Very interesting thought. The problem for progressives is that the Radicals use that kind of raw emotion and emotional events in their politics routinely, but only those anywere left of Lieber-center get called on it by the traditional media.

sPh

 In my opinion it would not be unfair to criticize the 9/11 widows if they had used their tragedies to directly solicity votes for Democrats, or to directly campaign against Bush - a "swiftboat" type TV ad, for example.  But, that isn't what they did.  Instead they worked tirelessly seeking an independent investigation into what went wrong the bring about 9/11.  I don't see that as making political hay out of their tragedies, but trying to prevent others from going thru the same misery.  So, yes, it is unfair to do an Ann Coulter on them.

Hoppy in Sacramento

And TPM's favorite Washington Post "Ballance-ing"

The balancing act looks particularly ludicrous these days when the facts have an anti-Bush bias (thank you, Daily Show). The 9/11 widows are a non-partisan "fact" that is a constant embarrassment to Bush and supporters.

I'll admit, I didn't see her latest performance and won't be reading the transcript. Over the years I've stumbled upon her a few times on cable news shows, and each time she's gotten me apoplectic -- which is not good for my health -- or my self-esteem.

Coulter is a definite psycho, but they can be charismatic. She's a walking argument against returning patients to the community.

Please! No more. I'm sorry I brought it up. The mere thought of her is making me ill.

She didn't earn the nickname "Anthrax" for nuttin'.

Neoboho

"1. specifically, fear of loss of access; 2. more generally, corporate disinclination to offend a vindictive party in power (cf. CBS-Viacom-60 Minutes); 3. bending over backwards to prove that the organization is not dead set against conservatives."

I'm surprised the following didn't make the list: 4. news corporations benefit from Bush policies so they hire reporters who see things with a pro-Bush slant.

Another reason for bias, but it would be conscious: 5. reporters work for corporations that benefit from Bush policies, so backing Bush policies is a good career strategy.

Sorry -- posted before I saw your comment about not reading her that restored me to sanity...

"Is it unfair to take the 9/11 widows and specifically, the "Jersey Girls" -- four very smart, very pretty, very savvy women -- to task for sentimentally deploying their status as widows to advance their political position?"

Good point, Ellen. The fact that George Bush, on a DAILY BASIS used 911 to justify a bogus war, and now continues to use it as he covertly assaults the bedrock of our Constitution as he follows orders from his handlers--all the while claiming patriotism -- makes the comparison pathetically sick.

I recently re-read the interview with Peggy Noonan that the Bush's gave about the night of 911, when W and Laura kept going up and down the stairs with the dog, in their PJ's, because the beds in the bunker weren't comfortable enough for W to get a good night's sleep. (The Secret Service wanted them in the basement, but W didn't like the beds down there) In the end, they got to sleep in the upstairs quarters, and Dubya said "It ended on a comical note."

How many other people remember the night of 911 that way? Most of us couldn't even sleep at all. But most of us didn't know what George knew. Things were going his way. BIG TIME!

I won't jump on the ann coulter bandwagon unless someone can make a suggestion as to how to screw her book sales. Any ideas

Jan Knaus

She's entered a death spiral? Well, we can hope.

The squeaking wheel gets oiled. I'm thinking on another dimension of this issue: overfunded right wing think tanks have agressive booking agencies to get "experts" who will tout their ideas on network news, with agents waiting in the wings to speak on about any issue at the wink of an eye. Their success is probably due to the laziness of staffers who are tasked to find speakers on a news item. I would be very surprised if there was not a counterpart activity as regards print news.

And I think it would also be expensive to do this. Thus "overfunded."

Neoboho

No discussion of the putrefying state of political journalism in the US today is complete without mentioning the WaPo "A Good Lie" (unsigned) editorial.

I'm sorry, but Gitlin's gentlemanly explanations just don't wash when you have dirt ball editorials like those coming out.

I think a couple of posters have it right, I'd say there are two factors.

First, corporate ownership of the media. Anybody who has worked in/for middle management knows how top management communicates what it wants to hear to the lower echelons. There are well-known anecdotes of Welch meddling with NBC coverage (with that whore Russert's acquiescence), though I'm sure it happens more subtlely on a much wider basis. "Journalists" are just doing what they're told to do, though not necessarily in so many words.

Second, the vast majority of journalists are just plain stupid. Anyone who's had to interact with one knows it's true. Bob Woodward is a good recent example of this. What a putz.

There are examples of good or even outstanding journalism out there. Risen, Waas, ..... But they are too and far between to save what looks from here to be a dying profession. Perhaps if journalists could acknowledge their own problems there might be hope, but they're too stupid and arrogant to admit their failings.

Miscellany of comments. Yes, it's important that Coulter's characterization of cooptation of 9/11 as a liberal strategy is totally upside down. I hadn't even heard of these widows, as opposed to the relatives coopting discussion of the Freedom Center for the opposite of liberal politics, whereas her own phony patriotism and manipulation of anger and fears have been GOP strategy from day one.

Yes, Rove's strategy turns on ethnic identification, which is tough to beat. (When combined with racism, it's also one of those things we don't politely like to raise about American politics.) It helps explain better than "values" argument the "matter with Kansas," how Americans can easily be led to identify their economic plight with that of the rich rather than others struggling to get into or remain in the middle class. It also helps explain why Amy Sullivan, say, is so far off the mark begging Democrats to speak the language of religion, as if they already didn't. 

And yes, the post is way too polite to journalists, but calling them stupid is unhelpful. Most people aren't Nobel Prize winners but do their job. I'd say more about the origin of press bias, but it's already been done to death by Alterman and others, so I'd be stupid and arrogant myself to try.

John 

http://www.haberarts.com/

For frustrating their critics by fainting, metaphorically, rather than by responding

(I know you already said "stop!"...but...)

Here's where I found Coulter and Company to be completely disingenuous -- have the 9/11 Widows in question ever actually not responded to their critics? Have they ever played the heart-stricken widow to get out of a fight?

From what I've seen of them, they're not ones to back down. Maybe I just missed where they played the grieving widow card. 

Have questions about the Cafe? Try here.

They could understand the difference between damage to the ozone layer and climate change if they wanted to. Anyone could. It does not require expertise or even average intelligence. And herd mentality is sheer careerism. They love being the Washington insiders with privileged access, and they eat up the mulch they're fed by those who offer it. Al Gore both fit the spin they were given, in which having half a brain is a sign of liberal elitism, and challenged their ego, but he didn't tell them anything they couldn't find out.

At the risk of catering to the liberal stereotype of out of touch, I could argue that Americans were stupid to buy the GOP line, even if the media did not challenge it sufficiently. But the media didn't have to be stupid enough to buy it. They just had to be either rapid, like Fox and the other GOP controlled outlets; servile; or simply not caring whether it was true or not.

John

http://www.haberarts.com/

This more complicated system for comments is even more confusing than ever.

First off, on Gitlin's original point about "black box" theory; Gitlin is quite right and so is the person that said such a theory precludes serious criticism of just about anything in politics, since politics is an interaction of 'objective' forces and human motivation.

So, the question is, how best to confront this kind of meme, which Gitlin also notes is popular among 'he said she said' journalism.  One good way to crack the shell is to look at legal reasoning.  It is surprising how much 'social analysis of necessity' exists in legal opinions and in the evolving common law -- not necessarily the big controversial political issues but garden variety rules of construction and interpretation, and how these are thrashed out.

For example, there is the old canard that the notion of hate crimes 'makes states of mind into crimes, a 1984 prospect'.  This is the kind of argument Ann Coulter gobbles up and spews out like clockwork, as do RW dittoheads by the drove.  But, if you look at law, you will find, again routinely, that states of mind have been a factor in both defining what is criminal and in distinguishing between different types and levels of crime and different punishments (or parole).  RWers do this all the time, as with Gov Terminator's nonpardon of Tookie Williams -- something you wouldn't hear any Ann Coulter types condemn.  Think of the definition of "attempted" murder or "attempted" anything -- it requires the person to "intend" to commit the crime.   Or in the area of murder you have numerous degrees of murder, issues of sanity and competence, degrees of deliberation etc.  The only complaint that RWers have about this scheme is NOT that it punishes people based on their state of mind, but that in some areas (NGRI -- not guilty by reason of insanity, as a defense) they argue that the system is too permissive.   Some crimes, like rape based on inebriation of the victim, are based on the behavior and state of mind of the victim!  Scienter or mens rea is a literally millenia old dimension of legal reasoning.

 The same issue of "scienter" (state of mind) applies in a different way in the area of "black box" theory.  In cases, both criminal and civil, not only does the legal system enter into making judgments about people's state of mind, it also evaluates external evidence to presume intent or discrimination on the basis of externally verifiable data, like hiring statistics.  Discrimination law has long established methods of proving bias, methods that could be researched by someone in better shape than I, going to a law library or using their access to $$$$ legal computer programs to ferret out articles on the legal determination of state of mind and bias.  It's basically just a matter of doing the legwork to pretty much "prove" using cases and keynote principles that bias is recognized as provable WITHOUT getting into the heads of people -- and happens in courts in documentable mountains of instances.

It is simply amazing the crap that the RW get away with that can be disproven by a careful examination of law: for example, on 'judicial activism', studies have found that the RW of the Supreme Court has voted MORE times than the liberals to overturn Congressional statutes, prompting a RW high school classmate that I used to argue with in American history class (now he's a law prof at U of Chi) to write the New York Times insisting that the results would be different if looking at state and local statutes, but providing no stats.  Another 'judicial activism' issue to look at are areas like 11th Amendment jurisprudence, one of the most notorious examples of judicial usurpation of the Constitution itself, as with the 'separate and equal' trashing of the 14th Amendment that lasted 60 years still alive and well and backed by the RW of the Supremes in 5-4 decisions, in the face of liberal challenges in the 80s.

 Factually disproving the RW doesn't make much more difference on issues of jurisprudence than of media or environment.

Which brings me to issue #2:  Greenhouse Effect and ozone layer.  Now, various naysayers are claiming to be converted by new evidence (like the ass-covering crowd in summer 1974 claiming sudden conversion by yet another smoking gun of Nixon's guilt); the problem in the situation of the Greenhouse Effect is that merely recognizing the problem is only the first step, so it isn't just a matter of belated conversion.  Now they drag their heels about the need for drastic solutions, such as the vigorous massive pursuit of alternative energy, and fast, something Americans have supported for 30 years but which has been suppressed at the astroturf roots. 

 (On this latter issue, you will find liberals playing the same 'see no evil hear no evil speak no evil' game with authentic progressives who dare to speak out that the RW plays with them; it's yet another layer of foot dragging, also to play it safe and cover ass, and "serve")  On the latter point, some people might have the Herman-eutical (snide reference on my part to Melville) position that the assassination of the Kennedys and King, seen as fascistic by some, were merely "serving" and not fascist, as fascism by contrast is really reducible to "refusing to serve".  All a lot of baloney treated as unquestionable gospel, outside the realm of rational discourse.  In fact, rational discourse on these matters is an essential ingredient to the timely saving of our planet and addressing underground repression in other spheres as well.  If blocked by 'glass walls' of underground repression, how can people effectively mobilize to implement socially necessary solutions to crucial problems that the elite, for whatever reasons, chooses to suppress.  Indeed, only by defying the 'what-system?' system can anything remotely close to what is needed be accomplished in a timely way.

But let me return to what was said about Greenhouse Effect and Ozone layer.  In fact the two are very much intertwined, in many ways we still don't even know.  They are mutually catalytic, for reasons both obvious and not (eg that the CO2 'blanket' raising surface temperatures can also render the UPPER atmosphere colder, with less heat radiating out, making ozone destruction faster, while ozone depletion for many reasons catalyzes global warming, especially near the poles (like Antarctica).  At any rate, both need to be confronted.

On one issue, here's an aboveground clue:  recently more news about the overt (vehicles being forced off the road) suppression of the devlopment of hydrogen energy has come to light -- but in 1981, The Nation magazine ran an article "Somebody doesn't like Hy-fuel" about the same problem.  How much has been done about this minimal flagship in a quarter century?  Can you say "bupkes"?  Such is the way everything happens in our system.

Incidentally, alternative energy as a central issue, and the point about the Repugs being in the pockets of big oil would be a devastating aspect of nationalizing this years Congressional elections.  Who expects more than lip service to be paid to this kind of stuff, that is, who expects politics to come remotely CLOSE to what a genuinely free marketplace of ideas and elections (diebold aside) could produce.  And don't forget that the insolubility of problems like campaign finance, given the system, or of getting Repug majorities to keep from sustaining themselves with e-fraudections and a supine media make them perfect venues not only for wrongdoing, but of compounding wrongdoing without accountability by using it to launder other crap.

"Letting the sunshine in", as mainstream anti-Left liberals abhor and as authentic progressives would like but dare not say peep about, is the only way to solve many of our problems, but of course, the same forces that were too craven to make the old system work at all or challenge the catch-22 transitionalism of the 2000 election dispute in Florida are too wussy to try to pursue this now.  When it's too late, then people slowly try insufficient measures, in the end always shitting down the blame from those responsible to those they suppressed all along, or in the longer run creating that kind of worthless halo of recognition that bogeyman Lenin described in the opening of State and Revolution.  No, I'm not a Leninist, just really nauseous from hearing all these people in the venue of sds mind you, trying to complain about using the term "imperialism" in political organizing -- [sounds too Leninist].   Geeesh!

----------------------------------

Third, about Ellen's comment.  Let's suppose you had an immediate family member or your girlfriend or lover or your best buddy die in 9/11.  And first you hear 'little Goebbels' Ward 'my-privileged-Tory-Horseshit-Ass-Is-Protected-From-Exposure-so-you-can-just-kiss-it' Churchill trashing the victims while Ann Coulter goes on about how their survivors should just clam up (unless Repugs).  Lemme tell you something.  These people are lucky that they (unlike authentic progressives in the face of underground repression) are protected by the law in our society.  It just goes to show how tolerant and protective our society really is of obnoxious what-Rushdie-is-to-religious-Moslems type speech, when it is convenient for the powers that pee to protect particular strains of utterly noxious speech. Since this system is selective about what kinds of speech gets protected, while protestating a level or near-level playing field, or some kinds of distinctions (but then why is authentic progressive activism absent advocacy of 'letting the sunshine in' absent any (of course denied) glass walls of repression?) are tossed about in an arena where any old slop will do ('one man in the name of love', 'why are you even talking, you weren't even there' and myriads of other egs easily dredgeable from rock lyrics) -- what we have is plain and simple: a system of privileged speech and essentially propaganda rigging.  Then we can talk honestly about how the press functions, at least with that honestly applied as an heuristic device.

Now, about these women:  first, even without loss of family friends or lovers, they have the right to say whatever they please; after all, this society puts up with Ann Coulter, don't we?  (The next question is why, when Coulter appears on TV with Jesse Jackson on affirmative action, does he feel compelled to wear kid gloves with her?)  Is it "immoral" to speak your mind when something has injured you grievously?  Not if you're promoting the RW, but yes if authentically progressive.  Nobody questioned the right of Swift Boat and other relevant vets to speak up (where it was truthful and not mainly lawyers and rewritten 'affadavits' accompanied by threats of perjury issues being raised if anyone complained) about Kerry.  And other examples abound.

One LTTE to the New York Times from the sister of a man murdered on 9/11 stands out in my mind.  She pointed out that her brother's death had been used to justify wars, repression and any other number of things that she thought and her brother would have thought utterly noxious.  So there you have it -- milking 9/11 is a BUSHIST prerogative!  After all, membership has its privileges ..............................................

I agree that stupid may be unkind, but I remain amazed that on many newscasts many obviously unsupported statements, from both sides, often go unchallenged. The role of the journalist is not to provide "balance" but truth (or the facts as best they are known). In watching much of MSM, journalists don't attempt to correct mis-statements. (?Because they don't recognize them)
Perhaps, the shear volume of data has overwhelmed the general news anchor. However even in the case of the specialist (White House reporter,etc) what generally comes out is just the WH spin. Even more bizarre is that reporters appear squeamish when the questioning the WH press secratary or other high government officials for fear of being considered biased.
I realize that there are economic and access to power concerns at play that I will never fully understand. But as an executive, I think I would learn from the Dixie Chicks experience. Once an audience has defined you as being worthless, you are hard pressed to win them back, despite good music (or news content. Business 101, it's easier to hold on to a consumer than win them back. You can hire Glenn Beck (to do an unwatchable show), but you will remain a "liberal" network, conservatives won't return. By attempting to attract viewers who only believe Fox News, you will lose liberal viewers who become disgusted with your fare. Your ratings will fall and your integrity will plummet. You will have to make do with fewer reporters and fact checkers do to decreased income. Many people will rely more and more on other news sources for fact checking.
Until truth telling- "here are the facts as we know them" -returns to newsrooms, I don't see an end to the downward spiral.

Amazing that his #3 was his most important factor!

Agree that #4 and #5 deserve prominence; disagree that #3 doesn't belong there. Your argument presumes that the right-wing's incessant howling about left-wing media bias doesn't actually get heard by the MSM; surely they are at least somewhat cowed by it.

OK let's see if I can be succinct:

1. A significant number of viewers vote and think in terms of Republican mythologies
2. Those viewers will be offended if a news piece goes against their cherished beliefs.
3. Networks depend on viewership for revenues
4. A significant number of non republicans are willing to tolerate news programs skewing the data favorably towards the right
5. Networks calculate what will give them a maximum # of viewers
____________________________________________
therefore: Networks tend to skew towards the right,

argument 2.
1 In order to change the equation such that the maximum viewership is gotten by skewing reports towards the left (and in my opinion towards the truth), you have to change the opinion of a significant number of the republican viewership
2. In order to do 1 you have to report things more truthfully (more towards the left view)
3. If you report more towards the left, you will lose Republican viewers
_________________________________________
therefore Catch 22

My opinion is that changing the MSM is going to come about when they feel it in their pocketbooks. It is no secret that MSM is hemorrhaging viewers/readers/hearers

A retreat to blogs such as this one, is a good refuge until things change

Good post, but this thread is basically dead. Why don't you copy it over to a diary for the Democrats or Elections tables?

sPh