 |
Why are local news outlets giving faux tea parties free publicity? |
 |
Perhaps the only thing the right-wing has done well over the past 30 years is PR. They are great at slogans and controlling the message–by focusing the media on “tax and spend” liberals who were “card-carrying members of the ACLU”, painting war hero John Kerry as a Jane Fonda-loving hippy and getting everyone worked up about Bill Ayers and Reverend Wright, Republicans have managed to be much more competitive at the polls than could ever be justified by their disastrous record of governance.
The message, of course, generally has little if anything to do with reality. One case in point is the myth that a “liberal media” favors Democrats. Anyone who was even half-awake in the late 1990s might have noticed the media feeding frenzy around Bill Clinton. I am no apologist for Clinton’s behavior, but the Lewinsky frenzy elevated private indiscretion to the level of constitutional crisis. If that’s not enough to convince you that the liberal media hype is just that, perhaps these studies and discussions will help. I’ll also mention a few additional counter-points: Fox News, the Wall Street Journal, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Joe Scarborough, Pat Buchanan, Ann Coulter, the Weekly Standard, Michael Savage, Bill Kristol, Charles Krauthammer, George Will, and Peggy Noonan.
Of course, all my examples have to do with national media. At the local level, my suspicion is that the liberal media is often about as believable a concept as the Abominable Snowman. Whenever I travel, I like to read the local papers and watch local news to see what coverage is like. In many places, there is hardly a liberal to be found. The right-wing message is presented without comment, without any hint that there is an opposing viewpoint.
Here’s a recent example. I spent a few days last week in Charleston, South Carolina. It’s an absolutely lovely city. I love history, and the place is chock-full of it, from 18th century mansions to Fort Sumter, where the Civil War began. I did have a few odd moments–like the time when I oveheard a tour guide explaining how “bad slaves” were punished when they “acted up”, or the bumper sticker I saw that accused President Obama of being a socialist–but I am hardly willing to write off a city of 100,000 people based on a few anecdotal experiences.
Another thing I noticed was the tone of media coverage. The Charleston Post and Courier printed a slew of anti-Obama op-eds, cartoons, and letters to the editor. It also printed this bizarre article that focused on claims that a local teen, Ty’Sheoma Bethea, who called attention to disgracefully dilapidated public schools was drawing unwanted attention that could harm her community. There was little mention in the article of Gov. Mark Sanford’s decision to turn down federal money that could have helped Bethea’s school, and others. There was no mention of who was responsible for the real harm to the community–the dilapidated schools that Bethea wanted repaired.
As I was watching the local news in Charleston one night, I saw a story about anti-Obama “tea party” protests. The local station told viewers when and where a tea party would be taking place, mentioned that Sen. Jim DeMint would attend, and described the event as a protest of wasteful government spending. That’s a pretty good recap of the message being pushed by organizers of the protest. The “story” didn’t mention the anti-Obama angle associated with the protests, and didn’t present any opposing point of view.
When I got home, I did some looking and found that lots of local news outlets are similarly giving the tea protests a megaphone by serving as virtual stenographers who simply reproduce the protesters’ preferred message, giving zero space to any contrary point of view, while helpfully telling people where and when they can attend the protests.
This blanket coverage is no accident: Think Progress explains how two lobbyist-run think tanks, with the help of Fox News, have provided PR work for the protests. The protests themselves are billed as grassroots phenomena, but Think Progress points out there may be more “astroturfing” than genuine activism involved in setting up the events. Steve Benen of the Washington Monthly has made similar observations.
Against this backdrop of local news outlets helpfully spreading the intended message of the protesters, it was laughable to see the right wing attack Benen’s post as part of a “coordinated message operaton” designed to push an “anti-Tea Party message”. Somehow, it looks like the anti-Tea Party message hasn’t made it to Charleston, Santa Barbara, Elkhart County, IN, Newport News, VA, or Buffalo, NY.
I’m glad that people like Steve Benen are trying to offer some counterpoint to the torrent of pro-tea party coverage that dominates much of our media, especially at the local level. Someday, perhaps local media will even take notice of the reality that not everyone agrees with the right wing’s talking point du jour.
These so called tea parties being pushed by local media and financed by an organization run by Richard Armey, the former House majority leader, supported by the usual group of right-wing billionaires seem to be attracting skinheads and anti-government types, all of whom have plenty of automatic weapons, knives and explosives that could end up in being a real problem. Don%u2019t forget the rhetoric since Nov 4: the blatant racism, the hate of everything Democratic, the incessant %u201Cinsurrection%u201D comments, etc. What I see wrong with this current situation is that there doesn%u2019t seem to be a single issue driving these protests. They are simply protests against President Obama. Ultimately, everything else they say is just an excuse to get together and proclaim that they don%u2019t recognize the authority of the new administration. They aren%u2019t objecting to issues; they%u2019re objecting to (and revolting against) the President himself. I%u2019m not too worried about violence at these demonstrations. They are most likely not going to attack themselves, or march in the streets. BUT, the participants are going to go home, emboldened by all the hate speech and back-slapping encouragement to %u201Cdo something about it.%u201D I fear the events are going to be breeding grounds for some very dispicable acts carried out by these people. I personally feel the likes of Senator Jim DeMint and Governor Mark Sanford at these anti-American rallies is terrible. For an elected official to aid in the organization and promotion of such acts is truly disgusting and should be punishable by law.
Obama is not a socialist? Government take over of banks, the auto industry, and soon to be universal health care, hate to break it to you, but that is socialism. On to another quick point, the “right wingers” do not have the right to throw a tea party, and speak out against what they see as wrong? I also love how Washington Insider tries to label all right wingers as racist, and hateful. The only thing I see coming from your blog is that only liberals should have the right of free speech, and anyone else with a differing view point should shut up.
Obama said last night that he does not intend for the government to have a permanent stake in the banks or the auto industry. He, like Bush, believes that this is an emergency requiring unusual action to prevent economic collapse. I might disagree with some of his decisions, but I don’t see how it is socialism. Do you also believe Bush is a socialist, as he took similar actions to take a government stake in private businesses? If Obama, or anyone else, takes permanent ownership of industry then yes, that would be socialism (or least partial socialism–full-fledged socialism would mean there is no private ownership of any business). Obama’s health care plan is not socialism either. It leaves private health care intact, and allows people to keep their current insurance–also allows private health care companies to keep making a profit. I question some of these decisions but, again, it’s not socialism.
As I said in another post, I fully support the right of tea partiers, or anyone else to peacebly assemble and to speak, even when I disagree with them. I, in turn, have the right to engage in “counterspeech”–to explain why I disagree with them, why I think thetea parties themselves are a sham. I have never said that anyone should be denied free speech–to the contrary, as I wrote in a different post, and am re-iterating here, I fully support everyone’s right to speak, including the tea partiers. Critizing someone’s speech, as I have done here, does not mean I think the speech should be punished or censored. I’m not sure how you inferred that I supported censoring anyone’s speech–I have never said that.
You mention that the right wingers took a private indiscretion and made it a constitutional crises and then you accuse conservatives of framing the argument. Okay - then let’s ignore the fact that President Clinton lied under oath (about that private indiscretion) to a legally formed investigative authority. In my opinion the lying under oath by a sitting President is the problem. Do politicians lie, you bet they do - they take it to a fine art, but we expect more of a President, we should demand more of a President. He or she has achieved the 2nd greatest honor in the land that anyone person can have (parenting is the first) and living up to that standard should be what is expected.
Now before you go half cocked about a right wing conservative I will admit right here and now that (to paraphrase the greatest ever) the Republican Party has left me. That is, President Bush betrayed what conservatives believe in and done great damage to the office, the country, and the republican party. Ironically he did that by politically moving left - larger government, less freedoms, etc.
The Republican party has not adhered to conservative principles for 30 years. The party’s hero, Ronald Reagan, had the same non-conservative economic approach that Bush did–namely, profligate spending, tax cuts for the wealthy, huge budget deficits. The party has paid lip service to “small government” for decades while at the same time advocating for the government’s power to force a women to carry a pregnancy to term. Reagan’s military build-up was hardly a paean to “small government”–same goes for Iran-Contra (a sort of foreshadowing of the Bush philosophy that the president may choose to set aside law when he wishes). George W. Bush was not an aberration, he simply represented the logical conclusion of what the Republican party has stood for, in practice, over the last 30 years.
Finally, “less freedoms” does not represent a move to the left (!)