{"id":25218,"date":"2012-01-06T12:00:40","date_gmt":"2012-01-06T18:00:40","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.shotinthedark.info\/wp\/?p=25218"},"modified":"2012-01-06T07:45:39","modified_gmt":"2012-01-06T13:45:39","slug":"van-den-heuvel-is-the-new-thomas-part-iii","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/www.shotinthedark.info\/wp\/?p=25218","title":{"rendered":"The Mission: Vanden Heuvel, Part III"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Every once in a while you run into a lawyer &#8211; or wannabe lawyer &#8211; whose idea of argument is to tell you &#8220;you&#8217;re not positive you don&#8217;t <em>not<\/em>\u00a0know you&#8217;re right, are you? Are \u00a0you? \u00a0ARE YOU?&#8221;<\/p>\n<p>The idea, of course, is to bog your own sense of logic and reason down with so many non-sequiturs and strawmen that you&#8217;re <em>not sure <\/em>you don&#8217;t not know you&#8217;re right.<\/p>\n<p>Or something like that.<\/p>\n<p>It may not make sense the way I explain it. \u00a0But if you watch what the partisan media will be doing this next eleven months, somehow it all makes sense.<\/p>\n<p>It fits in with the great sales bromide &#8220;if you can&#8217;t dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with BS&#8221;.<\/p>\n<p>Which brings us, for the final time, to <a href=\"http:\/\/www.startribune.com\/opinion\/otherviews\/136607073.html?page=all&amp;prepage=1&amp;c=y#continue\">Katrina Vanden Heuvel&#8217;s <em>WaPo <\/em>op-ed earlier this week in the <em>Strib<\/em><\/a>, which is to this year&#8217;s effort to make people ignore the question &#8220;are you better off now than you were four years ago?&#8221;<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>Third, the media&#8217;s obsession with false equivalence: How the election is covered will almost certainly have a measurable impact on its outcome.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>When we think of this, conservatives may think of things like &#8220;the inexperienced and radically-connected Barack Obama not getting vetted as much as your typical mid-sized city mayor, while GOP candidates get their records gone over with electron microscopes&#8221;, or &#8220;The Twin Cities media gave Tom Emmer and all his contributors the equivalent of a rectal exam, while the sum total of the <em>Strib&#8217;s <\/em>coverage of Mark Dayton&#8217;s well-known mental illness and alcohol issues was a single story the January before the election, about eight months before <em>anyone <\/em>outside the wonk class gave a crap&#8221;.<br \/>\nThat&#8217;s not what Vanden Heuvel means, of course:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>The New York Times&#8217; Paul Krugman describes what he&#8217;s witnessing as &#8220;post-truth politics,&#8221; in which right-leaning candidates can feel free to say whatever they want without being held accountable by the press.<\/p>\n<p>There may be instances in which a candidate is called out for saying something outright misleading; but, as Krugman notes, &#8220;if past experience is any guide, most of the news media will feel as though their reporting must be &#8216;balanced.&#8217; &#8220;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>[MItch doesn&#8217;t even know what to say here. \u00a0He&#8217;s at a loss for words. I mean, the obvious &#8211; &#8220;Paul Krugman has become the nation&#8217;s crazy great-uncle, slowly descending into madness as the family watches the disintegration around the table every Thanksgiving&#8221; &#8211; but Krugman&#8217;s a gimme. \u00a0The idea that someone could say &#8220;political reporters strive for balance&#8221; is absurd on its face; the idea that they pull punches on Republicans because they want to appear balanced is less deranged than &#8220;there&#8217;s a bunch of elders of Zion that have these evil protocols&#8230;&#8221; only in a moral sense. \u00a0Anyway &#8211; Mitch is otherwise at a loss to address that last bit, and invites contributions from his reading audience &#8211; Ed]<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>In that world, candidates can continue to say things that are &#8220;flatly, grossly, and shamefully untrue,&#8221; as The Washington Post&#8217;s E.J. Dionne described it, without fear of retribution.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>Obama has traveled the world and &#8220;apologized for America,&#8221; says Romney.<\/p>\n<p>Except that, no, he hasn&#8217;t.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>Wait &#8211; so the media is &#8220;biased toward conservatives&#8221; because they don&#8217;t attack conservatives&#8217; <em>opinions <\/em>of Obama&#8217;s &#8220;America Last&#8221; philosophy in slavish detail?<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>The stimulus &#8220;created zero jobs,&#8221; says Rick Perry.<\/p>\n<p>Except that it created or saved at least 3 million.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>Wait &#8211; the media is &#8220;biased toward conservatives&#8221; because while reporting Republicans campaign rhetoric, they don&#8217;t counter with Obama Administration chanting points, <a href=\"http:\/\/larrymwalkerjr.blogspot.com\/2010\/10\/mythbuster-has-obama-created-more-jobs.html\">which are themselves wrong<\/a>\u00a0and largely unchallenged in the mainstream &#8220;conservative&#8221; media?<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>Obama is going to &#8220;put free enterprise on trial,&#8221; claims Romney.<\/p>\n<p>How does he square that with the nearly 3 million private-sector jobs created under Obama policies in the past 20 months?<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>And then, <em>agreement with the Administraiton&#8217;s chanting points <\/em>is the barometer of truth?<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>These three factors are key not only to understanding this campaign and election but to seeing just how far we have to go to reclaim a democracy that is driven by the people themselves.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>The biggest factor in going as far as you &#8220;have to go&#8221;, if you&#8217;re on the left, is making people see everything <em>but <\/em>how far they&#8217;ve slipped since 2008.<\/p>\n<p>Think the media is up to the job?<\/p>\n<p>The <em>Strib <\/em>seems to be getting into its A game.<\/p>\n<p>More over the next ten months or so.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Every once in a while you run into a lawyer &#8211; or wannabe lawyer &#8211; whose idea of argument is to tell you &#8220;you&#8217;re not positive you don&#8217;t not\u00a0know you&#8217;re right, are you? Are \u00a0you? \u00a0ARE YOU?&#8221; The idea, of course, is to bog your own sense of logic and reason down with so many [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[56,4,79],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-25218","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-campaign-12","category-media","category-slander-files"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.shotinthedark.info\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/25218","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.shotinthedark.info\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.shotinthedark.info\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.shotinthedark.info\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.shotinthedark.info\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=25218"}],"version-history":[{"count":7,"href":"http:\/\/www.shotinthedark.info\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/25218\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":25295,"href":"http:\/\/www.shotinthedark.info\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/25218\/revisions\/25295"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.shotinthedark.info\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=25218"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.shotinthedark.info\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=25218"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.shotinthedark.info\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=25218"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}