Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

internetworkers - Re: [internetworkers] A-Dubya-O-L

internetworkers AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "H. Wade Minter" <minter AT lunenburg.org>
  • To: "Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/" <internetworkers AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [internetworkers] A-Dubya-O-L
  • Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2004 11:38:36 -0400 (EDT)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Thu, 9 Sep 2004, Michael Czeiszperger wrote:

One of his points after working inside the Republican-controlled media for many years is their attempt to discredit the professional of journalism to the point that the public believes there's no such thing as objective evidence. In a world in which there is no actual objective reporting, then everything must be subjective, in which case opinion is all that matters and facts don't exist.

That's an excellent point. One of the successes (if you want to call it that) of the neo-conservative movement is that they've been able, via constant repitition and spin, to install the meme of the "liberal media" into the heads of a large majority of the population. Without any real evidence to back it up, they've managed to get those people to believe that "the media" (which they define as anything other than Fox News, the Washington Times, or talk radio) is "controlled by the left."

It's been a winning strategy for them, since they've conditioned a broad swath of voters that any criticism or reporting that goes against their message is "part of the liberal media conspiracy," and can be discarded out-of-hand. So when (if) this story hits the airwaves, for example, you'll have a large number of people who will go "There goes that liberal media again, making up stories to make the president look bad. I'm not even going to bother reading it."

Viola - you've successfully been able to turn the debate from the facts of the case to an emotional argument over whether or not the media is "liberal," thus avoiding dealing with the hard questions.

It's a strategy that, you've got to hand it to them, has paid off in spades. Not only have you conditioned people to distrust anything that comes from somewhere other than your few hand-picked media outlets, you've also forced the journalists into using their kid-gloves with the Administration, instead of asking hard questions, because if they deviate from the talking points, they'll be strung up as an example of "the liberal media at work."

This comes into play in comparing the military service of the two candidates. On the one hand you have actual written, documented evidence showing Bush disobeyed a direct order, along with pay records with a six month gap. On the other hand all it takes to discredit Kerry is an opinion, even if all available hard evidence contradicts your statements.

Yup - with the Swift Boat people, the official military record (unchallenged for 30 years) is on Kerry's side. The appropriate procedures were followed, the forms were signed, the onus is on the SBVFT to provide hard evidence that the official military record is wrong. Of course, they can't do it, but they have good soundbites, so that's what gets repeated and drilled into people's heads. The modern media's answer is to give three minutes to the SBVFT side to make their claims, and the Kerry side to deny them. Sound bites. There's little attempt by the media to dissect the SBVFT claims, because doing that would be "partisan".

Sigh.

- --Wade
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQFBQHj/o4DwsyRGDscRAmjcAJ99uluglLC9NyEMzLSmUtpy6esijwCghibP
JbxMMWGCgutMhsmlyYK6S2g=
=fzdI
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page