GOP Prays Press Corps Will Distort Edwards' Message

Ian Welsh at The Agonist has led me to a Taylor Marsh piece that shows how the national press corps - for whatever reason - deliberately chooses to write (and broadcast) for Americans with a Junior High mindset rather than educated information-seeking readers or viewers. (Is it any wonder so many are increasingly turning to the blogs for information?)

Taylor Marsh:

The haircut is easier to ridicule, as they hope to capitalize on the juvenile mind set of the average American voter who is too busy working two jobs and is willing to hate anyone so rich, good looking and who has succeeded where they have failed.

Ian Welsh:

When Edwards put up his hand and said he didn't believe in the War on Terror, he did something that had to be done. He was the only one with both the guts and brains to see it had to be done. The fact that American wages have stagnated for 30 years; the fact that America has the most inequality in the 1st world; the fact that social mobility is dropping like a rock - John talks about these things. And they matter.

Taylor Marsh sees the vulnerability of the GOP, explaining why they are gleeful as pigs in mud about the national press corps expanding on the Edwards haircut and house stories while virtually ignoring his core message:

Republicans know how to fight on war turf. However, they haven't a clue how to battle someone who's talking about the poor and that terrorism isn't some talking point "bumper sticker," but something we can tackle through our own actions and policies. Looking inwards isn't a GOP strong suit. They point outward and blame others. Edwards doesn't blame anyone, but instead searches for solutions, even if it means picking up a hammer and fixing the problem himself.

Edwards is asking us all to search our souls and unearth results.

Republicans only talk about souls, while being far more content with identifying enemies and making sure we're sufficiently afraid.

John Edwards is the near-perfect antidote to the disastrous poison of the Little Bush era. The intelligent and heartful North Carolinian's brand of leadership would be a breath of corrective and healing action - - the farthest from the kind of fiercely stubborn and sociopathic leadership style exhibited by G.W. Bush, of whom conservative pundit David Brooks today (on Meet the Press) said that citizens will understandably see as either "strong" or "deranged". (After six long years of witness, I choose "deranged" - how about you?)

The GOP's only hope is that the national press corps holds on to their false view of John Edwards as a politically arrogant leader just because he enjoys a lifestyle that he has honestly earned the right to enjoy, just as I'm sure a lot of those elite media employees enjoy the best that their salaries can afford them and their families.

I keep asking myself why the national press corps cannot reconcile a scenario where an economically successful person in the United States could run for President while desiring to urge others to be leaders and, through government, help the working poor to achieve a fair level of economic success in their own right.

What the heck does a haicut have to do with any of it?

Right - nothing.

In these post-DLC days where triangulation is a word from what is a Democratic lifetime ago, the empty GOP can only hope that their fear mongering and self-righteous narrow values message continues to reverberate and that John Edwards' comprehensive and idea-filled message for turning around the ship of democracy will remain buried under a blanket of ignorant, plaint national press coverage.

If anyone from the national press happens to be reading this, please - for your own sense of self-respect - don't keep making us think of you as bought puppets. Read Taylor Marsh. Read Jamison Foser. Start a revolution within your own industry. So many of you realize that we bloggers aren't just a lump of extremists. We're your brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers, and in some cases, we are your personal friends.



In my dream, bloggers and MSM are a living, breathing media astronomical ecosystem. Each of us, whether paid a handsome stipend or paid nothing for our work, is a star with an imaginary shell of space surrounding us where conditions are such that our shared democratic life might survive. When I see any part of that democratic support system destroying its own, I can see more clearly - in retrospect - how our nation wound up with George W. Bush as its President. For the love of God, let's not let that happen again.

Wake up! Write about something reasonable; meaningful; relevant to the future of our democratic survival.

Edwards: Atlantic Editor Exposes Media Bias

There have been recent (disturbing) indications that members of the national press corps have employed direct bias against John Edwards in their paid public appearances.

Now blogger/associate editor Marc Ambinder of the Atlantic Online is indicating (through various edited versions of his blogpost) that a good number of the national press corps are predispositioned to be lined up to form a firing squad against John Edwards:

...fairly or unfairly, a healthy chunk of the national political press corps doesn't like John Edwards...

- from the virgin edition of the blogpost by Mr. Ambinder

What I found to be disappointing is that Mr. Ambinder doesn't seem to care to fight against the false (and apparently deliberate) framing of Mr. Edwards and his campaign. (read the entirety of the Daily Kos diary that exposes (even with each revision of the virgin blogpost) Mr. Ambinder's apparent justification for the false framing.

I commented to Mr. Ambinder at the Atlantic website.

Marc wrote:

[Edwards] advances himself as the champion of regular people. His surrogates tout his ability to identify with the concerns of regular people. He goes out of his way to present himself as a regular guy.

This is a tired and misleading concept. The mainstream media needs to get real in their reporting rather than playing in to false frames. There is no such thing in America as a "regular guy" becoming President. It takes a lot of dough...and the same national press corps that rips Edwards apart for seeking to alleviate poverty ignores him for not raising as much money as others. Who are the intellectually dishonest hypocrites, really - Edwards or the press corps who allegedly hate him?

Edwards makes no pretense when he tells the story of coming up from an average (less than affluent) American family and working his way - the hard and honest way - to becoming economically successful. If he wants the same opportunity for others and will govern accordingly, it doesn't make him a liar or a hypocrite about who he is. He has nothing to hide.

The fact (per Marc, who I believe needs to come clean with names) that the national press corps hates Edwards' guts is a real Fourth Estate problem of ethics and fairness.

This could be a key to a much bigger story. Marc, perhaps you could expand on the real story here - which is blatant press corps bias. We all know that the media fancies themselves as Kingmakers. In this case, they appear to be deliberate Kingslayers. They have no right to employ bias in order to set up an American election in a society that we know is so media-saturated. No right.

The first comment under the oft-edited Ambinder Atlantic blogpost says it best:

YOU are the media. If you believe the press is being unfair to John Edwards, do something about it. Don't mask it in "fairly or unfairly" language like you did in your original post.

Who do you know that doesn't like John Edwards and reflects it in their coverage? Out them.


Posted by Anonymous | July 20, 2007 3:55 PM

UPDATE - Jamison Foser has further commentary on media bias vs. Edwards.

...Now, if reporters dislike a candidate, that's their business. But when they wage a relentless and petty campaign to "bury" that candidate, that's our business. All of us.....

Ambinder tells us:

"If you're in politics and you talk about poverty, extra attention will be paid to the manner in which you display your personal wealth"

But why? Why will extra attention be paid to the wealth of the candidate who talks about poverty rather than to the wealth of the candidate who wants to lower taxes for the wealthy? There is no logical reason; nor is there a legitimate emotional reason. Ambinder has already acknowledged there is no hypocrisy at play in the former case. In the latter, there is arguably self-serving greed. So why will "extra attention" be paid? Ambinder doesn't tell us -- he doesn't even seem to think the question needs an answer. Extra attention will be paid because it will be paid. .....

SEE MEDIA MATTERS

Mainstream Wrongly Relying on Right Sources

From the Daou Report to Digby to Eric Boehlert to Media Matters To Glenn Greenwald to A Tiny Revolution, everyone's talking about the intellectual bankruptcy of the right wing and the mainstream media that, for some reason beyond reason, still allow the proven-idiot wingers to pump their news machinery.