Come for the politics, stay for the snark.
So while the Post and the Times are simultaneously concern trolling themselves, apparently worried they don’t read enough wingnut blogs and then publicize their bullshit enough (do the WaPo editors not recognize that mainstreaming right-wing bullshit is Howard Kurtz’s job description), we get another glimpse into what really motivates the GOP.
(via)
I interrupt your work day for this newest pic of the youngest Balloon Juicer, from commenter Krista/Redkitten:
Early reports have him “eating like a horse and growing like a weed.”
Continue on with your day.
It certainly seemed a strange coincidence that both the Times’ and the Kaplan’s ombudsmen declared their fealty to Lord Beck in the same week. A reader reminded me that this not the first time the Daily Kaplan has gone down this road. Here’s Deborah Howell on teh librul bias last year:
Are there ways to tackle this? More conservatives in newsrooms and rigorous editing would be two. The first is not easy: Editors hire not on the basis of beliefs but on talent in reporting, photography and editing, and hiring is at a standstill because of the economy. But newspapers have hired more minorities and women, so it can be done.
At the time, Michael Calderone wrote a pretty good reply:
There’s no problem with more rigorous editing or questioning the placement of stories. But I don’t know any newspaper editor who would be comfortable asking reporters their political views and then using that information to help determine whether they should be hired or not. And trying to stuff the Post with avowed conservatives to correct “perceptions” of bias won’t work.
The Post, I’m sorry to say, is still going to be viewed as a liberal paper to a large swath of conservatives no matter who’s in the newsroom. Or The New York Times, for that matter. Despite public editor Clark Hoyt showing there were more tough investigative pieces in The Times about Obama than McCain, I didn’t notice right-wing talkers all of a sudden saying the Times 2008 coverage was fair.
Of course, news does not have to break only in the pages of The Times or The Post. And Howell doesn’t mention the Internet. What there needs to be more of in covering politics today, as my colleague Jonathan Martin wrote in July, is right-leaning websites doing original reporting like Talking Points Memo or Huffington Post. And that could be where future conservative reporting comes from.
And therein lies the central issue: conservatives for the most part have no interest in journalism in the sense of a first draft of history. What they want is quasi-journalistic affirmation of their own feelings. The TED blog (via Sully) wrote of the death panel lie that:
So when Palin threw out the term “death panels,” the term struck a chord that had been played many times in recent years….Liberals were flabbergasted, because it’s a blatant lie, but it’s false only in a logical sense, not an emotional one. (bold mine)
Don’t get me wrong, I realize that we all like to read things that confirm our own opinions. But I can’t think of any analog of the 2 million 1.5 million 800,000 60,000 moran march controversy outside the wingnutosphere. It’s worth noting, for example, that the discussion of the number of people at the Million Man March involved a much tighter range of numbers — that’s how crazy the teabaggers are, they manged to make Louis Farrakhan look sane by comparison in this instance.
What Clark and Alexander and Howell suggest is that we need more stories about tempests in tea bags because it hurts the wignuts’ fee-fees when they don’t see enough stories about ACORN and Van Jones and the massive size of wingnut rallies in the newspapers. It’s odd that the media believes it needs to attempt an emotional rescue of the very same people who have declared war on empathy.
Here:
After years of trying to cut Medicare spending, Republican lawmakers have emerged as champions of the program, accusing Democrats of trying to steal from the elderly to cover the cost of health reform.
It’s a lonely battle. The hospital associations, AARP and other powerful interest groups that usually howl over Medicare cuts have also switched sides. Last week, they stood silent as the Senate Finance Committee debated a plan to slice more than $400 billion over the next decade from Medicare, the revered federal insurance program for people over 65, and Medicaid, which also serves many seniors.
Those folks at Reason sure know how to pick their allies, don’t they?
So conservative bloggers are now publicly wondering if the murdered census worker was a child predator. Jesse Taylor summarizes the evidence:
1.) What if he was?
2.) Wouldn’t it be irresponsible not to theorize?
Amazing the depths these guys will sink to…
Because I can’t access the BJ Lexicon tonight, I’ll just share this tidbit here: According to the late local TV news, the late William Safire claimed to have introduced the terms “strawman” and “thrown under the bus“ into modern political discourse (along with his catchphrase, “nattering nabobs of negatavism”).
Of course it probably isn’t true, since Safire didn’t claim authorship when he discussed the term in his beloved column on English usage. So I’m left to wonder: why these phrases, now? Why did somebody think it would be a creative honor worth claiming?
Early Morning Open Thread – Thrown Under the Bus!Post + Comments (77)
Now we know what it takes to get a Daily Kaplan columnist outraged!
The Outrageous Arrest of Roman Polanski Polanski, who panicked and fled the U.S. during that trial, has been pursued by this case for 30 years, during which time he has never returned to America, has never returned to the United Kingdom., has avoided many other countries, and has never been convicted of anything else. He did commit a crime, but he has paid for the crime in many, many ways: In notoriety, in lawyers’ fees, in professional stigma. He could not return to Los Angeles to receive his recent Oscar. He cannot visit Hollywood to direct or cast a film.
I have no real opinion about this case — I think Polanski broke the law, but it was years ago and the victim says she prefers he not be prosecuted at this point. I tend to think pursuing the case may be a waste of time. But, given that he did commit a fairly serious crime, I can see why perhaps he should be prosecuted. (EDIT NOTE: I rewrote that last paragraph after I thought more about it.)
But of all the examples of police/prosecutorial conduct to get outraged about. Our government has been torturing people for years. Police regularly taser the old and infirm. Innocent people are being executed in our criminal justice system. It’s now acceptable for people to arrested in their own homes for sassing cops.
It’s hard not to think that Applebaum empathizes with Polanski because she occupies the same societal class that he does. Imagine the horrors of never crossing the Atlantic again! Much worse than being forced to shove needles into your own veins.
Update. Poland is interceding on Polanski’s behalf. Their foreign minister…Anne Applebaum’s husband.