Free Markets, Free People

Challenging the media narrative and the results of the challenge

Bains, a long time commenter here at QandO, and someone who I enjoy reading, put out a rather lengthy comment on the post about the CBS News poll that showed the majority rejected the narrative that heated political rhetoric caused the Tucson shooting.  I thought I’d give the bains comment some further visibility because it has some tasty parts that I think deserve discussion.  Here’s the comment in its entirety:

I’m noticing something else at play here. A theory of mine that recent events support, perhaps even validate. This will be long so please bear with me.

In 2008 I was in an argument with my father. I was lamenting that if only the media did its job, the nation might have a better idea of just who Barack Obama was, and where he wanted to take this nation. As with many of my friends, and evidently a good number of voters, he would have none of my criticism. Pop was, and still is, mired in a hatred of George W Bush. As such, he entirely missed the point I was trying to make. When news media becomes an advocate for a person, or a position, or a policy, we can not trust that media. It is not just that they are no longer ‘objective’; no, they have become willing disseminators of propaganda. Most here know this.

In a fit, I said that his reliance upon the MSM would come back to bite. All the blowback to the partisan blame-naming that we have seen over the past several days is a good indication of that “bite”.

No, it is not that the MSM is heavily biased leftward (they are). Rather, that those who have studiously ignored, and many have denied, this bent have seriously damaged their own cause. When one agrees with an author, or commenter, or pundit’s point of view, it is quite easy not to call them out on the inaccuracies they use in promoting their cause. And for forty years, the major media outlets have rarely been taken to task for their inaccuracies. That the narrative was acceptable was/is all that is important – facts be damned. And for a long time, this worked: Bork was Borked, Gingrich shut down the government, Limbaugh was responsible for the OKCity bombing, Reagan and Bush’s support of Israel caused 9-11, Humans cause global warming, and evil corporations (supported entirely and only by the right) caused all of our economic woes.

Instead of saying “wait a minute MSM, what proof do you have to make that statement” far too many folks nodded in agreement. Not because of a compelling argument, but because of an overwhelming agreement with how the conclusion could change the course of politics. Bork et al were/are bad solely because their views were/are in opposition to the enlightened, and therefore, brilliant judgments of the political “vanguard” – the Left.

Now what this has led to is a media, and the political left ill-suited to make compelling arguments. All this time, they have been living in an intellectually cloistered tabernacle, only hearing praise for all their illogical and un-provable prognostications. All their “brilliant” arguments are merely juvenile and facile, applauded only because they “proved” the proper position (approved by the ‘right’ cocktail circuits in the ‘right’ locations with the ‘right’ dignitaries approving).

Pundits of this ilk, say Paul Krugman and many others, have been living in a world of masturbatory bliss. Egos massaged, they willingly shelve any intellectual acumen for further gratification. They proudly spout the approved line, support the approved policy, advocate the approved politician,  fighting evil in the name of (party approved) decency and Nobility.  Hell, a Nobel Prize proves they must be brilliant (and Noble)! But therein lies the (nasty sandpaper) rub. There will come a time when they will not be able to hide their intellectual inadequacies behind a screaming choir.

This is why we see, I surmise, Krugman, his hosting broadsheet, and so many others, going off the deep end regarding the shooting in Tucson. They are loosing their grip on the narrative, and are petulantly lashing out at those who are more and more willing to reject not just the politically motivated narrative, but also those who mindlessly foist that narrative.

Bains’ theory is similar to the thoughts I’ve had (although I’d hesitate to call mine a theory, so ill formed are those thoughts at this moment) about the state of the media.  I think bains raises some interesting points.  As my brother has said to me, the internet’s democratization of publishing and commentary is as “important as Gutenberg’s invention of moveable type”.  The more I observe what is happening, the more I agree.  Bains takes that a step further to point out the impact and implications that “invention” is having.

Gutenberg took the Bible away from those who controlled it’s narrative at the time – the Church.   It was the beginning of the end of the Church’s power.  No longer were they the sole possessors of the written word or the narrative.   Now many, many more could directly possess what only the wealthy church could previously possess (since Bibles at the time were all hand made and hideously expensive) and they were also able to offer their own (and competing) interpretations as well.

For a few centuries, the “media” has been – in some form or another – pretty much the sole provider of “news”.  It chose the topics, it chose how they were treated and it chose how they were presented, followed up and talked about.  Or, as bains points out, they controlled the narrative.

That’s big power.  And for the most part, they had no competition except within their own industry.  So people like Krugman, et al, became used to having their opinion accepted as “the” opinion and were able to push whatever narrative their ideology demanded as the “common wisdom”.

But there was a true revolution brewing that they missed completely.  As Al Gore’s internet stood up in the mid to late ‘90s a challenge developed to the “official narratives” that were then considered conventional wisdom.   No longer were the keepers of the narrative unchallenged.  The first thing I remember – and this was before blogs or just as blogs were beginning to develop – was the “Tailwind” scandal where CNN’s Peter Arness was brought down over a lie that US troops used poison gas in Cambodia (I believe – this is from memory).

Then came Rathergate, when blogs came into their own and destroyed the story a major news organization was pushing as true and accurate.  It wasn’t.  

Since then and with the rise of the democratized press, bains theory seems to describe well what has and is happening.  Krugman seems to me to be the perfect example of the establishment media’s reaction to the situation.  

Certainly there have been vast changes in the media itself.  The rise of radio then television.  The death of “appointment TV” with the rise of cable news. Etc.  But all of those still had an insular media in charge of the narrative and able, for the most part, to do what bains describes.

Not anymore – with the bar to entry lowered so that anyone with an internet account can challenge the big boys and their narrative the monopoly on information deemed “news” is over.   The decision as to what is or isn’t “news” is not something the traditional media can dictate anymore.   Proof of that are the many stories essentially ignored by the traditional media, kept alive in the blogosphere and finally and reluctantly covered by the MSM.

Anyway, seemed a great topic for discussion – go for it.

~McQ

[ad] Empty ad slot (#1)!

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditPin on PinterestEmail this to someone

48 Responses to Challenging the media narrative and the results of the challenge

  • Dead on the money  (oops, I said “dead”, I sure hope that didn’t incite anyone!)

    Anyway, it is these exact reasons that politicians are so eager to regulate internet speech  (heck, it’s why the Dems are STILL trying to reintroduce the fairness doctrine, because Limbaugh absolutely humiliates them every day)

    The phenominal thing about the net is that nothing is gone, no matter how hard Kos scrubs it.  Prime example – the NY Times had an OP-Ed by (D) Paul Kanjorski about the need for “civility”.  And on the same blog that noted that piece, they also had a fun link to that very same guy yelling that his election opponent should’ve been put against a wall and shot.  So no, they have no narrative control.  The left screeches about Palin’s “crosshairs map”, and presto! here’s a link to the DLC putting up “bullseye” maps.   Obama tries to stay above the fray, we get millions of links to “if they bring a knife, we bring a gun” etc etc.  They yelled, and buried themselves.  So yes, the claim that the Dems have lost a lot of brain power in this type of thing is justified, because what idiot would tweet “Mission Accomplished Sarah Palin” while trying (and failing) to scrub a post “targeting” that very same Rep. from his hate site?

    If you want to really know the turning point of losing the narrative – not quite Rathergate, because they were still able to hide somewhat in the “fog of war”.  Look to Palin’s “death panels” comment – that really was the seminal moment in the turning of opinion against Barackycare.  And provides yet another reason why the left is so hot to blood libel her.

    • The left screeches about Palin’s “crosshairs map”, and presto! here’s a link to the DLC putting up “bullseye” maps.
      Yep. This is what set me off on NPR again this morning…they are stll mentioning cross hairs but not mentioning bulls eyes at all.
      They had Rand Paul’s primary opponent on, and he was a willing dupe.
      He even brought up the case of the neck stomping of the moveon.org protestor.
      Now, in light of this attack in Arizona, does anyone maybe want to re-visit that incident? Crazy looking woman in a disguise tries to rush Rand Paul several times…and she gets restrained.
      What if she had a Glock?

      • Showing the myriad of liberal hate speech and actions to liberals is like sticking a puppy’s nose in it’s own poop. Except it works with puppies.

  • Strange, after reading Shark’s comment I’m seeing dead people….anyway, I see two outcomes to the growth of the internet:

    1)      The politicians will regulate its political utility for the masses out of existence.
    2)      Its political utility will force a higher moral and selfless breed of politicians.

    If the 2nd outcome is the reality then for the first time the USA will have a true 4th Estate.

  • My friends, we live in truly momentous times.  The rise of New Media has put a power in our hands that was simply impossible for me to aspire to only a few decades back.
    I may not be the only one who used to argue with the TV as the three…and only three…networks told me “That’s The Way It Is” every evening.  Sometimes, our arguments grew heated.  And I was utterly powerless to do anything about our disagreements.
    This most recent incident…and the immediate defense WITH FACTS…proves to me that New Media has turned the tide.  In real time, I followed the attacks, and in real time I tracked the push-back on several difference sites.  That was impossible to do not long ago.
    Matt Ridley has written a book called The Rational Optimist I think all of us should read.  He talks about “ideas having sex”, by which he means that innovation propagates vastly more innovation.
    It was not merely the ability to get out a message via New Media that was pivotal in recent days…it was the cloud of information…and ideas…to which we have access now.
    Anybody who tries to shut that down now…well, that would be truly ugly.

  • It’s certainly clear that today’s left is incapable of learning from their own errors.

    This should be no surprise for the crew that still won’t acknowledge their complicity with mass murderers in the Soviet Union. However, it is totally, transparently at odds with their own self-image of how smart and perceptive they are. That’s the core contradiction: they think they are brilliant, and one blunder and mistake after another shows that they’re actually not very bright, perceptive, or in touch with reality.

    Some of them are *articulate*, but that’s not the same thing as being intelligent. They think it is, of course. Because Bush wasn’t articulate, I’ve heard leftists loudly insist that he was simply bone-crushingly stupid. I don’t think Bush is an intellectual by any means, and regulars here know how harsh I’ve been on him, but it ought to be obvious to anyone that Bush isn’t a total idiot. 

    Today’s left has bought into the worst of both worlds, philosophically. They have a faith-based philosophy which can be disproven by facts from the real world. Faith on its own is fine, as billions of Christians, Jews, Hindus, etc. demonstrate. But when a faith makes lots of predictions (things like “historical inevitability”) and then those predictions turn out wrong, that demonstrates real-world flaws in the faith to anyone who doesn’t believe in it emotionally.

    Giving up that faith would require them to acknowledge that they are not fit to rule the world, the way they self-evidently think they are. So they won’t give it up, no matter what the real world has to say about it. That would be too psychologically painful to bear.

    Instead, they retreat into post-modernist concepts, in which facts and truth don’t really count any more.  That way, they move the playing field from facts/logic/Enlightenment thinking into opinion. In their faith, they deny the very concept of objective truth. Instead, truth is “socially constructed”. That’s where the concept of “establishing the narrative” comes from.

    The end result is that today’s left has moved completely to being tacticians, as Andy McCarthy recently noted. Everything is about advancing their narrative. They seize any rhetorical mechanism, and whether or not it’s truthful doesn’t matter, since truth in the way we think of it doesn’t even exist in their mental calculus.

    If enough of the people around them buy their narrative, it becomes “truth” for them and their group. They then howl with indignation that we Enlightenment thinkers insist on subjecting their socially constructed “truth” to standards of evidence. We even bring up their own contradictory actions and words from the past. They consider that manifestly unfair; those actions and words were for a completely different narrative that they were working on at that time, and in their post-modern foggy world, they don’t apply to today’s narrative. They can always some up with some excuse, either overtly or in their own minds, as to why what they said back then doesn’t contradict anything today, and you’re just a rightist fool if you think otherwise.

    As much as loathe the imbecilic professor of political science who has commented here so much in the past, and poked his head in after this incident, I must admit that he serves a valuable purpose as a canonical example of that kind of thinking. He genuinely believes that if you just convince enough people that something is “true”, then it becomes true. He’s constantly bleating about how we all need to “sit down and talk things out”, which means giving leftists all the room they need to push their narrative without unfairly (his perception) pointing out that it’s bullsh!+ of the purest ray serene. He want’s to make such a response out of bounds – it’s “insulting” don’t you know. 

    He and his side want to govern the rules of debate and rule Enlightenment thinking and argumentation out of bounds. The end result that their style of post-modern argument is then given precedence seems to people like him to be only fair, since in his mind, that’s just the way the world and the human mind really work.

    He also demonstrates in spades the left’s inability to learn from their mistakes. Others have listed a long, long list of the predictions this idiot has made that turn out to be howlingly wrong. However, when confronted, him most common response again indicates how the left thinks. He pulls out his advanced degree, attempted to put credentials aheads of facts and logic.

    In any Enlightenment terms, his very field is a lie:  political “science”. Any true science means that theories are constructed, predictions are derived from the theory and then tested. If the prediction fails, then the theory is flawed, period. However, today’s left, as exemplified by the imbecile from Maine, simply ignores the evidence of failure of their predictions. They literally just don’t think about it. If they do, then they come up with extenuating factors for why the prediction didn’t really fail. Then they move on to some other rhetorical device to tactically advance their faith.

    This Arizona incident is just a concentrated form of what I’ve been seeing for thirty years. The left’s foolishness, post-modern tampering with the truth, and opinion increasingly uncontaminated by reality get worse with every passing month.

    Fortunately, many others are now seeing what these folks are really all about, more each year in fact. That’s because the left’s idiocy becomes more distilled and concentrated every year. We went from relatively mild bias against Reagan to torpedoing the elder Bush when he did exactly what they recommended and raised taxes against his promise, to a partisan defense of a perjurer and possible rapist that jettisoned every bit of credibility they had built up over the decades on women’s rights. Then they lost sanity when their saint lost to Bush, getting so unhinged that they would seriously put forth forgeries so transparent that anyone capable of basic observation and reasoning could see it.

    As they become more insular in their Internet-based communities and their faculty lounges, in which they allow no contrary voices of consequence, they lose whatever tenuous connection to the real world and Enlightenment thinking that they ever had.

    It’s impossible to argue with someone who denies the very philosophical foundation of Enlightenment reasoning. It’s impossible to have a productive discussion with someone whose only purpose is to obfuscate the issue to the point that their emotion-driven position is advanced.

    We must constantly keep that in mind. Our arguments should never, ever be aimed at leftists; they are congenitally unable to understand any arguments that contradict their leftist, post-modern faith. Our arguments must be aimed at the fuzzy middle who would prefer not to think about these things at all.

    I don’t mean to be insulting about those in the middle. In a rational world, they would not have to worry about political issues, and they could get on with watching the Super Bowl or whatever. But with our country teetering on the edge of meltdown, they don’t have that luxury and some of them are starting to realize it.

    The left has had decades to indoctrinate them, and the left is very experienced in emotion-driven ways of convincing them. Stacked against that is the left’s increasingly obvious detachment from reality, plus the alternative means of getting the word out about it.

    It’s going to be a battle royale. It’s not one I enjoy; I’d rather be doing a lot of other things than worrying about leftist-driven economic meltdown. But it’s the battle we’ve got.  

  • NPR again this morning…”there is no evidence the killer had anything to do with Sarah Palin, but….”
    Arrrgh. Defund them now.

    • It’s instructive, and others have noted, that the Left reacts most strongly to that which it fears most.  Some many months have passed since Palin’s ‘bullseye’ add – yet within a very few minutes of the tragedy, they lay the victims on her door step.
       
      Wow – think about that, they’re really scared absolutely witless of this woman.  If they were to create a horror movie for the left and had to describe her powers she’s practically Lucifer.
       
      I have to wonder is it because there are so many things about the person ‘Sarah Palin’ that should resonate with the left?  Woman who became governor, mother of a (what’s the correct term?) disabled child,  come instantly to mind, there’s probably more – she’s a walking ‘victim’ for the left, who overcame her victim-hood (which she probably never realized she had….) and then SIN OF SINS!  she was a Republican!!  OMG!!!!!!  She must be destroyed.
       

      • Ah, and remember, too…she is a member of a Collectivist VICTIM CLASS.  And she is not a victim.
        That makes her the subject of their most seething rage.  (See Justice Thomas)

  • In 2008 I was in an argument with my father. I was lamenting that if only the media did its job, the nation might have a better idea of just who Barack Obama was, and where he wanted to take this nation.

     
    This, a popular narrative itself, is complete baloney.  Obama is doing everything he said he was going to do.  In fact, he isn’t even going as far as he said he was going to go.  And none of it, zero – zilch – nada, was some kind of stealth campaign that needed media coverage to expose.
     
    Obama said all of what he was, loud and clear, during speeches and debates.  And the American people elected him anyway.  Pointing to a MSM as an excuse is simply lazy.  It was a failure of the Right (Bush, GOP majority congress, and their apologists) that allowed this to happen – not a failure of the media.
     
    Also, the Right does the same thing.  They take something unrelated to a topic and try and use it to their advantage anyway.  This typically involves stoking fears that Muslims are taking over this nation – which is complete BS.
     
    Cheers.

    • I was going to respond to this crap…
      but it stands on its own.

    • Obama is doing everything he said he was going to do.  In fact, he isn’t even going as far as he said he was going to go.  And none of it, zero – zilch – nada, was some kind of stealth campaign that needed media coverage to expose.

      I see. So when he said he was completely against an individual mandate in a new healthcare bill, but spent every bit of political capital he had on getting one… just waht he said he was going to do, right?

      And Guantanemo, which he used to mollify his leftist base during the campaign… not closed yet, I notice. Could it be that he was just jockeying for political advantage during the campaign and didn’t mean what he said? Or was he just as clueless about the implications of his policies as many on the right said and which the media refused to consider as a hypothesis? Because it’s got to be one of those two.

      Obama said all of what he was, loud and clear, during speeches and debates. And the American people elected him anyway. Pointing to a MSM as an excuse is simply lazy.

      Oh sure, he was all forthcoming about his pastor and his friendship with a known terrorist. Completely upfront about it, eh? And the media totally held his feet to the fire on all of that, right?

      As you say, the right screwed up. They lost the thread of their own principles, and screwed up enough things to give the leftists a chance. But that certainly does not exonerate a media that utterly, utterly failed to hold this guy’s feet to the fire, even as they were buying tickets to Alaska to comb through Sarah Palin’s garbage.

      And I’d like to seem some evidence of the “Muslims are taking over the nation” assertions from anybody of any consequence on the right. Many on the right say Muslims are a threat, in various ways; that’s a far cry from your assertion, which is exactly what those on the right have been decrying about on the left, exaggeration for political effect with no respect for actual reality.

      And, to be blunt, I’m sick of the Erbian “the Right does the same thing” moral equivalence. The facts don’t back that up, particularly when we talk about actual politically motivated violence. From the 1960s to modern happenings like the WTO riots, the beating of Kenneth Gladney, etc. the left has long seen violence as a perfectly acceptable way of advancing their cause. All the left can do for the right is point out the one-note of Timothy McVeigh, and he was condemned by everyone of any consequence on the right for his atrocity. Bill Ayers, on the other hand, can kill innocent people, be totally unrepentent about it, and then gets to launch the political career of Obama. There’s your bloody equivalence.

      • Communists are the gold standard of history’s liars and butchers; this will never change and is therefore no surprise. The surprise is, they’ve been using the same shtick for almost a century and it’s still selling.

        Why was Hillary not called home and summarily fired for this slander of the people she represents Why is there not a constant drone for her dismissal?

        http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jan/10/world/la-fgw-clinton-giffords-20110111

      • And, to be blunt, I’m sick of the Erbian “the Right does the same thing” moral equivalence.
         
        Of course you are.  I genuinely believe that you just don’t see it.  You’re enamored with your own kind – it’s perfectly natural.
        See, like this…
         
        And I’d like to seem some evidence of the “Muslims are taking over the nation” assertions from anybody of any consequence on the right.
        Right here…
         
        The Grand Jihad: How Islam and The Left Sabotage America
        “The real threat to the United States is not terrorism. The real threat is Islamism, whose sophisticated forces have collaborated with the American Left not only to undermine U.S. national security but also to shred the fabric of American constitutional democracy—freedom and individual liberty.”
         
        Oh yeah, that’s not blowing something out of proportion and stoking fears at all, huh?  That kind of sh!t is a staple with many on the right whether you choose to see it or not.
         
        See, the funny part is that you linked to the same man in your earlier comment.
         
        Cheers.

        • Perhaps you would care to consult a dictionary for the difference between “sabotage” and “take over”.  

          • Destroy, make in their image… same damn thing.  Your picking pepper from gnat sh!t on this one.

        • And, to be blunt, I’m sick of the Erbian “the Right does the same thing” moral equivalence.

          Of course you are.  I genuinely believe that you just don’t see it.  You’re enamored with your own kind – it’s perfectly natural.

          And while I’m at it, I note the additional Erbian tendency to ignore the actual stuff I put in front of you in favor of your own “you just don’t get it” argument-by-assertion.

          Like it or not, Pogue, violence has been a significant part of the left’s playbook as long as I’ve been alive. I lived through the sixties. I lived a block from the shopping center in Detroit that was burned in the race riots, and we moved away about three months before it happened.

          The left continuously projects such violent tendencies onto the right, with little or no evidence, because they really, really don’t want to admit that they’re the ones with highly questionable morality in this area. They’re the ones who can murder people, and their own side (including you, apparently) think it’s just peachy if they get away with it and become respectable academicians who associate with the people who lead the nation.

          It’s the left’s old moral equivalence tactic, and if *you* don’t see that, you’re just being intentionally obtuse.

          • Well, you are.  I’m calling a spade a spade here, Billy.  You said you don’t see where anyone of prominence on the Right were stoking fears of Muslims trying to take over here in America, but you linked to the very same man who wrote a book on the BS subject.
             
            So how did that happen exactly?

        • I havent read the book, but the fact is there is an Islamist war on the US, which involves both terror and efforts at internal takeover. There have been efforts at applying sharia law here, and they have had some success with this in Britian. And the left has enabled this.

          I don’t see any immediate threat of islamic takeover here, in any forseable future. I do see a threat caused by Islamists who use our institutions against us, while being shielded by the domestic left. It isn’t a “takeover” threat, but it is a threat.

          I thought you lefties did nuance. Guess not.

          • Major Hassan is a good poster boy for the sort of threat we face. He was enabled by PC thought, so his troubling tendencies were overlooked. And the left immediatly demanded that no one jump to conclusions after his attack took place.

            Radical Islam actually is a real threat. While it can’t take over the US, it can cause considerable damage, and the left refuses to take a serious look at it.

            The Tea Party and Palin and Rush and lavin are only a threat to the left’s electorial chances.

    • Pouge,

      Obama said all kinds of things, and was pretty much whatever you wanted in a candidate, unless you actually had a clue. The thing is, he came off as a moderate reasonable Democrat, in appearance if not in all of his words. And the MSM ran with that. Sophisticated viewers didn’t fall for it, but the mushy middle who rely upon the MSM did.

      You are right that Bush et al failed. But the MSM played a key role that leveraged that failure.
      As far as “thr right does the same thing”, bull. Muslims taking over the nation? Certainly there is talk of Muslim influence in places like England and France (different in both places, but a problem nonetheless), but who has said they were going to take over here? The right (or part of it) takes the Muslim threat seriously, but I know of no one who thinks we are on the verge of a Muslim takeover in this country.

    • “It was a failure of the Right (Bush, GOP majority congress, and their apologists) that allowed this to happen”
      It was yet another thing Bush was not responsible for – it wasn’t his job to run against Barack Obama, even if Barack Obama was trying to convince the US electorate that he was in fact, running against Bush.

    • People who visit this site tend to be much better informed than the general public. And because we do, do our homework, most here did have a good idea where Obama wanted to take this nation. Yet I had to do that intellectual legwork myself. Certainly there was the rare story on Tony Rezco, Bill Ayers, or Black Liberation Theology as professed by Reverend Wright of the TUCC – a church Obama said he attended regularly for 20 years – but never did the media, when presented with the opportunity to quiz Obama more fully, actually press him. I had to go to my sister, also an ordained minister of the UCC, to learn just what this James Cone inspired, Marxist based BLT movement was.
       
      More importantly though, you, Pogue, are doing something I find lamentable; and yes, far too common from all sides. You have taken a comment I used as a preface, of which you have a different opinion, to discount, in fact ignore, the main point of my comment. I never said, nor even implied that the media caused the election of Obama. Certainly they helped, but a piss-poor top of the GOP ticket earned deserved the loin’s share of culpability.
       
      No, the point that I was trying to make, one which both Bruce and Billy have expounded interestingly, is that the MSM, enabled by their ideological brethren and like-minded readership, have forgotten how to make a logically sound argument. And primarily because so many within that readership don’t care; the actual argument is incidental if the proper conclusion is set forth.
      (formatting may be off due to importing from Word)

      • Without question, too many live in echo chamber and make arguments that only resonate within the base.  Implicit in my argument however, is that the left has owned the largest echo chamber for 40 years – the MSM (and all of its satellites like the History, Learning, Discovery, Science, Comedy etc channels).  If the only source I used for info was The Birch Society, you would naturally, and correctly accuse me of wallowing in mis-information.  Yet so many wallow within equally biased worlds.  Claims of religiously reading the WaPost, the NYTimes, or listening to only NPR reveals no less a biased source and leads to just as much mis-information.

      • When the first allegations of the direction of Reverend Wright’s church were made I can recall myself, and at least one other commenter here (based on NOT having heard anything from the Mainstream Media at least for my part) arguing that it was unlikely to be as bad ( or eve true) as was being made out.
         
        We know how that worked out, but my first impulse was to disbelieve at that time because, well, we know how they’d go after a member of the Republican party if he had any kind of link to a White Supremacist organization, factored in with Hillary being his opponent for Democratic Candidate nomination, I figured there was no WAY the Media could be downplaying it, so it just was really unlikely (said I).
         
        heh….yeah….I recall trying to decide later if crow should be baked or fried to get the true flavor.
         
        The only reason they EVER covered it AT ALL, was because the pajamahadeen, once again, forced them to.  And here we are, 3 years later, and you know, it’s NEVER been properly examined by the media(you know, use the Bush microscope on them, climb up there into the lower intestine, take a good look around), and never will be.
         

  • Good lord, THIS from ABC News….
    BOTTOM LINE: Sarah Palin, once again, has found a way to become part of the story. And she may well face further criticism for the timing and scope of her remarks….”
     
     
    Sarah Palin, once again, has found a way to become part of the story.”   What the hell…how disingenuous can you be?  Are the authors stupid, or just living under a rock?

    • Just hours before President Obama is scheduled to speak at a memorial service honoring the victims of last weekend’s shooting in Arizona, Sarah Palin stepped in with her own message addressing criticism that has been leveled against her in the wake of the tragedy

      >>>>  I dunno, maybe she thought it a little more important to defend herself from accusations of being AN ACCOMPLICE TO MURDER than to wait so Pres. Above the Fray could deliver his meaningless speech.  I mean, how dare she defend herself!  Everyone knows that the proper behavior for her is to shut up, let everyone else define her, and in about 4 months, when the spotlight is off this issue and the meme is firmly established, maybe – MAYBE if she pipes up on her facebook account, we’ll let it slide.

      • The woman could take up living in a cave in Burma (sorry, Myanmar) and they’d STILL blame her for things like this, she’s the anti-Obama anti-Christ.

    • BS-NBC was full of stories like…
      “Palin refuses to repudiate violence…” and
      “Palin’s silence is deafening…”
      She was smart enough…and respectful enough…to hold her fire (can I say that…?)

  • “Jared Loughner is a basement boy, a live-at-home loser… It’s impossible to build a proper conspiracy theory around Beavis and Butt-head…He’d even been thrown out of community college — something that has never before happened to anyone, ever…
    This is the guy the rumpswabs and bowtied bumkissers are trying to make into the Timothy McVeigh of the 21st century.”

    Just a couple of lines from Howie Carr, one of my favorite columnists;
    http://www.bostonherald.com/news/columnists/view.bg?articleid=1308991

  • Imagine the current narrative existing had the Representative had a (R) after her name instead of a (D).

    I know, we can’t because the current narrative would not exist.

    QED

  • Gutenberg took the Bible away from those who controlled it’s narrative at the time – the Church.  It was the beginning of the end of the Church’s power.

    I whole heartedly disagree. Back in the days of yore, Bibles were reproduced by hand, paid for by and for the pleasure of royalty. There are some (almost humorous) stories of how the current Bible got the exact mix of “books” that are currently in circulation (there were many more that were not included). In almost all of these cases, it was based on the whim of the royalty who were paying for the “copies” of the Bible.
    Gutenberg took the Bible and the narrative away from royalty. It was the beginning of the end of royalty in Europe. The Church merely acquiesced.

    • If many people have a copy, you can no longer claim Christ said “give all your stuff to me”.  You remove the mystery, assuming you can read.
       
      I agree with the principle that it took away the ability of a limited group of people to solely determine what the Book said, or did not say.  Since Gutenberg predates Luther, I wonder if Luther’s rebellion would have found any legs without Gutenberg’s revolutionary accomplishment.   Perhaps otherwise he would have merely been a rogue priest and summarily dealt with.

      • Luther got “legs” from the constant panhandling of the “Church”
        God may provide, but that doesn’t help with a “cashflow” problem.

        • Respectful disagreement.
          There were SEVERAL people who died PRIOR to Luther in efforts to get the Bible translated and published to the people.  They were good Catholics, too.
          England was one of the worst places for such prosecution.  Wish I could remember names…
          Michaelangelo was implicated with one such group in Italy.

          • “England was one of the worst places for such prosecution.”
            More historical irony, all things considered.

        • Luther had a protective prince, too.  BIG advantage at the time…!!!

  • By the way, does anyone think real, average people are going to care what Obama says after 3 days of endless coverage?
    It will just be the usual platitudes.
    I am a political junkie and I’m already sick of this stuff…the only reason I keep paying attention is because the MSM is seriously annoying me with their double standard.

  • Now what this has led to is a media, and the political left ill-suited to make compelling arguments.

    This is, sort of, equivalent to the story in the 80’s that Black parents had shielded their children so well from the likes of the KKK, that their children didn’t know what to be concerned about. A resurgence of the KKK in the 90’s cured most of this, but shielding oneself from the pain of reality does nothing to help you deal with it.

    • I submit that their problem with arguments has a lot to do with the fact that they are wrong most of the time. That’s why they attempt to control the “narrative” with events like this one and the Major Hassan event.

      In 2009 and 2010, the Democrats were fully in charge of the legislative and executive branches of the government, but it cost them because they were wrong on the issues. Right now they are looking for a “gotcha” moment so they can flip things around. They must have wet themselves when they heard of this shooting, thinking it was their “gotcha”,and they ran off with it without learning the facts first. Then they doubled down, hoping they could make it stick by sheer force.

  • Found at protein wisdom is this:

    Lisa Disch, Professor of Political Science and Professor of Women’s Studies, University of Michigan:  “My thesis, then, is that Tea Party mobilization is collective political action in defense of property interests in whiteness that are a New Deal legacy.”
    Charles Postel, Associate Professor of History, San Francisco State University: “…in the midst of the most severe financial and economic crisis in seventy years, the tea parties have been able to tap deep veins of resentment and anger over potential shifts in the post World War II political economy.”
    Chip Berlet, Senior Analyst, Political Research Associates “…Right-Wing Populists use Demonization, Scapegoating, & Conspiracy Theories to Justify Apocalyptic Aggression”
    Devin Burghart, Vice President, Institute for Research & Education on Human Rights “This July, delegates to the 101st NAACP National Convention unanimously passed a resolution condemning outspoken racist elements within the Tea Party, and called upon Tea Party leaders to repudiate those in their ranks who use white supremacist language in their signs and speeches, and those Tea Party leaders who would subvert their own movement by spreading racism.”

    Presenters all in a symposium presented by UCBerkeley on “Fractures, Alliances and Mobilizations in the Age of Obama: Emerging Analyses of the ‘Tea Party Movement'; Part Three: Tapping into Fear, Anger and Resentment: The Tea Party and the Climate of Threat
     
    Now tell me that my theory that the media and all their enablers in the liberal intelligentsia, so long living in a mind-numbing echo chamber that is the “respectable left”, have lost virtually all rational capabilities? Convince me that these folks could come up with such drivel if they were, instead of encouraged due to oh-so-wanted conclusions, were challenged upon mere logic. (again, formatting may be off due to importing)

  • The last link I provided is to this video.  It is long.  The last 38 minutes are of the Q&A, which is quite revealing.  Pogue, you want to defend any of these academics?  I’m certain a Maine professor would – but not here.