defense?
Waldman is an idiot and so are you -- for the way you quote out of context and are apparently too gutless to express your own opinions directly in a way that people can understand.
I've pulled some quotes out of context?"Delete
HAHAHAHAHA!," he giggled like a Gore-girl, mordantly chuckling as he perused pimped piddle from the papers
on the porch overlooking protesting Haitian paupers.
Trolls degenerate into gibberish if you try to have any kind of conversation with them.Delete
@ 1:20 trolls have to do that. The discussion in question has been forbidden for at least twenty years.Delete
I could direct you to the Clinton campaign staffer who could answer why, but any answer they give has to be
off the record and not for attribution.
Maybe the Koch Brothers can start a shelter for abused political reporters, with a Psycho Wing for Maureen Dowd and Frank Bruni.
They can even hire Dr. Bob and Nurse mm to oversee the lobotomies!Delete
Go away stupid troll.Delete
The announcement of Clinton's Saturday rally appearing in the NY Times today is a case in point. It first says:ReplyDelete
"Hillary Rodham Clinton, at a major outdoor rally planned for Saturday, will directly address concerns that have emerged in the early weeks of her candidacy, telling voters they can trust her to fight for the middle class and stressing that she cares about their problems, several people briefed on her plans say."
So, instead of telling people about her policies, she is addressing concerns that have already arisen. Later in the piece it talks about the mini-scandals and how she has been ignoring them, about how she needs to tell voters why she is running, above and beyond her "personal ambition." As if any other candidate has ever been asked to do the same.
Of her listening tour, the article says: "Mrs. Clinton has said that she has learned a lot from those meetings, but they could come across as scripted and lacking in energy, especially as one rival, Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, has already drawn large crowds." The wording implies that Clinton herself said the listening could come across as lacking in energy, but that is all the reporter's opinion. Then there are the familiar complaints about the choice of location, including the fact that her rally is displacing children's activities.
What a crock!
"To a degree, Candidate Clinton has a right to campaign however she wants?” Can someone explain when the emperor died and made Brother Waldman boss?ReplyDelete
Brother Somerby, Boss of Journalistic Practice by Imperial Decree
"....their ability to emerge relatively unscathed from the innumerable mini-scandals and faux-scandals with which the press becomes temporarily consumed is an implicit rebuke to the press’ power."ReplyDelete
Jack Woltz: ..... She threw it all away just to make me look ridiculous. And a man in my position can't afford to be made to look ridiculous.
mm too has a dream...Delete
One smoggy dawn morning the Plutocrat in Charge will wake up screaming with the head of his prized columnist lobotomized at the bottom of his sheets while mm and a crack team of imaginary analysts fly home to the leafy Olive-groved campus in Baltimore to report to Don Boberino.
Later, flowers will arrive at the Somerby family compound with a "Thank You" note from POTUS Hillary for getting her that part.
It's funny that you would identify with the child rapist.Delete
As funny as you taking two cracks at making yourself look as ridiculous as Jack Woltz?Delete
If you say so.Delete
Personally, this is what strikes me as ridiculous:
"....an implicit rebuke to the press’ power."
That one sentence by that ridiculous person, Brother Waldman, validates everything TDH has been writing about the state of our political press for the last 20 years.
Not sure if Brother Waldman's sentence validates Somerby but it is a cinch it will be repeated as such by Somerby for years to come.Delete
Everyone including the press sees a couple of politicians enriched to the extreme by politics. Negative reactions to that is deep in our cultural DNA.ReplyDelete
Yeah, but do they have to take it out on the little Cuban boy with the dinghy in the process?Delete
Leave Laura and G.W. alone. They have served their country and deserve the big bucks.Delete
Who paid for Ronald Reagan's ranch?Delete
Well, I based my guess on this article from 1976 on how Reagan got his millions. But it came from Rolling Stone. And we all know they have been discredited now.Delete
I am here to give testimony of how i got back my husband, we got married for over 9 years and we had two kids. thing were going well with us and we where always happy. until one day my husband started to behave in a way i could not understand, i was very confused by the way he treated me and the kids. later that month he did not come back home again and he called me that he want a divorce, i asked him what have i done wrong to deserve this from him, all he was saying is that he want a divorce that he hate me and do not want to see me again in his life, i was mad and also frustrated do not know what to do,i was sick for more than 2 weeks because of the divorce. i love him so much he was everything to me without him my life is incomplete. i told my sister and she told me to contact a spell caster, i never believe in all this spell casting of a thing. i just want to try if something will come out of it. i contacted traditional spell hospital for the return of my husband to me, they told me that my husband have been taken by another woman, that she cast a spell on him that is why he hate me and also want us to divorce. then they told me that they have to cast a spell on him that will make him return to me and the kids, they casted the spell and after 1 week my husband called me and he told me that i should forgive him, he started to apologize on phone and said that he still live me that he did not know what happen to him that he left me. it was the spell that he casted on him that make him come back to me. my family and i are now happy again. Thank you Dr. Aluta for what you have done for me i would have been nothing today if not for your great spell. i want you my friends who are passing through all this kind of love problem of getting back their husband, wife , or ex boyfriend and girlfriend to contact firstname.lastname@example.org and you will see that your problem will be solved without any delay. He cast spells for different purposes likeReplyDelete
(1) If you want your ex back.
(2) if you always have bad dreams.
(3) You want to be promoted in your office.
(4) You want women/men to run after you.
(5) If you want a child.
(6) You want to be rich.
(7) You want to tie your husband/wife to be yours forever.
(8) If you need financial assistance.
(9) Herbal care
(10) is the only answer to that your problem of winning the lottery
Contact him today on: email@example.com
I want to say i am the happiest person on earth today,since last week with what DR Ofemo has done for me , it all started last year when my husband left me and tell me his travel to see his parents,but i did no he was leaving with another woman who is 8 years older than him,and since then i haven hear from him again without calling or visiting.i feel like my life is completely over. I read over the internet how a spell caster have help several people to get there love back. I have been depress for the past one month and what i need is to get him back and live with him happily. so i decided to give it a try so i contacted the spell caster called DR.Ofemo and explain my problems to him and he cast a love spell which i use to get my Husband back and now my life is complete and both of us are very happy with the relationship.i am happy because DR Ofemo is a man of his word because everything went well as he promised me. Are you have misunderstanding with your lover, You need lottery spell, pregnant spell, or any kinds of disease, or is your lover seeing someone else? what is your problem that you wish to solve? contact DR Ofemo today to make your wish come true,firstname.lastname@example.org his hot line +2348163387496 thank you once again his email via email@example.com or his Via web sit http://drofemospelltemple.wix.com/dr-ofemoReplyDelete
I want to say i am the happiest person on earth today,since last week with what DR Ofemo has done for me , it all started last year when my husband left me and tell me his travel to see his parents,but i did no he was leaving with another woman who is 8 years older than him,and since then i haven hear from him again without calling or visiting.i feel like my life is completely over. I read over the internet how a spell caster have help several people to get there love back. I have been depress for the past one month and what i need is to get him back and live with him happily. so i decided to give it a try so i contacted the spell caster called DR.Ofemo and explain my problems to him and he cast a love spell which i use to get my Husband back and now my life is complete and both of us are very happy with the relationship.i am happy because DR Ofemo is a man of his word because everything went well as he promised me. Are you have misunderstanding with your lover, You need lottery spell, pregnant spell, or any kinds of disease, or is your lover seeing someone else? what is your problem that you wish to solve? contact DR Ofemo today to make your wish come true,firstname.lastname@example.org his hot line +2348163387496 thank you once again his email via email@example.com or his Via web sit http://drofemospelltemple.wix.com/dr-ofemo..ReplyDelete
DR LOVE THIS IS THE ONE OF THINGS I PROMISE I WOULD DO FOR YOU IF MY HUSBAND COME BACK HOME BETWEEN 48HRS YOU SAID AND LUCKILY AS YOU SAID TO ME MY HUSBAND COME BACK HOME TODAY AFTER A LONG MONTHS THAT HE WALK OUT FROM HOUSE FOR NO REASON AND NO WHERE TO FIND HIM UNTIL YOU HELP ME FIND MY LOVE BACK HOME BETWEEN 48HHRS YOU SAID ,WHEN HE CAME BACK HOME HE CONFESS TO ME THAT HE WAS VERY SORRY AND THAT HE WANT TO LIVE WITH ME FOR HER WHOLE LIFE , THANKS DR LOVE FOR YOUR KIND HELP ,AM VERY GRATEFUL . IF ANYONE NEED DR LOVE HELP FOR RELATIONSHIP PROBLEM CONTACT HIM THROUGH THIS MEDIUM firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com Tel : +2348038096203.
Hello every body my name is Synder Anderson I just want to share my experience with the world on how Lord Alika help me, I got my love back and saved my marriage… I was married for 3 years with 1 kid and we lived happily until things started getting ugly and we had fights and argued almost e very time… it got worse at a point that he filed for divorce I tried my best to make him change his mind & stay with me because I love him so much and don’t want to lose him but everything just didn’t work out… he moved out of the house because it was a rented apartment and still went ahead to file for divorce… I pleaded and tried everything but still nothing worked. The breakthrough came when someone introduced me to this wonderful, great spell caster who eventually helped me out… I have never been a fan of things like this but just decided to try reluctantly because I was desperate and left with no choice… He did special prayers and used his power… Within 4 days my husband called me and he said he was sorry for all the emotional pains he had cost me, moved back to the house and we continue to live happily and our kid is happy too and we are expecting our second child… and my Husband also got a new job and our lives became much better web:http://lordalikaspelltemp8.wix.com/http I have introduced him to a lot of couples with problems across the world and they have had good news..contact him on firstname.lastname@example.org or +13217666393. web:http://lordalikaspelltemp8.wix.com/httpReplyDelete