I Hate The Media, Chapter 97,992,174,002

[WilliamPitt]

A surrogate of Senator Obaman's campaign flips out and calls Senator Clinton a "monster" in front of a reporter. Coverage is wall-to-wall.

A surrogate of Senator Obama blows it on television by not being able to explain any details of his candidate's record. Coverage is wall-to-wall.

I. Don't. Fucking. Care.

Campaign surrogates have been screwing up on the record since time out of mind. I'm re-re-re-re-re-reading Hunter Thompson's "Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail right now, and found yesterday a passage about some Muskie surrogate who told reporters, "My instructions are to make sure the candidate is never placed in a position where he has to think quickly." Thompson, along with all the other reporters who heard this first-hand, didn't write about it because it was just too gruesome...but it happened.

Both '08 Democratic campaigns have literally hundreds of so-called "surrogates all over the country, each with different mental and emotional capacities...and most throw little if any real weight when it comes to the core operations and management of those campaigns. Blaming the core campaigns and the candidates they represent when one of their surrogates comes down with a case of idiotic verbal diarrhea is like blaming an Oort Cloud asteroid when you get a bad sunburn.

But it makes marvelous grist for the media mill, grist that allows them to sidestep any discussion of telcom immunity and FISA, the new Iraq NIE they're planning to hide from us, the ongoing economic meltdown, Hagee and McCain, etc. etc. etc.

In the sports realm, shit like this happens all the time. Some assistant to an assistant to an assistant of the Assistant Manager For Cleaning Jock Straps tells a reporter that Player X is unhappy and wants a trade...and when those really in the know are asked about the comment, they dismiss it out of hand and state the obvious: whoever said that shit knows nothing. Boom. Dead story. Move on.

According to the political press, however, comments from anyone even remotely connected to a national campaign deserve to be carved on stone tablets and clarioned from every rooftop...especially if such comments make for titilatingly vapid copy.

The Democratic contest for the nomination is now officially operating on the media's terms, and focusing on what the media decides is important.

And they love stupid shit like blabbermouthed surrogates who throw no campaign weight and whose words make no difference at all in the grand scheme.

I hate the media.

[Flabbergasted]

1. Agreed

[NanceGreggs]

2. A favour, will?

I haven't been a DUer as long as some here and, as a result, I missed Chapters 1 through 97,992,170,434. Would it be possible for you to post a quick recap?

Only kiddin' - GREAT POST!!!

:kick:

[WilliamPitt]

3. Here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=search&select_forum=132

Author: "WilliamPitt"

Keyword: "Media"

Bring a lunch.

:)

[NanceGreggs]

8. Given the volume of material ...

... I think I'll wait for the movie.

BTW, have loved that sig-line cartoon since you started using it. But one can't help but notice its particular relevance to this post - sums it up nicely.

[WilliamPitt]

9. Yup

That sig has also been working as a good shield against accusations of egotism. ;)

[NashVegas]

4. You ARE The Media

As is everyone in this forum.

Neat how it works like that.

[VolcanoJen]

5. "Monster" is Norah O'Donnell's favorite word.

Jesus. It's fucking maddening.

Will, you'd have loved the Rolling Stone reporter she had on earlier... he was really giving her the business.

[MrCoffee]

6. Personally, I vote for throwing both candidates under the bus and voting for Samantha

She's a foot smarter, ten times as talented, and infinitely more capable than both of them combined.

[SoxFan]

7. Unfortunately, she's not Constitutionally eligible

She was born in Ireland.

[MrCoffee]

10. That pesky piece of paper!

Nuts.

[SoxFan]

11. Actually, I'd like to see that provision changed

It's an anachromistic bit of nonsense.

There's no good reason qualified people like Granholm and Ahhnuld should be barred from running.

[earth mom]

12. Yeah, but did you hate the media when they ignored Edwards, the only decent candidate?

That's what people here on DU should be railing about.

NOT the coverage of 2 Dinos. :grr:

[WilliamPitt]

20. I did; Edwards was my first choice

That was the very beginning of the media asserting control over what the parameters of the '08 conversation would be. They had a few very embarrasing public humiliations along the way (one being when the media punditocracy ate crow for wildly mis-predicting NH's primary results, another when media-collected poll predictions proved to be embarrassingly different from actual primary results), but they have too much muscle over managing the message.

If a tree falls in the forest and the media doesn't cover it, did it happen?

Of course it did.

Ask Edwards...and Kucinich, while you're at it.

:banghead:

[earth mom]

31. Frankly, I'm surprised to hear Edwards was your first choice.

Kucinich would have been great, but he didn't have the same chance to win that Edwards had.

This time they stole the election before it even happened.

:argh:

[MH1]

13. And they mostly ignore when a CANDIDATE endorses a republican over her own party's likely nominee.

Go figure.

Edited to make it make sense.

[joeybee12]

14. sorry, but I think you're just trying to absolve Powers...

...I agree that the media sucks, but surrogates need to watch their step...they know the rules going in saying somethign that stupid is going to cost you.

[FiveGoodMen]

18. Telling the truth is SO stupid!

[rontun]

26. Nah. Telling the truth is brilliant. It's neglecting the truth that is stupid.

Samantha Powers could have been lauded in the media today had she concentrated on highlighting the truth rather than taking refuge in name calling. Might I suggest that a criticism of HILLARY'S alleged reassurance to Canadian officials that HER rhetoric on NAFTA should be viewed in the politics of the moment, coupled with a refrain of Hillary's long-time support of NAFTA would have had a resounding impact.

Powers could have helped the cause as well by reiterating Hillary's support of the war in Iraq, and how that support has created unpredictability in the world, helping to incite more violence and instability.

A recounting of Hillary's vote to label the Iranian Republican Guard a terrorist organization would have reminded voters of the New York Senator's poor judgment and neo-con inclinations.

It wouldn't have hurt, either, had Powers belittled Hillary's dismissal of discussions with America's enemies. Let's see, Kennedy debated Khrushchev, Johnson met with Kosygin, Nixon had extensive talks with Breshnev and Mao Tse-Tsung, Ford sat down with Breshnev in Vladivostok, Carter met with Breshnev, Reagan met with Gorbachev, George Herbert Walker Bush met with Gorbachev, and George W. Bush met with Putin. Even Bill Clinton met with adversaries, including Yasser Afrafat, and hosted peace talks between warring factions in the former Yugoslavia. Perhaps asking the question, "Why does Hillary believe that meeting with our adversaries is below her stature, when virtually all of the presidents over the past half century have felt compelled to pursue such a course?" would have been appropriate.

I do believe each of us has a tendency to retaliate against what we believe is disingenuous or an injustice by spouting an epithet. But calling Hillary a monster, or a bitch, or some other derogatory term justifiably earns repudiation. What Powers and others who share her perspective should focus on is providing voters with a clear portrait of Hillary's record. Voters are wise enough to discern the quality of Hillary's character and will, I'm confident, select their own pejorative to mirror their impression.

[WilliamPitt]

21. Of course they do

and of course it should cost.

But the gigantic amount of coverage for these dipshit gaffes give them far more weight than they merit.

It's a "gotcha" story that merits coverage towards the end of the mid-day and evening news cycle. But wall to wall? I'm reminded of Waxman's hot pursuit of Roger Clemens...that left a few kinda-sorta important issues off the agenda.

[Wednesdays]

15. Media Reform = Top Priority

Once the Dems win both Congress and Presidency--time to sharpen those scalpels. :grr:

[ksquire]

16. why is she only frames as a surrogate?

here is a woman who is incredibly accomplished and has done more in her short life than most of us will put together. why are they talking about her as if she's "just" a surrogate when in fact she's a pulitzer prize winning author and endowed chair at harvard? to me, that's more interesting -- that a person who has spent her career studying atrocities such as rwanda still can call hillary a monster. I think she was burnt out and ready to bow out.

[WilliamPitt]

23. Surrogate: a person appointed to represent or act on behalf of others

Every campaign has "face-people" in every state to fill in for official campaign representatives in five-minute chunks during the 24-hour news cycle. They need lots of people to fill that time, and not all of them are able to keep it cool in the crunch.

[David Zephyr]

17. Dude, it's good to have you back.

For every criticism I ever gave you, I take everyone back because this place ain't the same when you're not letting it rip!

K&R.

[WilliamPitt]

25. Friends who avoid being critical when criticism is needed

are not good friends.

:toast:

Thanks, bro.

[matcom]

19. I hate the media for all they are worth (which isn't shit)

I hate those who KNOW this and USE the media more to spread lies.

The 'media' aren't any smarter than my dumb dog. Let me provide a nice pic to illustrate:


:P

[casus belli]

22. I missed chapters 1-97,992,174,001. Would you mind recapping?

:)

[WilliamPitt]

24. See post 3

:P

[WilliamPitt]

27. EDIT TO OP (I missed the edit window to post this above)

I don't mean to imply that such events have no merit on spec. At minimum, having a campaign surrogate who goes sideways on the record raises questions about the main campaign's ability to hire/appoint capable people who can hold it together when the heat is on.

These things are worth reporting on, but not at the expense of issues and challenges that matter far more to our lives and well-being. When the media refuses to ask the candidates/campaigns to comment on the to-be-buried Iraq NIE report or telcom amnesty, because such queries involve harder work than questions about surrogate gaffes, we all lose.

And no, I'm not saying this to provide "cover for the Obama campaign. Someone up-thread said something like, "Yeah, it sucks when they report the truth!" Truth is in the eye of the beholder, and truth in media tends to be whatever favors one's favored candidate, and the whole process screws both candidates along with all of us.

[Medusa]

28. What gets me is that Queen Hillary is demanding for

anyone's resignation given the repugnant things her campaign has said in this election cycle. Hell, she should have started with Bill as far as I'm concerned.

[LaStrega]

29. I had to Wikipedia "Oort Cloud"

There's not another person posting on DU who, with regularity, uses words I have to wikipedia.org/dictionary.com/google.com more than you. Hence your posts both impress me and educate me.

[mojowork_n]

30. You know, that "surrogate" (flunky, dipsh*t) tag doesn't totally fly,

...all things considered. The point was touched on in the unofficial "look who's talkin'" thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4953590&mesg_id=4953590

I was personally disappointed to see Samantha Power thrown under the bus, because I suspect that she may have been one of the people, in a future Obama Administration, who might have made a difference.

[McCamy Taylor]

32. The press is trying to create internal divisions within the Dem ranks, so they will focus on any

issue---not matter how trivial or manufactured---if they think that it can get a rise out of the opposition.

Look at what Drudge did to Clinton's 60 Minutes interview. It turned "No, of course not" Her answer to the question "Do you think Obama is a Muslim" into some other answer entirely that seemed to imply that she was saying yeah he probably is but you didn't hear it from me by chopping out a little piece of what she said in later questioning.

The whole MSM then copied Drudge and fed it to the public.

That was not even a surrogate. It was an out and out lie of what Hillary said.

Or when the NYT and then the WaPo and then all the others lied about what she said about LBJ, JFK and MLK Jr making it sound like she was comparing herself to MLK when she was really comparing Obama to JFK and herself to LBJ--not at all the same thing. And the changed Bill calling Obama's war stance a fairy tale to Bill calling Obama's whole campaign a fairy tale. Again, those are not surrogates. The MSM is so powerful it can create lies about what the candidates themselves say, and the candidates are powerless to correct it. They have no forum that will allow them to address the public to correct the media's deliberate distortions.

So, while surrogates like the BET founder can put his foot in it, the MSM does not have to wait for anyone to do anything, they can make it up. They do all the time. And America and the FCC lets them get away with it.

[Bucky]

33. Most don't realize it, but the first 97 billion chapters were in the form of anime comics

Will always makes more salient points when he's not depicting Clinton and Obama as scantily clad Japanese school girls.

I just thought his newer fans might like some context to this post.

(PS: Well said, sir!)

[WilliamPitt]

34. You've heard of Akira? That was me.

See if you can find the political subtext.

:P

;)

:toast: