Political Punch

Huh? changong the subject because Hillary made this blog look foolish.

Jeremy, I agree with your sentiments about Rove and think he should definitely be used as an example that heinous "divide and conquer" tactics which pit the electorate against one another for cynical partisan gains simply don't work for long. We're all in this together and we need to act as if we are. I just want Rove's so-called "genius" to be thoroughly repudiated and for him to be shown as the petty, hate-filled partisan he really is.

>>There are legitimate conservative arguments to make about the media. But not every time someone reports something that doesn't bode well for Republicans is it bias. Sometimes it's called: reality.

Wow, thanks for the grudging acknowledgement! And as far as "sometimes" negative reporting about Republicans is "reality." You're absolutely correct: it is "sometimes."

I knew when I heard Rove talking with Siegel that he (Rove) was just lying. It was obvious. Siegel tried to call him on it and Rove just lied some more.

So what; I certainly don't expect anything more from Rove.

Chuck wrote: "Would that "Architect" Rove would fade into history as a campaign footnote!"

I don't want that to happen. I want Karl Rove to be held up as an example of what happens when you plan an entire campaign and governing apparatus around the cynical theme of "divide and destroy" the American electorate.

Friedman (slightly surpisingly) put it best when he said that Karl Rove is known as a genius for tearing Americans apart and having us at each other's throats. And this is somehow dubbed "leadership". Should we easily forget these lessons, along with those of Lee Atwater and the Southern Stategy, and be doomed to repeat them?

Now that the Dems have recaptured a tremendous chunk of power, all we're hearing is "bipartisanship". Well, bipartisanship requires TWO interested parties, not one trying to govern and the other trying to exploit the darkest corners of the American psyche for political gain.

Happily, the Republican Revolution is dead. Maybe now we can get back to arguing about taxes and school vouches rather than listening to a bunch of draft-dodging, avaricious SOBs calling the Democrats traitors(!) for (occasionally) having the stones to speak truth to power.

Right Wing talk radio has become a very useful propaganda tool for Rove and the Republican Party and someone ought to call them out on this. These guys are not "journalists", they are political shills.
----------------
Not _just_ shills, money-making shills. They sell a LOT of advertising time and pay very little to staff a meaningful news reporting group.

When was the last time a news program serialized an interview with a sitting President, as FOX "News" recently did? I may be wrong, but I couldn't think of one.

Why you feel the need to kowtow before partisan hacks like Hewitt is equally beyond me.
----------
That was one of the most shameful episodes. I can understand being upset, but to go to Christianists for absolution was absurd.

They frame questions from republican talking points, accept every Bush lie as fact and generally pile on and belittle Democratic candidates.
---------
You mean that you, too, have noticed how they try to +manipulate the media+ toward bias, and then they complain has a bias?

People need to get more media literate. That will solve the problem.

Wait a minute.

How come Jake Tapper and the rest of ABC journalists are not worried about corporate media bias which is overwhelmingly pro GOP?

I think the real problem with the press is simply not reporting. This became quite obvious to me when I was stuck in Florida for a week with only CNN and FOX News. From the complaints I've heard from my partisan friends, I was expecting CNN to encourage me to become a communist and FOX to tell me that Iraq has become a model democracy, but instead all I learned was inane trivia about John Mark Karr. And that sort of coverage seems pretty par for the course.

In the category of "Headlines You'll Never See," what about "The Polling Was Right."

Among conservatives, the poll bias myth might even be more ingrained than the media bias myth (except for the fraudulent "Santorum's Within Four!" poll).

Shortly after the Missouri polls closed, CNN.com put up the exit poll numbers. I'm no statistical genius, but with McCaskill ahead by 8 among women, and Talent ahead by 2 among men, and more women voters than men, I posted on a neutral site that I though McCaskill would win a close one.

Conservatives went nuts, talking about how exit polls are biased toward Dems (maybe they are, but why would anyone want to ruin their own predictions?)

In fact, the pre-election polls were remarkably accurate in 2004, as well. Unfortunately, the exit poll disaster overshadowed that fact.

This year, only exit-poll related blunder was the Washington Post's Chicken Little decision to retract the Cardin call in a race that eventually neared double digits.

I agree with Greg that the primary biases of the media are toward sensationalism and repeatedly spouting "conventional wisdom." One trend that disappoints me is that "news coverage" is increasingly becoming prognostication and sometimes outright speculation. On television, a typical five-minute report on events in Iraq, rather than being devoted exclusively to what is actually happening there, tends to be a brief 30-second recount of the headline event followed by four and a half minutes speculating on the political impact that this will have back home.

At its worst, journalism has become a form of entertainment in which the only requirement for content is that the report appear to be professionally done.

Journalists ought to be spending more time telling us actual facts about what is happening in the world and doing a better job of investigating whether factual claims made by individuals who are pushing an agenda are actually true and giving the reader the full context behind the factual assertions. They should be asking harder questions of everyone who holds public office, regardless of their party affiliation or political philosophy. And if the officials refuse to answer the questions (either by refusing to answer at all or by giving an answer that does not address the question asked), reporters should include the question that they asked and indicate that the official would not answer it.

There's no guarantee, of course, that such changes would lead to more profit (or even that they would not lead to less profit) than the current approach, but I would bet that if a news organization consistently came close to living up to these ideals, that over time that organization would become the primary news source for an overwhelming majority of Americans.

Why do some conservatives feel compelled to paint Allen as a victim? If macacca was just an isolate mishap, I would agree that media has gone overboard. This, however, is not an isolated incident – Confederate flag in the lapel, noose in office, a number of teammates accusing him of using the N-word, one teammate even saying he cut the head off a dear and put it in a black family’s mailbox. The media would not have been doing its job if it ignored this “misstatement.” As for John Kerry’s remarks, they were covered ad naseum for three news cycles in the press in the week before an election in which he was not even a candidate.

In regards to the leftist media bias, at what point does the bias become self-fulfilling? If all the media does is report doom and gloom, then it's natural that the nation will start to feel that way too.
-The current media fails to report any good news, or buries it, about the economy (anyone remember the wall to wall coverage about the 4.4% unemployment rate or the DOW hitting 12000? I wonder why?).
-A recent non-partisan review of the coverage of the war showed the reporting is 93% negative.
-A gaff of a Republican candidate gets immediate page 1 coverage and lasts for weeks, while Democratic mistakes are barely acknowledged or, in Kerry's case, actually explained away with media assistance.

The overall effect is that the attitudes of people are being driven by how the media covers events, and that coverage is decidedly coming from a very partisan direction.

Great blog entry...

The conservative republican knee-jerk reflex is to cry bias. It's worked so well that many Americans buy into it... The fact is asking questions about a conservatives "fire-sure" attitude about important issues isn't bias -- it's investigation: something the right currently seems to not be interested in.

I think it's a reflection of the rights faith-base: "it must be true because we believe it".

Karl Rove is no genius. His power rested within a willingness to resort to the lowest attack tactics, willing media partners to broadcast and distribute this propoganda, and a majority rule which ensured no oversight to his actions.

These tactics were without conscience. The powerful "base", while secretly ridiculed in backrooms, and all but ignored outside of election cycles, sold their soul, only seeking political victories at any cost and all too easily rationalized these tactics and actions as consistent with their honorable "Christian" values.

And finally, an opposition who always seemed shocked by GOP audacity and eagerly allowed themselves to be branded negatively, living in constant fear of being drawn into the political crosshairs of Rovian ire, relegated to the political dust bin.

Karl Rove has authored an evil playbook that others in the future will undoubtedly be tempted to follow. Some may see his "results" as proof that the American experiment can be manipulated to any end and well outside of our Constitutional principals. Many will long for, and continue to strive to perfect the model society, a neo-conservative, intolerant Christopia.

Liberals, isolated for so long and tired of "taking it" from the GOP may be tempted to borrow from this playbook. This would be a mistake. The plays only work when you have the right team on the field, fans in the stands who only care about the win, and players willing to knee-cap opponents whenever necessary. Just ask Harold Ford, Jr.

Others, and history, may judge Karl Rove somewhat differently. Perhaps November 7th will be looked upon as an awakening, a beginning of the end of America's darkest era for which Karl Rove was principal architect, the great enabler of a self-hating, ignorant cabal of corporate thieves.

Justice must be served.

You wrote: "the media as a whole could stand to consider conservative arguments more."

As a literal statement, I actually agree: The media would do well to consider and evaluate arguments in general rather than the mindless source greasing and he said, she said reporting that is the norm. However, the huge disparity in the so-called liberal media is how little weight it gives to liberal arguments and liberal voices. The blog journalist now dubbed the "Walter Cronkite of our time" is a conservative, so never mind that he is about as accurate as a bathroom wall (to borrow John Cole's phrase). Why you folks are hitting refresh at Drudge rather than TPM Muckraker (or Glenn Greenwald's Unclaimed Territory or Bob Somerby's Daily Howler or Brad Delong) is beyond me. Why you feel the need to kowtow before partisan hacks like Hewitt is equally beyond me. Why you don't see anything curious in the Vice President, Hastert and the President himself interviewing with the likes of Rush Limbaugh is again beyond me.

" . . .consider conservative arguments more (just as it could probably cover minorities more). . ."

Please. The "minorities" have their own voices on their own radio, TV and internet programs. Let's give voice to one AMERICAN voice for a change. E pluribus unum. From many, one.

The press is biased, yes, but frankly it is toward sensationalism, power, and so-called common wisdom, rather than toward one or the other party. I used to think the press was more liberal than it really was. After 1994, I watched the press shift to the right and realized that you guys make yourselves feel important by cozying up to power. If the press moved again the left before the election, it is likely because you read the writing on the wall before most everyone else. For Pete's sake, the so-called liberal press has turned the age of the Earth (whether it is 4000 years old or 4 billion years old) into a he-said she-said. The press also has not yet come to terms its failures concerning the reporting on the run-up to the war and on the issue of WMDs.

Some people seem to complain that the press is too hard on one or the other party. They want to "unbias" the press by neutering it. I just want you guys to push and report and probe and question as hard as you can in both directions, left and right.

Instead, often you guys seem to try and avoid bias by interviewing dual windbags, by institutionalizing spin and counterspin. Why even bother to interview Mehlman or Dean on camera. They only give us the talking points. Certainly, equal but opposite untruths do not the truth make.

"Media Bias" - the all purpose crutch used by Conservatves whenever facts are reported they don't like. Funny how they loved the NYT when Judith Miller was steno'ing stuff from Scooter.

The right-wing hammers away at you for bias for the same reason a baseball manager barks at the umpires all game. The hope is that consciously or sub-consciously it will make you less likely to report in a way that they would disprove of. As far as I can tell, it's utterly effective.

Why has the "mainstream" press been so silent about the alarming trend by the Bush Administration to grant hugh chunks of interview time to friendly super-right wing taliking heads like Limbaugh and Hannity . If you read the transcipts of these interviews, you will be stunned at the pathetic, soft-ball questions. Right Wing talk radio has become a very useful propaganda tool for Rove and the Republican Party and someone ought to call them out on this. These guys are not "journalists", they are political shills. In this climate, anyone who actually asks a tough question is branded a "liberal" Bush hater. It is the easiest way to stifle dissent and the major networks and newspapers are so worried about being denied access to administration officials, they just fall in line!

Liberals and progressivesknow the main stream media is bias due to sheer laziness. They frame questions from republican talking points, accept every Bush lie as fact and generally pile on and belittle Democratic candidates. The so-called liberal 'bias' isn't true as anyone paying attention knows. Quit sucking up the right-wing and maybe you'll gain some respect.

I have thought all along that the questions are smoke screens..both sides create the picture of some Place in the World..the "work at hand" vs. "the structure"..
Then the real world seems to jump into the face where Intellectual One-upmanship offers its sub-conscience..
Politics at the Leadership level offers only its personal Time Card..the perpetual/in my own time..prevails as some defence point..
When it come to the Power Structure or Leadership-however the TWAIN shall meet..
We seem to have hidden people that give the political angles less than savory arguements/People over Politics..
Getting your Picture Framed just right..seems lost in all the "shuffle" diplomacy..chances loom large on political horizons and often never really get there..the same Politics as Usual/might just need to be HAMMERED Out w/more attention to details that require the process something more than the "spirit" that floats a BOAT.

The problem with your point is that a wolf in sheep's clothing is still a wolf. The Media has been so biased for so long, that everything they say is taken with a bias slant. For your point to be taken with a credibility the media will need to earn the trust of the public, both the liberals and the conservatives. Just cause the facts prove you out, this time. Being biased, is more then just what you say. sometimes it is conveyed with choice or even your demeanor when you say it the problem. Please remember that semantics and demeanor still say a loot about the message, whether biased or neutral.

Of course, being proved correct doesn't necessarily mean you were behaving in an unbiased manner, just as being proved incorrect doesn't mean you were behaving in a biased fashion. In this case, however, it certainly seems that Rove was looking at the polls with the rosiest of rose-colored glasses.

Geez Jake, you work for ABC - aren't you used to getting hammered by now???

As for Rove, he is what he is. He probably believes in divine math. But I'll tell you one calculation he got right - immigration. Exit polls indicate that Bush garnered a respectable % of the hispanic vote in 2000 and 2004. Bush's immigration proposal was to maintain and grow that support. But republican congress dug their heals in. And exit data shows that hispanics abandoned the GOP last night, when the GOP needed every vote. Rove was right, and the GOP should have followed suit instead of pandering to their angry nationalist constituents most of whom are in the GOP back pocket anyway.

Reality, as Stephen Colbert said, has a well-known liberal bias.

As seen by his behavior in this campaign, Rove certainly wasn't one to let reality intrude on his machinations in counting poll numbers like some deranged, demented accountant. His legacy will be the extremely questionable one of advising a politician for six years to play to his base--and ONLY to his base--when setting national policy and when governing. Rove should have learned that the opposition cannot be disregarded and disrespected in such a shallow way, despite the assurances of candidate Bush in 2000 that he was a "uniter, not a divider." Would that "Architect" Rove would fade into history as a campaign footnote!

Amen.