Today’s reporter chat on the Washington Post was quite interesting. I got Perry Bacon to take the following question:
Re: more “class warfare”: Since you’re bravely taking a lot of tough questions today, how about this one: is it fair to conclude that most in the national media identify with elites — political elites and business elites — and not with the great unwashed masses in flyover territory? Is that why we’re constantly told that the middle class needs to sacrifice more, that attempts to raise taxes on the wealthy are “class warfare”, that people don’t need goverment-sponsored health care and so on?
Do you think coverage would be different if national reporters made less money and lived in places like Detroit and Cleveland?
Thanks.
Perry Bacon Jr.: I have to confess having trouble with these “national media” questions. I really don’t have time to track everything said on CNN and every other network, read every publication that does national news and still report news on my own, so I don’t know if “class warfare” is being used every 10 seconds on tv. I suspect not, as it’s a loaded term. Would coverage be different if more reporters lived in Cleveland and made less money? I don’t know. I read the paper in Louisville fairly often and the stories they run about national politics aren’t terribly different from the ones in the Post, they are just fewer articles about political strategy/tactics that some of our readers really like. Let me ask a few more questions in this vein though. Would Congress handle military policy differently if more members had kids in the services? Would the Obama administration handle economy policy differently if had more people who attended public colleges instead of private ones?
I don’t think his answer makes much sense. Congressmen and advisers are by definition powerful and to some extent comfortable. It is the media that purports to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.
But I’m impressed that Bacon took this one.
norbizness
As David Bowie might have said about 25 years of Reaganomics’ effect on the lower and middle classes: This ain’t class warfare, this is GENOCIDE!
Johnny Gentle (famous crooner)
It makes perfect sense! The gut-wrenching decision to send brave young men and women to possible death in foreign fields is totally the same as a pundit deciding which kneejerk cliche to toss out on Hardball or the Post editorial page.
I’m sure the Red State Army stands in grim solidarity with Mr. Bacon on that one.
JL
It’s a cut and paste answer. Just remove the words "class warfare" and fill in another topic about reporters.
MikeJ
He finds it hard to believe that the cable news people talk of class warfare? Thinks it’s too loaded. How about, "Marxism" or that economic system we can’t name here? Those are also loaded terms, and even worse not even accurate descriptors, but they get used on cable tv every day.
Scruffy McSnufflepuss
Took it, looked at it, screamed, tried to throw it back at you, and then ran away from it. That was the most craven non-answer imaginable. Ignoring it would’ve been less insulting to our intelligence.
The Grand Panjandrum
He didn’t really answer it, as such. He was honest enough to say "I don’t know" which is admirable. But he deflected it at the end with the "answer a question with a question" tactic. That ruined it for me.
cleek
that’s probably because it’s all newswire stuff.
DougJ
That’s what I was thinking too.
ThymeZoneThePlumber
The answer doesn’t, as you say, make sense. The stories out in Louisville and Springfield ARE the same stories, that’s why they look the same. You don’t even have to read the Springfield paper to get this, just use Google News. On any story with a lot of buzz, you will get hundreds, thousands of copies of the same story re-published not just nationally, but from around the world.
There is a core of national source news feeds, and those feeds are the basis for the stories seen around the world.
Of course, I have to add as a disclaimer, you know that I think you and he are on the same wrong wavelength, just at different ends. You think that the "national media" makes a bigger difference than it actually does, and he seems to think that the existence of that "national media" isn’t something he has time to pay attention to.
The national media is not widely respected or influential, IMO. The GOP, of all institutions, seems to get this better than our side does. They know they can howl at "the media" and get a response precisely because the public doesn’t trust that media. They at least have the good sense to use that distrust for their own purposes.
Indylib
OT Even Faux News viewers support Obama’s economic policies over what they think Ronald Reagan’s were.
Could the elected wingnuts in Congress be any more out of touch?
priscianus jr
Panjandrum, You say he was honest enough to say "I don’t know." Except that in all likelihood he does know, and if he does, it’s just another dishonest way of avoiding the question.
comrade scott's agenda of rage
I’m with Scruffy at #5.
This is the same reporter who last week said that Susan Collins was on the left wing of the Republican Party.
Apparently ole Perry hasn’t looked at her voting record while in the Senate. Oh yeah, it’s the established meme inside the Village, that’s why he said it.
Asshat. The (com)Post never ceases to disallusion me.
dr. bloor
@Scruffy McSnufflepuss:
This.
Zifnab
That’s a terrible comparison. For one thing, our last President was "in the service" and it certainly didn’t inspire Bush Sr. to join any anti-War protest rallies. For another, there’s little difference between public colleges and private colleges, but a very big difference between rich colleges and poor colleges.
I mean, John’s got it right. Perry basically replies, "If only Congressmen were all impoverished beggars, perhaps they’d have the interests of the impoverished beggar at heart." But you could change out "Congressmen" for "CEO" or "Wall Street Tycoon" or "Millionaire Heir/ess" and it would be just as inspired. If rich people were poor, they’d better emphasize with poor people, g-duh!
Zifnab
@ThymeZoneThePlumber:
They make use of the media in a dishonest fashion. See: the $30 million Pelosi mouse, the series of Obama Rezko / Ayers scandals, the entire run up to the Iraq War. They know how the system is broken and happily exploit it. But that involves doing a lot of lying. It’s in their best interests if the public doesn’t trust the press, because if they get caught lying they can paint the press as the source of the lies or force the reader to choice between narratives.
The Democrats lie significantly less and significantly less boldly. It’s in their best interests to keep the media reliable and honest. Admittedly, they’ve done a horrible job of maintaining media integrity, but not so horrible that – when Obama gets quoted or Pelosi releases a press brief – people don’t universally toss it out as propaganda.
So its not surprising that the GOP "gets" the distrust of the national media. People don’t trust the media and they don’t trust the GOP. Five years ago, people didn’t trust the media and they didn’t trust the Democrats. But the Democrats internalized that criticism and worked to clean up their act. The GOP is just continuing in their efforts to game the system. In the long run, that’s going to hurt them more than it hurts the press.
Dork
McPussy nails it. This reporter didn’t so much as "take it", as he did peruse it, throw up on it, wipe his ass with it, and then hand it back to you after a quick rinse and some spritzes of air freshner.
ThymeZoneThePlumber
@Zifnab:
Don’t know that I agree totally with that.
They are right about the failure of the media to get things "right." (Correct, not "right" as politically right-leaning).
They are right that the public doesn’t trust the media.
And the public is right not to trust the media to be anything that it is not, or to be something it should not be …. such as "balanced."
They are right that the media has biases.
None of this is dishonest. They do misinterpret, of course. They think that media should be unbiased, which is a myth, and a perversion. Media should be honest, and be forthright about its biases, not try to pretend it doesn’t have them. Media should be economical, and just report what it observes, and not blur the lines between news, opinion, and entertainment.
The right learned to play the media like a drum. Good for them. I think we have a new sheriff in town who is also playing them like a drum, Sheriff O. Our hero.
But look, the media beat up on Reagan, and the people made him a saint. The media beat up on Clinton, and he won reelection without breaking a sweat. The media beat up on Obama, declaring Hillary the winner in 2007, and our campaign dead when Rev. Wright hit the fan.
The media are not nearly as powerful as either the right or left would like to believe.
Carnacki
Here in the eastern part of a flyover state like West Virginia, I can assure you even the local media like the the Martinsburg Journal, a "news"paper owned by regional media tycoon Ogden Nutting, it sees it’s job as to comfort the comfortable and afflict the afflicted just like the national media.
It’s all about protecting the rich, either the publishers who own the paper or the newspaper’s readers that appeal the most to advertisers. You even see it in innocuous sections like the Post’s home section. It’s not about design tips for the middle class, who compromise the bulk of the Post’s readership. It’s all about catering to rich folks, specifically rich white folks. Considering the majority of DC’s population is not rich it’s understandable why the Post’s circulation continues to plummet. Even the Metro section which purports to cover the local news seldom ventures outside of the suburban or well-to-do neighborhoods to go talk to people who don’t live on the Red Line.
Mark S.
Would the Supreme Court handle federalism issues differently if a majority of the justices were transsexuals?
bvac
So let me get this straight. You’re saying that life experiences change the attitude that one has towards policies that effect them the most?
Zifnab
@ThymeZoneThePlumber: You had Dick Cheney going on "Meet the Press" and quoting a NYT article from an annoymous intelligence source that HE ORDERED TO LEAK about Iraqi WMDs in order to argue that there were WMDs in Iraq. You can’t get more dishonest than that. The man quoted himself in the third person by exploiting a flaw in the press.
You’ve got multiple Congressmen and GOP Pundits loudly proclaiming the existence of a Disneyland to Vegas HSR line that goes "straight to the doorstep of the Bunny Ranch" when such a train couldn’t even exist what with said ranch being 422 miles north of Vegas. This lie is repeated ad nauseum for weeks. It’s not a "media" lie. It’s a distinctly GOP lie jammed down the media’s throat at every opportunity in a deliberate campaign to discredit legislation.
The GOP brutally abuses the media’s credibility on a regular basis. These are just two out of hundreds of examples. Tom Brochaw, Matt Lauer, and Chris Matthews don’t scheme this shit up in their free time. They might do a shitty job of actual investigative reporting, but the zombie lies are kept roaming by the Republican Dark Arts alone.
comrade scott's agenda of rage
Carnacki:
You live in the ‘Burg? Heaven help you.
Signed,
Scott
MHS Class of ’79
passerby
He dodges here, or is he really that obtuse?
Obviously, yes.
Obviously, yes
Yes, Bacon took the question but he didn’t answer it and even added a couple of his own questions the answers to which may be non-specific but are unquestionably (to a thinking person) yes. So much bullshit.
passerby
[ Is the edit function “off” for anyone else?]
Napoleon
@passerby:
Yes
SnarkIntern
We didn’t get a war because of the media. We got a war because Congress abdicated its responsibility several decades ago. Dems were, and are, fully complicit.
America is a bellicose nation because the people have wanted it to be a bellicose nation. Not because of Tom Brokaw. Tom Brokaw is a follower, a whore. Not an evil schemer sending his sycophants off to fight bad wars.
If we had not been a bellicose nation, if we had not abdicated our concern for war and peace to the government, and if the government hadn’t abdicated its rightful roles, we wouldn’t have had a war in Iraq.
And the stimulus thing you are referring to? The measure passed and was signed. Nobody cares about the bunny railroad. That’s just theatrics.
passerby
Yesterday I downloaded and installed my windows updates along with my virus and malware protection programs. Now when I refresh BJ, if won’t give the the most recent comments unless I leave and come back.
So I’m posting this comment to see what happens.
itsbenj
maybe a bit too easily impressed…??
Adrienne
Why? I’d be impressed if he’d actually, you know, answered your question as opposed to just "taking it". It doesn’t take much courage (or anything else worth being impressed with) to deliver some non-sensical bullshit non-answer. It just doesn’t.
Further, I can answer all his questions:
Damn right. If they actually had to personally worry about these issues, they’d come to the table with an entirely different viewpoint. That’s just natural. Duh. Being PERSONALLY affected by something makes you much more aware and passionate about that cause. You begin to take it, you know, personally.
Damn right. When it is YOUR kid that may die, you damn sure want to be sure the cause is worth their lives. That would be the lens through which they’d see military options. Again, being PERSONALLY affected by an issue tends to make you a bit more aware. DUH.
One of these things are not like the others – you notice how he tried to throw a curve ball? College education is only one part (of an INFINITE number of things) of economic policy. However, the answer is still yes. DUH. People who may have had to struggle to go to and pay for community college or public universities will probably have different policy outlooks and priorities than a platinum spoon (silver spoons are for pussies) bred trust fund Harvard baby who never had to work for anything (see: Bush, George W.) Double Duh.
This guy is an idiot. But, since the answer to all his comparisons are "Duh.", does that mean that he accepts that he implicitly accepts that the answer to the question which prompted the comparison is also a resounding "Double Duh."?
Shinobi
I would probably have phrased your question less politely and thus guaranteed that he not answer it, something more like:
‘What’s with all the human interest stories about douchebag rich people who now have to live like the rest of us?
What about doing some stories on some people who are actually suffering because of the economy as opposed to focusing on people who are just being inconvenienced.
Do you think that this is because journalists are also douchebag rich people who are so disconnected from normal people they don’t realize that many people are actually suffering, losing their homes and being forced to go to food banks just to feed their family? "
This is why I do not go to WP chats. Way to at least get him to pretend to answer you Doug.
Garrigus Carraig
Keep on keepin’ on, DougJ. Your questions, & the hacks’ unwilllingness to answer them, are more instructive than the actual answers.
This is the same Perry Bacon who got a story about the "Barack is a secret Muslim" smears on the front page last year. A craven, maleficent rat bastard.
Singularity
The Republicans are Diamond Dogs?@TZP
The national media don’t directly shape mass public opinion outside of the beltway. They do set the public agenda, however. Jay Leno bases half his lame monologues on the stuff he reads in the Times and the Post, and if you watch Jay at all you know he plays to the Republicans. Local papers all run wire service stories, and Ron Fournier is the guy who makes content decisions at AP. Fournier’s sympathies lie to fairly far to the right. So while I agree that most people don’t read Krauthammer in the Post and form their political opinions, the people who do influence them are all influenced by the national media.
AhabTExpropriator
While I praise the efforts DougJ, add me to the list of "not impressed." These hacks take the good questions only to be able to marginalize, mock, or ignore them.
kuvasz
If the general media do not use the phrase "class warfare," it does not exist.
dougymi
I read that this morning and in all honesty, I felt it was too specific to content from the cablenets. Conflation of their content with that of the Wapo is a common enough problem in Wapo chats and gives them an easy out (e.g. I didn’t say it and I don’t watch cablenews so I don’t know what you’re talking about), but I’m glad you got the question in and was displeased with the answer, as usual.
I’ve tried quite often to get them (particularly kurtz) to take questions and have almost always failed (kaiser and froomkin being exceptions to that) so I’m actually quite amazed you got a tough one in!
flounder
DougJ, I tried to follow it up with this:
Gregory
@DougJ:
The C-J (Louisville Courier-Journal) used to be one of the greats, but it’s been on a steady decline since Gannett bought it in 1986.
TheOfficialHatOnMyCat
Absolutely do not agree. The media sets the media agenda. The public sets its own agenda. Not clearly, or articulated, or even consistent. But in its own way.
Jay Leno? What percentage of people watch Jay Leno? I like Jay, and I see him maybe 20-30 times a year for maybe ten mins at a time. And I almost never remember anything he says. He’s for the lulz. He’s not the public, or any agenda.
Jay to my ear plays to the middle, and laughs his ass off at Republicans whenever possible. Which is most of the time.
Jay just goes for the cheap laughs, which is fine by me. I like the cheap laugh. Nobody has ever topped Mister Ed AFAIC.
As Mister Ed said to Wilbur in the pilot episode: This stuff is bigger than both of us.
HyperIon
@TheOfficialHatOnMyCat:
NO, the media set….
They set….
And DougJ: what’s this "hats off" crap? You’re happy that he took your question? So what? He gave a non-answer. As always. WHAT is ever learned in these stupid WaPo "chats" and "discussions"?
Lord Growing
@HyperIon:
The "hats off" was a bit inappropriate, but worth it for the Del Shannon reference.
Malovic
Mr.s Bacon’s answer, actually, is yes; he does identify the national media with the nation’s elites in his countering line of questioning. It may be unconscious, but it is evident if you examine the structure of his arguement. The first part is smoke, the next, with the questions, structures media-congress-executive with access-risk-expertise. He groups them together in his mind, and while his dissemination appears to make little sense, actually says a lot about the way his mind works. Which sort of makes me worry, yet again, about how much quality information is actually out there.
Personally, I’m hoping the Obama strategy is to give Washington enough rope to hang itself, let it hang itself, and offer a saner alternative than how the gov’t has been run for the past eight to ten years.
Marshall
No, they didn’t. I remember the Reagan years – basically every speech, and certainly every unscripted interview, was full of howlers, mistakes, and outright untruths, and they would always be ignored. The media paradigm was that it would be disrespectful to the aged to point this out, or something.
Even famous moments like, "I’m paying for this microphone" – no, he wasn’t. The welfare queen with the Cadillac – she didn’t exist. Etc., etc.
And this was before the Alzheimers really set in, during the second term.
Marshall
I would agree. He was also dishonest, but he might not have known it. He could have just said "I can’t speak for other reporters, but I try and be as objective as I can." Or he could have said "Of course everyone is influenced by their circumstances, but by and large I think that reporters in this country try and be fair, blah blah blah."
Instead, you get an odd "Politicians do it too !" response. Let’s hope he doesn’t try that if his wife asks him if he is cheating on her.