Media

Politico Slyly Legitimizes Glenn Beck

Yesterday, Glenn Beck aired a new “documentary,” “Revolutionary Holocaust,” which, with the assistance of noted revisionists like Jonah Goldberg, attempted to trace the modern progressive movement’s origins through Nazism, communism, and other historical horrors. The attacks aren’t new, nor are their easy rebuttals. That Hitler pushed for universal healthcare (just like Obama!) conveys about as much information as the fact that Hitler, just like Sarah Palin, was known to eat food.

What’s surprising is that Politico, in an article published today, attempts to give an honest read to Beck’s inflammatory, violent, and simply false allegations, by first treating it as plausible:

Not everyone who watched his history lesson was convinced – especially some professional historians.

And second, by quoting agenda-driven historians with known allegiances as authoritative. Interviewing a Heritage Foundation expert who appears on the show about the film’s veracity is not an alternative to fact-checking:

But Edwards said he was impressed by Beck’s “solid research” and willingness to take on “still-prevailing myths about Che Guevara and Mao.” In Edwards opinion it was “one of the best documentaries [he's] seen on communism,” and rare in today’s media world.

“I think this suggests the line on Beck that he is some kind of wild man is just not true,” Edwards said. “This guy is thoughtful and interested in history. How many journalists in cable, print or whatever have this kind of interest in giving you a historical context. I think he should be commended for that.”

Politico‘s instinct is all too familiar to those of us who follow the public “debate” over creationism. There, great evil is done by journalists who, in a misguided attempt for “balance,” strive to give each side equal time. But like creationism, Glenn Beck is emphatically a case where it’s not fair to be balanced.

The Use of Narratives in History: the Ancient Streak in “Game Change”

Heilemann and Halperin’s Game Change hit book stores with all the fanfare we’ve come to expect from a campaign postmortem in the modern era — villains are vilified, careers threatened by non-events, and the game not so much changed as reinforced. Even the particulars are unsurprising: the Clintons are painted as defeated Machiavellians, and Palin as an “unstable ignoramus.” Haven’t we read this book before?

What sets Game Change apart is that even its most “damning” stories are substantially unsourced. Although Politico strains to call this a necessity (query whether they have a horse in that race), the book’s tendency to treat its subjects as characters, speaking dialogue and feeling emotions that the authors can’t possibly have heard or known (read the first pages to see what I mean), makes its inventiveness feel more like a feature of this kind of storytelling, and less like a concession to the exigencies of political reporting. We’re left with a book where major players don’t just act, but speak and emote in ways that are distinctly human and irreconcilably divorced from fact. Admittedly, it makes for a better story, but when a historian’s subjects are analyzed personally, through and for the content of their character, rather than just their deeds, the work also starts to shade towards fiction.

For these faults — or, “unique narrative traits” — the book seems to share more with ancient histories than with today’s blasé-but-factual recitations of events. Heilemann and Halperin’s characters, for so they are, breathe, feel, and live in ways that historical figures usually don’t. They have dialogue, both external and internal, and near-Shakespearean character flaws, the kind that determine their destinies even before page one. Similarly, ancient historians had discernable agendae, and unique vehicles for realizing them. Plutarch’s Caesar, Marius, and Sulla, etc., exist as vehicles for moral lessons, who make their mark in history because of (and rarely despite) the flaws that ultimately crush them. Livy’s narrative builds to an inevitable conclusion — the glorification of Augustus as the pinnacle of Roman history. To that end, both pen extensive dialogues, spoken by people they never met at events they never attended, and selectively emphasize some events while downplaying others, the better to build real villains and real heroes from factual skeletons.

The narrative elements in these ancient tales don’t deprive them of their historical value. Indeed, although they must be taken with a grain of salt, Livy and Plutarch are among the definitive accounts of ancient history, partly because they’re among the only surviving accounts, and partly because Their decisions about how to color history show almost as much about their era as a purely objective recitation would. Increased historiographical value makes up for lost historical value.

But because we need less instruction on modern culture, Game Change can’t claim that as a redeeming quality. Admittedly semi-fictionalized history is a lost art form, and its revival ought to put a knowing smile on the face of any classicist, but we shouldn’t see Game Change as anything other than a fun, gossipy substitute for the truth. It’s possible to enjoy a book like this to the extent that you’re willing to read a non-fiction book for something other than the “truth of the matter asserted,” but there’s danger in treating it as something more. Ancient historians typically began their works with a humble disclaimer, apologizing for the author’s lack of skill and infidelity to fact. Perhaps Heilemann & Halperin could’ve benefited from this ancient style point, too.

The 140-Character Majority

By The Weekly Standard‘s reckoning, conservatives (#tcot, to those in-the-know) have won the war for Twitter by all measurements — followers, elected officials on the service, etc.

Like so much about Twitter, though, the question remains: so? Even The Standard admits that they’re missing the critical step two between “tweet” and “profit.” Owning a niche web service is not necessarily its own reward:

A Twitter account alone does not an election win, of course, but the GOP’s mastery of Twitter is an indicator that it’s figuring out how to meld its traditional tactics with new ones to create the kind of bold, comprehensive strategies, as Obama might say, that it needs to win.

And the mocking comparison to Obama’s rhetorical style may be too right by half. Like conservative caricatures of Obama, Twitter is all form, no substance. Twitter has its purpose: in a crisis, it’s a quick way to assemble data points, to “liveblog” ongoing events, and even (for some) to make and maintain friendships. But as a media service for the generation of thought and opinion — the only way in which “cornering” a media resource can create political value — it’s rather empty. Twitter’s form excludes nuance; there’re very few issues of substance that can be absolutely answered in 140 characters, and those that can aren’t generally very interesting.

This might be why we see Twitter populated with not just the right-wing, but the extreme right-wing. That, after all, is the set that gravitates towards and finds its voice in other media that similarly exclude nuance — whether in the theater of talk radio, or the echo chamber of hyper-partisan, agenda-driven broadcasting. Twitter draws conservatives because so many conservative solutions thrive on limited information (tax cuts are good, terrorists are bad, etc.), and crumble under the close scrutiny and robust dialogue that Twitter forbids.

Twitter, then, fills almost the same need as talk radio: “red meat” messaging to, and dialogue between, the base. Thus far, it’s not a serious gateway to the marketplace of ideas, except to the extent that bloggers and real media personalities link to articles written elsewhere. Let’s give them Twitter and content ourselves with, say, the New York Times and the Associated Press.

Guess Politico’s Message of the Day!

I know, it’s tough.

Two Paragraphs, Six Subtle Attacks

You have to give Politico credit — for all their subtle evil, they’re good at what they do. From today’s headline story (emphasis ours):

For the sixth time in 11 days, President Barack Obama was back before the cameras Thursday, talking about airline safety and anti-terrorism. He then left quickly for a second White House room to meet with Senate chairmen and press them to have a health care bill on his desk no later than next month.

[. . . .]

As a candidate, Obama’s cool was never fatal because so many voters simply imposed their own dreams on him. But wrapped in the bubble of the Oval Office and surrounded by Ivy-educated budget and economic advisers, this detachment is magnified and hurts him with lawmakers and voters alike, looking for more of a connection amid tough times. For all he shares with FDR, “Mr. Fireside Chat” Obama is not.

Count the tricky rhetorical attacks:

1. Too popular: Obama appears on television. But does he do it too much? Set against later arguments that Obama hasn’t done enough to assuage a concerned public, this is kind of contradictory, but feeds in to popular Beck/RedState memes, which don’t really need consistency to have the desired effect.
2. Too ambivalent about terrorism: “left quickly” implies a reluctance to continue the first dialogue.
3. Too insular: “…a second White House room” is superfluous information. Obama is the President. This implies his meetings are at the White House. Reminding us of the fact serves no purpose except to feed the notion that, by virtue of his office, Obama is somehow “too connected” to govern.
4. Too unexperienced: grace under pressure isn’t a sign of moral clarity — it proves the President is a blank slate.
5. Too elite: that some of his advisers are “Ivy-educated” adds nothing to this article, and doesn’t support the contention that Obama is disconnected. There’s nothing wrong with being “Ivy-educated,” and the origin of one’s degree gives no information about how connected to “real America” a graduate is. But, of course, we’ve been trained by the right to fear earned knowledge.
6. Too liberal: “For all he shares with FDR…” sounds to me like a compliment. But consider the audience. Despite his many successes, and iconic place in twentieth century history, Republicans (and especially Politico) have been been pushing for a while now the revisionist claim that the New Deal prolonged, rather than shortened, the Great Depression.

Careful word choice can convey a lot of information quickly, and really, you have to appreciate the work of a master. But set Politico‘s ability to stack culture war attacks against the facts you receive in the two paragraphs:

1. On Thursday, Obama gave a speech about terrorism.

At what point do we stop regarding Politico as a news source? Reporting on plausible attacks on President Obama is not journalism.

Political Speech: Which Resolution to Make?

A little less than a year ago, one of our long-time commenters (thanks for your patronage, all!) chastised Democrats for what he saw as a tactless farewell to President Bush, and hoped that Republicans would set the standard for a loyal, respectful, but vigorous opposition. That hope, surely honestly felt, has come to naught. In 2009, conservatives set a new high-water mark for the use of mendacity as a political tool — from the sheer shock of Sarah Palin’s “death panel” lie, to the schlocky, misdirected patriotic pathos of Glenn Beck and his “tea parties,” and, perhaps most egregiously, the willful attempt to brush everything about George W. Bush under the rug. Hey, if Obama’s such a great president, how come he started his term with a deficit? These are important questions.

We as Democrats should, in the new year, choose together a way to meet and conquer this rising tide of hatred. That process begins by conceding that we’ve failed to build a unified strategy, and admitting that we need to find one. But how? The way I see it, we have two options. We can come out with guns blazing. Some have already chosen this option, and hey, maybe it’ll work this time. Or we can take the path of greatest resistance and try to lead with a compassionate, scrupulously honest, but forceful voice. We can avoid negative campaigning, spurn attempts to divide, and run a positive, issue-based election, characterized by optimistic messaging about successes and new ideas (health care will cut the deficit, will provide greater coverage, etc.), and trust the media to draw comparisons favorable to us for our efforts.

Positive campaigning and cooperation, per some models, produces fewer payoffs in the short term. But it has the benefit of being the right thing to do. It’s what most Americans want, and a quick way to the moral high ground to boot. I don’t intend to offer an answer yet; I merely intend to pose the question, and hope we settle on a solution sooner rather than later.

Flawed Reporting on Ex-Detainee Involvement in Flight 253

Apparently, it isn’t as big as previously thought, but that won’t stop Republicans from fundraising off of it. Classy.

Politico Feigns Shock at a Story It Helped Create

The day is finally here. Politico has actually become a perpetual motion machine of crap, feeding on its own detritus to create new stories.

Today’s front page “story” (underlining ours):

President Obama takes the heat President Bush did not

Eight years ago, a terrorist bomber’s attempt to blow up a transatlantic airliner was thwarted by a group of passengers, an incident that revealed some gaping holes in airline security just a few months after the attacks of Sept. 11. But it was six days before President George W. Bush, then on vacation, made any public remarks about the so-called “shoe bomber,” Richard Reid, and there were virtually no complaints from the press or any opposition Democrats that his response was sluggish or inadequate.

That stands in sharp contrast to the withering criticism President Barack Obama has received from Republicans and some in the press for his reaction to Friday’s incident on a Northwest Airlines flight heading for Detroit.

Yesterday’s front page “story”:

Handling problems the Obama way

There is a sense of déjà vu in the Obama administration’s response to the attempted terrorist attack on Christmas Day. A by-now familiar pattern has been established for dealing with unexpected problems.

First, White House aides downplay the notion that something may have gone wrong on their part. [. . .] After a few days, the White House concedes on the issue, and perhaps Barack Obama even steps out to address it. [. . .]

After delivering his first public remarks Monday about a Nigerian man’s attempt to blow up a Northwest Airlines jetliner over Detroit, the president motorcaded to the golf course at a nearby country club. Optics aside, it had taken Obama three days to issue a statement on the incident, and the administration was left struggling to control the message.

It’s almost elegant. Either this set of stories was a plan, or not even Politico staff reads its website anymore. Maybe the rest of the country should take the cue.

The Way the Media Works

Some days, they just cold make it up as they go. I’d use this space to make up some damaging rumor about a Republican leader (“did you hear that [X] supports abolishing divorce?”), but who would I even target? The enemy’s ship remains rudderless, which makes every broadside we take all the more remarkable.

Hoffman Links to Birther Site in Supporter E-Mail

In an e-mail sent to supporters earlier today, Doug Hoffman pledged to strategize for his 2010 campaign over the holidays. But the prospect already looks bleak. At the end of the e-mail, Hoffman gives his supporters an “update” on important “news” articles — prominent among them, a link to prominent “Birther” site, “Citizen Wells.”

What’s significant is that Wells’ post substantially duplicates an article by that blog-masquerading-as-a-newspaper, “The Gouverneur Times.” That Hoffman would rather cite a notorious birther breeding ground than a slightly-more-reputable conservative blog is telling.

The Times’ allegations aren’t worth seriously addressing, except to note that the error stems from the legal requirement that voting machines print totals by group of voters, and the Times is comparing total votes in one group to total eligible voters in another group. That’s problematic, and speaks more to the Times’ ability to do math than Congressman Owens’ legitimacy.

Hoffman’s entire e-mail follows. Continue reading »