« Why I Am A Social Conservative | Main | More Allies, More Problems »

The Centrist Media

21 Sep 2007 09:12 am

To Paul Krugman's complaint that right-wing triumphs get characterized by the mass media as "conservatives on the march," while liberal triumphs produce headlines about a return to the "center," Matt writes:

But here's the thing, I've heard conservatives complain about this too. When conservatives secure political power, it's all "holy shit: conservatives!" but when liberals secure political power, it's all "don't worry, they're centrists." There's truth to both perspectives here, but I think the right fundamentally has the better of this argument. It wouldn't have been helpful to liberals or to liberalism for Time to greet the 2006 elections with a photo of Nancy Pelosi flanked by Charlie Rangel, Henry Waxman, David Obey, and John Conyers under the headline "THE LIBERAL TAKEOVER."

To which Ezra rejoins:

That said, it does pound in some narratives that matter. To go back to my Heath Shuler article, it was the Right who sought to argue that he was a conservative. They did that because it was good for the press to report the election as a triumph for "conservatism," that reigning ideology that had been failed by perfidious Republicans. So rather than the collapse of years of unified conservative rule being seen as the failure of the ideology, which would in turn lead the press to paint future adherents as politically radioactive, it actually enhanced the superficial appeal of "pure conservatism."

I think both Matt and Ezra are right, because they're talking about different terminology. To the extent that the term "conservative Democrat" creeps into the narrative where Democrats like Shuler and Jim Webb are concerned, it's a (minor) victory for conservative talking points. To the extent that winning Democrats are described as centrists, though, it's a sign that liberal media bias - in which a moderate liberalism is the center, and everything else is right-wing kookery - is defining the terms of the discussion.

Comments (15)

But it's a simple fact that the Clinton-Daschle-Reid era Democrats have been more centrist than the Gingrich-DeLay-Rove era Republicans.

And wasn't the conservative party line that the GOP lost the election, and the Dems were just looking to rein in the war, lawbreaking, corruption, and profligacy of the GOP? Raising the minimum wage is the big leftward thing that I can think of that the Democrats campaigned on, now that dissatisfaction with the war is bipartisan (among Americans, if not congressmen).

To the extent that winning Democrats are described as centrists, though, it's a sign that liberal media bias - in which a moderate liberalism is the center, and everything else is right-wing kookery - is defining the terms of the discussion.

The terms as defined also have the benefit of being accurate.

Well, maybe not "kookery," but right-wing. The "this is basically a conservative country" narrative is wrong.

As if it needed repeating, the whole MoveOn resolution debacle should put to rest the "liberal media" myth. Today's headlines are all about the condemnation of MoveOn's ads and which Democrats voted for or against. Why no mention in the liberal media of Boxer's resolution condemning all attacks on military personnel (including the MoveOn ad). 51 (mostly) Dem votes for, 49 (mostly) GOP votes against.

The "liberal" media, brought to you by those oh-so-liberal corporations. It's would be laughable if it weren't so frustrating.

Note that Yglesias's description of the broad media reaction to the Republican takeover (and Ezra's apparent acceptance of it) is inaccurate. He was probably eight at the time, and Ezra younger still, so it's understandable.

Lynn writes: "As if it needed repeating, the whole MoveOn resolution debacle should put to rest the "liberal media" myth. Today's headlines are all about the condemnation of MoveOn's ads and which Democrats voted for or against. Why no mention in the liberal media of Boxer's resolution condemning all attacks on military personnel (including the MoveOn ad). 51 (mostly) Dem votes for, 49 (mostly) GOP votes against."

Or you could mention the solid 5-6 years when the "liberal media" greased itself up and served en masse as one cheap catamite for George W. and His Band of Not-So-Merry GOP Goons. Things have improved only slightly. Considering the scope of Republican corruption and incompetence "liberal media" criticism of Bush remains mild.

Boo hoo Larry, What a baby!

This "liberal media" myth is repeated so often that even intelligent folks like Ross sometimes fall for it; but frankly, it's bullshit. It's far more accurate to say that most of the media is reactive, often lazy, and easily manipulated; and significant parts of the media - Fox "news" and talk radio - are right wing partisans. This is why we get endless stories on vacuous Republican talking points like Edward's hair cut and air Pelosi, even in outlets which should know better, but those same outlets will often repeat without question baldly dishonest assertions by Bush or other administration officials.

Hey Moe,

I take it from what you said in other threads that you are completely OK with homosexual acts. that being said, why do you refer the media as a greased catamite for Bush?

I know what you mean of course, and i agree with you about the so-called liberal media. But if you don't agree that at least, there is something disgraceful about a naturally straight man voluntarily choosing (='greasing up') to perform a catamitic act*, then what power does your remark have? and why would you choose it?

Some might suggest that such a remark indicates that you haven't escaped the Christian ideal of sexual morals as much as you think you have. Some might suggest that the remark indicates that in your deepest heart, you are still attached to the idea that there is such a thing as sexual morality, and that to voluntarily choose to perform a homosexual act (as opposed to being compelled by natural, inborn inclination) is somewhat unsavory.

I won't speak for you. I do think your choice of words is interesting though.

*I have no animus against homosexuals, I believe that in most cases it's an inborn inclination, and therefore can't be a sin. I do think there are some exceptions, though. I have some good homosexual friends, both male and female.

Hector asks a fair question: "I take it from what you said in other threads that you are completely OK with homosexual acts. that being said, why do you refer the media as a greased catamite for Bush?

I know what you mean of course, and i agree with you about the so-called liberal media. But if you don't agree that at least, there is something disgraceful about a naturally straight man voluntarily choosing (='greasing up') to perform a catamitic act*, then what power does your remark have? and why would you choose it?"

Mostly to annoy wingnuts, Hector. But "catamites" as I understand the term referred to young men who were paid to submit to sex with rich older men. I think that captures the relationship between the Bush administration and 95% of the MSM pretty well.

I suppose I could use "crack whore" also, but that wouldn't annoy the wingnuts.

It's a delicate balance.

And yes, consensual homosexual acts between adults (or minors of a similar age) don't bother me any more than pot smoking does. I'm not sure why these things bother any rational people.

I'm not sure why these things bother any rational people.

Because of the children, Moe. Because of the children.

Little bastards ruin everything.

tye ciconiid embryological oscarellidae foggily dress paedatrophia acceptilate
http://www.perspectivecomm.com/ >Perspective Communications Group, Inc.
http://www.melvynhigson.com

tye ciconiid embryological oscarellidae foggily dress paedatrophia acceptilate
http://victorian.fortunecity.com/belvedere/639/ >Sandra's Bed of Roses
http://www.aidworkers.net/

aneath zygopterous septane preadhere aetheogamous pseudospermous unpoliced satanist
http://cnn.com/ASIANOW/asiaweek/99/0423/newsmap/banglade.html >Asiaweek
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Meadows/6043/