There are a lot of reporters I know and respect, but I will never forget the one (not named in VFair, which listed only some of the perpetrators)

Why protect him? He's dishonest, unprofessional and vindictive. I would think that nullifies any "off the record" agreement.

All the members of the media who did this should be exposed and embarrased for what they did.

Does anyone know how Seelye (the last name of the Times reporter) and Ceci (the first name of the Post reporter) are pronounced?

Thank you and I agree. So sad and horrifying when you think about it.

It's nice to seem Mr. Gore has such good friends.

But I refuse to give up on having the excellent leadership of Mr. Gore to be President. He is our only hope to solve the many problems we face. The only one with the courage to do the right thing.

Time for a COOL change,
Gore
2008

How many "liberals" grinned about all that Gore stuff? How many perpetuated it themselves? I know of several people who post right here who were, good little sheep that they are, saying things like that up to a year ago. We can -- and should -- point the finger at media that are accountable to no one, but there's plenty of finger pointing to go around. Liberals swallowed that garbage whole and angrily regurgitated it at every opportunity, for years and years. Some of them still do.

Crooked cops, crooked lawyers, crooked judges, crooked politicians, crooked doctors, crooked scientists, crooked clergymen -- but no crooked journalists. An amazing record for an amazing class of people.

Media is accountable to no one

Quite right.

Oh it is true that the media is accountable to its audience in that circulation/viewership/listeners can decline to consume their product. If enough people 1) are made aware of media manipulation of public opinion through deceptive and often FALSE reporting (not only by one outlet but by multiple outlets as the Vanity Fair article demonstrates) and 2) enough people stop supporting these media outlets, they will have to abide by a new motto "Be objective or perish"

Trouble is, it is not an easy task. Most media consumers are not inquisitive enough to see how they are being manipulated. Telling them that they are being manipulated might help, but they tend to think you are a far-left conspiracy theorist.
Still, we have to start holding journalists accountable for what they write.
The account in Vanity Fair made me nauseous. I know at the time that Gore was being attacked unfairly, but I made the fundamental error of thinking that it was the American People who were being unfair to him and that the media was merely reflecting (reporting?) the public sentiment. The fact is that to a great extent the media SHAPES public sentiment.

What makes people think that Journalists must be so pure and ethical? Probably the myth-machine that the media has established... consider this little piece of sloganeering "all the news that's fit to print" on every copy of the New York Times.
Journalist have a facility/felicity with language. They know how to couch their reportage in objective sounding phrases. But in fact, Journalist have no expertise at all in ferreting out truth about what really is behind the bare facts. So they write their "story" (good word given its fictional connotation) hoping to make a splash, make a name for themselves as for example Maureen Dowd did.

Nevermind that they have a crucial responsibility to be as objective as they can in reporting matters concerning the res publica,
Gore is a lactating feminized male, Gore is delusional, Gore is a liar...and on and on they went and it made me sick.

Indeed they are the cancer in our society. They allow a Bush to get elected. They require politicians to toady up to them. They are the "Washington--Broadway" tribe. They hold the aces.

MY suggestion is to boycott the MSM. Blogs have links to their articles that might have some informational merit.

But ultimately, we have to establish an alternate media. Daily Kos and this and other websites are the start of this process. It is no wonder they froth at the mouth about the so-called "irresponsible blogs"

At least in the blogs you have choice. Subscribe to the New York Times or the Washington Post, and you are their little captive that can be nurtured to have the "right" sorts of views.

I am glad that Vanity Fair wrote that exposé. It was about time. They are on my good list.

This really brought back some terrible memories. I was among those who were totally confused and outraged by the treatment Gore got, but who eventually decided "where there is all of that smoke, surely there must be a fire there too." I can't think of a punishment that would be severe enough for the editors of the news media who allowed this to happen. Saddam's treatment might approach such a level of punishment.

Hoppy in Sacramento

Reed,

As a personal friend, I can easily understand why you would be upset about the attacks on Gore. Most pernicious in my mind was the accumulation of attacks that resulted in Gore being labeled a serial exaggerator; i.e., liar.

Still Gore had it quite easy compared to Democratic candidates like Kerry and Dukakis.

How the hell do you top Kerry as a coward and traitor? They did it perhaps by Reagan starting the ball rolling by labeling Dukakis as mentally unbalanced of all things.

The most devastating attack I ever read on Al Gore was penned by none other than the media's longtime favorite faux liberal, Michael Kinsley, long before Al Gore became a Democratic nominee for president.

The star power that Gore now enjoys blinds those seeking to demonstrate the illusion of the former Conservative Alternative as a true environmentalist. He ain't though he undoubtedly is a great movie maker.

Best, Terry

The nonesense about Edward's hair shows that things, if anything, have gotten worse.

Any rank partisan or ignorant idiot who would proclaim that Gore "...just lacks courage to say what he believes" has obviously not read or heard any of Gore's fiery speeches, or bothered to investigate the harsh and brutally poignant message Gore has been passionately delivering for years. Particularly, recently, the message that the socalled MSM have purposefully ignored and downplayed is that the Bush government has "broken the law repeatedly and insistantly", and that congress then under GOP control, but even now, has "abrogated its' constitutional authority to provide a balance and check to the executive."

The socalled MSM are complicit parrots and disinformation warriors, and propaganda and slime meisters on the payroll of, and beholden to the fascists in the Bush government.

Like everyone in the Bush government the complicit parrots in the socalled MSM cannot be tust to present the truth, facts, or to adequately investigate any issue or individual. Their primary function is glorifying, defending, excusing, shielding, and in overt ways supporting the fascist warmongers, profiteers, and pathological liars in the Bush government.

"Deliver us from evil!"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y1qG6m9SnWI

From the John Edwards campaign.

What really matters?

It still goes on, and I'm wondering if Media Matters for America will document the most recent atrocity, which happened on NPR's Morning Edition this morning.  Senator Larry Craig, compounding duplicity, mendacity, and stupidity, leaves a recorded message on a total stranger's cell phone giving orders on how to spin the news--revealing that his "intent" to resign was no more than another example of three card monte...this time with the public and the republican leadership as shills.

Speaking of shills, (and the source of my outrage), Senior Correspondent Juan Williams then comes on to "analyze" the story, and, as I should have expected, couldn't be on the air for 30 seconds without saying that this phone call was what one might have have heard during the Monica Lewinsky "scandal".  If two cents of my public broadcasting contribution goes to pay the salary of this lightweight I'm not getting my money's worth.  I sent this letter to NPR.

This morning I heard the best and worst of Morning Edition reporting.  Luckily I heard the worst first:  I'm referring to Juan William's "analysis" of Senator Craig's "intent" to resign.  The story itself is fascinating...the man either was guilty as charged or lied in his plea, and then was incautious enough to leave a voice mail describing a con-game spin on a total stranger's phone.  All Juan Williams could do was SPECULATE that this type phone call could have been heard 10 years ago during the Monica Lewinsky scandal.  Will the next generation of NPR "Senior Correspondents" still bring up Monica Lewinsky every time a republican is caught being naughty? 

The best was the recapitulation with tape documentation of the administrations waffle regarding  the surge.  It redeemed the earlier, and without it, my public broadcasting station might be one contributer short next pledge drive.

If anyone else heard this sorry effort, I hope they'll add their voice to mine.  I should add that calling this the "latest" reportorial atrocity was true at 6:45 a.m. eastern standard time... there probably will be later atrocities before this post falls off the front page.

aMike

I know See Dee. I've read your posts and how you used to be sympathetic to Israel but not anymore after what you've seen. So, hey, now I guess you have standing to speculate that Mossad would have assasinated an American president so the Jewish Vice President could have ruled at the direction of and, even from, Israel.

Whatever.

Please say you are only kidding and I will gladly eat loads of crow and remove my rating of "1". Absent that, this is a most hateful and despicable post See Dee, no matter how disillusioned you are with Israel and our relationship with it. This kind of post has no place on a liberal website, or on any American website.

The story itself is fascinating...the man either was guilty as charged or lied in his plea, and then was incautious enough to leave a voice mail describing a con-game spin on a total stranger's phone. All Juan Williams could do was SPECULATE that this type phone call could have been heard 10 years ago during the Monica Lewinsky scandal.

A beauty for sure, amike.

The anointed "liberal" commentators on MSM are all most judiciously selected. Fox is no different in that regard. The pairing of Matalin and Carville is the most nauseating.

Best, Terry

So they helped to put the amicable dunce from whom you couldn't expect very much in charge of the country.

Reagan--in Clark Clifford's memorable phrase--was the amiable dunce.

Bush is just a dunce.

Can you imagine how different things would be if President Gore were in his second term?

Not a day goes by when I don't think about this.

The scenario in which a reporter admits that "more is expected from Gore" appears to be common among the MSM stenography pool.
Joe Klein said essentially the same thing several months ago in his Swampland blog. Republicans can sling mud, because that's what's expected of them. Democrats must stay above the fray and argue on issues alone. Democrats have to be "Centrists" and find common ground with GOP members.
Klein summarized, "it's not fair, but that's the political situation".
Democrats who are too "aggressive" are leftwing ideologues, while wingnuts are just the GOP being themselves.
The bias is obvious.
The most visible media critic, Howard Kurtz, will deny any bias is occurring, as will must reporters.

SeeDee,

[Gore] would have been eliminated by some MOSSAD agent and we would have ALL (instead of just most) of our Middle-East policies run from Tel Aviv [sic].

Who runs whose policies, now....?

The Bush administration is not keen on reviving the Syrian track, as it considers Bashar Assad's regime problematic and harmful to regional stability.

However, Israel Defense Forces Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi strongly supports renewed talks with Syria, with the goal of distancing Damascus from its alliance with Iran and contributing to a new regional order in which Syria would forge closer relations with moderate Arab states.

But nevermind.  SeeDee is probably right.  After all, when a certain people has the power to kill gods and sons of gods, controlling US foreign policy is a piece of cake.

The Republican Noise machine is driven top down while the Democratic version is bottom up. Look to the polls regarding Iraq to see which works better before feeling too despondent.

Enjoy.

Mom always said I was special and I believed her.

I find the constant whining about the press to be nothing but a huge distraction.  Sure there were some badly written stories. Sure, some journalists are lazy and repeat what they hear over cocktails rather than do the hard work of going out and finding the truth for themselves.  But such press malfeasance probably doesn't amount to much in the grand scheme of things.  The idea that Bush won the election because he got more favorable press than Gore is ludicrous.  For every Bush-is-a-likeable-guy story, there was a Bush-as-draft-dodger or Bush-as-alcoholic story.  Similarly, for every story about Gore inventing the Internet, there were many stories about Gore's real accomplishments.

Most people form their views about candidates based on the messages the campaigns themselves communicate, whether through ads or having their spokespeople appear on TV.  They present a positive image of themselves and they try to define the other guy in negative terms.  The sad fact is that the Bush campaign did a better job than the Gore campaign of marketing its product.  More thoughtful coverage in the press might have changed things at the margin (although given how close the 2000 election was, that would have made the difference) but the election should never have been close enough for it to matter.  For that, the blame ultimately rests squarely with one man: Al Gore.  As a veteran of the 1992 campaign, Gore should have anticipated the Republican slime machine would go after him and he should have had a response.  It was his fault, not the press's, that he couldn't figure out a message, didn't utilize Bill Clinton on the trail and didn't feel comfortable enough in his own skin to present himself as a regular guy.

Ned's right about mentioning as well the coverage of Bush. Frank Bruni is one of my villains, and his reward, the food column (assigned to a journalist and not a food writer, too), is all too appropriate. Eric Alterman has a good chapter on the 2000 campaign. He suggests reporters so easily manipulated that they'd be more sympathetic to Bush by matters as trivial as the food served on the campaign plane. 

The coverage of Gore brought out almost all their weaknesses. First, the campaign against him was smear and innuendo, and they the media plays stenography.  Second, much involved personalities, facial expressions, weight, etc., and they eat that up. (Wow, human interest!) Third, the smirk thing changed the debates from who said what or who went over better at the time to post-debate spin, and the media loves horse-race coverage. Fourth, Gore sounded honest and intelligent, and the media resent it when they're not the smartest kid on the block. Fifth, they'd always both loved and hated Clinton, as juicy but the guy they could never pin anything on. (Gosh, all those Whitewater stories, and no crime after all! Gosh, all that Monica coverage, and the public doesn't care!) So here comes someone both not juicy and yet a Clinton follow-up. The first made them angry, like a poor second season, the second made it payback time. 

John 

http://www.haberarts.com/

There's no question this is all true, but I'd add one more thing: Democrats must stand up for themselves and for eachother!

The Democrats are like animals who don't understand the herd mentality. Republicans do, that's why they stick together. They know the youngest, weakest, and/or slowest might get caught by the predators out there, but if they all stick together, chances are that not many of them will get eaten. Democrats, on the other hand, when they even spot an approaching predator all fan out individually and point to the member of the herd closest to the predator and beg "please take him, but not me, please!"

If Democrats had the balls to stand up for themselves and forcefully denounce this lazy, unprofessional and juvenile form of "journalism" supported and encouraged by the corporate owners of the media it would make a real difference. If Democrats would come down on "journalists" who engage in this bullshit on another Democrat and relentlessy point out the bias and innacuracy and the unfairness of the treatment any Democrat receives then it would make a huge difference. If Democrats would openly encourage citizens and rank and file Dems to forcefully and actively attack the journalists who attack our elected leaders unfairly it would make a huge difference.

"Journalists" bitch slap Democrats like this for the same reason Republicans do: because they know they can and that they will pay no price because Democrats are almost universally a bunch of wimps, cowards, and pussies who wouldn't stand up for their own Mom's or their own children if they were being insulted or treated unfairly. We have seen ample evidence of this cowardly, pathetic behavior recently with the idiotic obsession with Edwards' hair and Hillary's choice of necklines, with the cave in on the FISA extension and with Reid and Pelosi's utter impotence and offers of surrender in advance on the continued funding of the war and the withdrawal of troops. Instead of standing up for themselves or what they believe, DC Democrats cower in the corner hoping that the rich people they wish to please don't hit them again. It's like battered woman syndrome but it takes hold on every Democrat in Washington whether elected or in a support role.

Yet, how quickly things would change if they would just start calling a spade and spade and calling out the reporters who do this shit by name, often, and very publicly. Sadly, we'll probably never know because the crowd we've elected clearly doesn't have the balls to even try.

Brad the Dad,
I wish I had your certainty about the ability of the public to overcome negative press messages regarding Gore.
However the fact that at least one major media institution, Gore was a punchline, and lowered expectations were applied to GW is important.
Advertising (media stories) works. I have iPods and a Palm TX for a reason. I have been convinced that I need them. (My brother -in-law is content with his Sony Walkman another advertising gem).
The more I read about the results when statistical analysis is applied to human behavior, I realize that purchase decisions, choices of political candidates, and interactions with different ethnic groups are all impacted by our internal biases and messages picked up through the media in ways we may not recognize.
The "I created" the internet" punchline still resonates today. How many people are asking, "Do we have names of pilots who in formation with GW?"
I am concerned about the influence of print, televised, and radio influences on public opinion. I take MSM admission of bias against Gore very seriously.

Reed... Speaking of courage, name him.

Where is the support for your claim that I have ever overlooked Anyone's support for the war, Jew or non Jew??.

SeeDee

Wait! Wait! now, Zionista...I NEVER said anything about "a certain people 'killing gods and sons of gods' controlling US foreign policy..."...

What is your statement supposed to imply? Oh, nevermind...it may have been that you just thought it was a good parting comment....but your presumption that I (or anyone) might believe some religious views or not is un-called for.

TomT said:

"The best way would be to get Dowd, Fineman, Connolly, and Seelye fired from their jobs. But we probably can't do that.

What can we do? Does anyone have the answer?"

I guess all you can do is make their irresponsible reporting public by attacking them publicly, either on radio or on here.
The thing is you have to attack them as soon as you see it.

An added phone call or e-mail to the "reporter" or their employer would also hit home.

I E-mail CNN and MSNBC now and then, and in the past (years) I called CNN in Atlanta once or twice.

The worst thing anyone can do is ignore them.

SeeDee

Seeing "Matalin & Carville" simultaneously does, indeed, cause a queasiness...What 'program director' or whoever decides these things came up with this disgusting duo?

Whatever sense Carville disseminates is eliminated by his wife's nonsense.

A point to consider is that any comment here can show up on a Google search. I think many real trolls pretend to be over-the-top loyalists in order to make the main group look bad. This could be used the same way.

I've sometimes searched for material for one of my typical issues and found my own posts.

It is an aspect of what Gramsci called "cultural hegemony" and the theme is "eggheads (read intellectuals, leftists, technocrats, academics, etc) are disconnected from the "common sense" of "the people") It is ingrained through every circuit of cultural production, including the "news".

Brad, I'd like to give people credit, but not everyone watches a debate, and not everyone retains his or her judgment over time faced with repeated dissonant messages.  They might have left the debate thinking highly of Gore.  But if they keep seeing replays of the sighs and hearing how badly Gore did, they start to wonder.

Same thing happened in 2004.  Kerry was a better debater than Gore, and he won them handily in polls.  But weeks later, everyone remembered him as flip-flopping, as not challenging Bush forcefully, and as having sold out America by submitting foreign policy to a litmus test.

Did anyone remember anything about Edwards except that he insulted Cheney's daughter, and can anyone remember exactly why his kind words for a family's acceptance of their gay daughter, plus his forthright hint of some public hypocrisy, counted as bad? Excuse the media on grounds of public competence all you like, but smears and spin are important because they work. We get our news from the TV, and we like to think we get close to the truth.

John 

http://www.haberarts.com/

"Do you honestly think that the average person watching that debate who thought Gore won then changed his mind because a pundit said Gore sighed too loudly?"

 I honestly don't think the average person watched the debate but they did hear the soundbite that said Bush won.

if the media weren't so post-modern that they apparently can't (or can't be bothered to) distinguish lies from truth, the public outrage against the Bush administration would have already brought about its downfall.

They pretend to care deeply about politicians lying. Even now they fake outrage over Clinton lying about his sex life.

And yet the same reporters who were so full of faux outrage about a president lying about his sex life can't find any outrage for a president whose lives have led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands.

In 2000 they parsed everything Gore said and pretended to be outraged over minor inconsistencies. And yet they had no outrage over all the lies Bush told during the 2000 election about far more serious subjects, from his record in Texas to the cost of his tax cuts.

Again, it goes back to the fear factor. Attacking Clinton/Gore is a safe move. There is no fear of retaliation. Reporters who accused the Clintons of stealing from S&L, vandalizing the White House are still employed. So are the reporters who accused Gore of inventing Love Canal. These reporters get raises and promotions. Dan Rather is fired from his job. Reporters know they can lose their jobs if they get a story wrong about a GOP politician.

I think that a lot of bed rock Republicans, and a lot of Bush supporters have been increasingly realizing just how badly they have messed this country up.

Instead of admitting that their support was misplaced and getting on with supporting people and projects that are actually good for this country -
They protect their ego's by trying to find whatever slender and absurd justifications that they can of why they opposed Dole and Kerry.

Just another of the many reasons that journalists and reporters should not take sides. Once they have invested in one side or the other - if they find they are wrong, their vanity will prevent them acknowledging their error.

On the other hand we can gain some satisfaction in realizing the extent of their vanities by the increasing absurdities used to defend them.

BradtheDad said: Do you honestly think that the average person watching that debate who thought Gore won then changed his mind because a pundit said Gore sighed too loudly?

No, not that one instance, but what happened was that a series of asinine, trivial, exaggerated, negative stories about Gore over a period of time formulated him. It was almost like watching a sculptor (pundits/journalists) forming a statue. The end result was that the public got a caricature of Gore.

Did Gore hurt himself by the way he campaigned, could be, but the fact remains, he was treated shoddily by the media.

More currently, are they reassessing their coverage of "America's mayor' whose anti-terrorist credentials consist of the fact that his city got bombed, and the measures he had in place to deal with it bombed also?

There is a famous psychological experiment that was done before they changed the rules: one person is the subject while seven or so are confederates of the researcher. All are shown 4 sticks and asked if a 5th stick is shorter or longer than the others. In fact, it is perceptibly shorter but the conferederates lie and say it is longer. In the vast majority of cases, the subject agrees with the rest and agrees that is is longer.

Also, over time and with age we forget the source of a feeling or fact. So overtime our initial dismissal of an idea because the source is unreliable fades and we just retain the idea.

What is it about the current system that enables Republicans to smear and spin their way to victory but prevents Democrats from doing the same?

Nothing. 

Sorry, but I think integrity has something to do with it.  Actually, I'm not sorry at all, it gives me confidence that being a Democrat actually is different.  There are certain things which the politicians I admire will not do.  That, more than the things they will do gives me some hope for the survival of the Republic.

aMike

SeeDee,

Wait! Wait! now, Zionista...I NEVER said anything about "a certain people 'killing gods and sons of gods' controlling US foreign policy..."...

Fair enough.  Yours was the much more reasonable fantasy about Lieberman having Mossad whack Al Gore and controlling US policy "from Tel Aviv."  Sorry for being so touchy.

Regarding Whoopi and Vick
A similar statement simliar to the one made by Dan Abrams about Whoopi was repeated on Fox & Friends this AM (I was passing by a TV tuned to the noise channel). One Fox guy said: "Southerners are going to be offended that Whoopi are calling them dogfighters."
What we have is a media performing reduction to the absurd. The media can't take the time to go into detail about what is being said, they ust go for a snippet of the statement.
PETA had the chance to make a strong statement to African-American youth by getting Black celebrities (Russell Simmons who has done ads for the Humane Society, for example) to state the importance of treating animals with respect. Instead their spokesperson launched an attack on Goldberg, who was not defending Vicks actions. A lost opportunity.
Think media has no impact? Many parents got into the habit of wearing seatbelts and quit smoking when their kids came to them with the message "Don't kill yourself by smoking", or "Don't start the car until your seatbelt is fastened". All part of a media campaign.
Media does matter. Would pre-war acceptance for invading Iraq have been as high without a willing MSM?.
It's not easy to be considered a sheep, but many decisions we make are based on a message we got from the media. The first step in recognizing a problem is realizing that one exists.

Not the most thoughtful but absolutely the most honest and direct.

Cheap trick comment?
"See this forum fill up"?
"Drawing trolls"?
"No requirement anywhere"
"Poor me"?
Rich stuff there.
Thank you both for your feedback and Tom's was by far the least "cheap trick"ed, my 2 cents.

How would one fairly characterize those two so-called journalists if not in the manner in which I did? Personal friends maybe?

And I replied to your post with this:

Atrios has made the very pertinent observation that it is not enough that a fact be printed or spoken--once or twice, even more, on the back pages of the NYTimes or WaPo. Or on Democracy Now. Even on blogs. Many true facts about the run-up to the Iraq Invasion were made available before the war began.

But hardly anyone talked about them in the MCM*.

[Most of us were probably yelling at our radios or TV's that February day in '03 as Powell made his now infamous argument for war against Iraq at the UN--there were only two points he made which I didn't know were dead wrong or had strong contrary interpretations. The blogs answered one the next day, pointing out the Arabic translation Powell used was far from accurate. I can't recall the other point. But the alumuminum tubes, the mobile bio labs had all been thoroughly debunked. And never reported effectively, or talked about thoroughly, on the MCM.]

Atrios thinks most people get their knowledge about current events and politics from the "talking about the news" venues, whether broadcast, cable, or written (op-eds, plus opinion, snark, and "analysis" inserted into big name papers' actual news articles. Yes, I mean you Ceci and Kathryn, plus loads of others.).

When the MCM primarily parrots the talking points of one party, it becomes extremely difficult for the message of the other party to become known and understood.

That is what must be fought over and over and over again. It must become seriously embarrassing for an MCM reporter/pundit to appear on a program and just let fly with party talking points, hackneyed and false conclusions, even lies drawn from, say, The Drudge Report. It ought to be job threatening to write or speak such junk.

That will happen only when people such as yourself [Todd Gitlin] who have some access to the MCM outlets actually call MCMers on the games they play with journalism standards. Now, it may be that you will feel you'll lose that access if you speak unkindly, albeiet justly, of those in the MCM.

That is a very real risk. Witness Chris Matthews having an on air hissy fit when Naomi Wolf "spoke out of order." She apparently said something which Matthews considered off topic, and told her so--very sharply. IIRC, he told her she would not be back on if she couldn't stick to the topic--fuzzy on exact wording. I have never heard him do such a thing to a Republican spokesperson. But, then, I stopped watching his show if I can help it.

*MCM--Mainstream Corporate Media
*MCMers--Members of the MCM

BTW, Jim Lehrer told the host of a program on Wisconsin Public Radio a year or more ago that he did know who Amy Goodman was.... Good indication of how limited the range of information access is for the insiders of the MCM.

Start reading Somerby--then begin analyzing what's on your TV, radio, and covered in your paper and its op-ed sections.

Then, please, revisit your current thinking.

Back in early 2000 I was visiting relatives and had not yet discovered blogs and their monitoring of news coverage. The first I heard of Al Gore saying he'd discovered Love Canal was on Jay Leno. Then there was some actual news coverage of the same thing.

I felt sick to my stomach--I knew Al Gore never claimed to have invented the Internet because I'd actually followed his legislation and knew he was responsible for laying the groundwork to bring the Internet to the public. I knew he held hearings on industrial pollution--and I knew he had not "discovered" Love Canal. I couldn't believe he would make such a claim--but important, highly respected newspapers published articles that said he had done so. And their articles were picked up and talked about.

I wondered if I could work for him, given this "claim" by him. Which, as we now know, was not his claim at all--simply two reporters' not really listening, then not wanting to admit to their error. Plus, having him say he discovered Love Canal fit into their narrative of the serial exaggerator, liar, overly ambitious, too political politician.

I was back home, cross country skiing and listening to This American Life when the story of Al Gore and the class of students came on. In their own words, the teacher and students told what happened and in Gore's own words, on the video the class had made of his appearance in their classroom, it was irrefutable that Gore never said he "discovered" Love Canal. What he had said is that a young student had written to him about Love Canal and that became his impetus to look into that kind of ground water pollution and then hold hearings. He said Love Canal started it all.

I was so relieved! I could now work for the person I thought would be the best president with full commitment, not feeling perhaps there were ugly sides to this man.

It was the objective of the RNC and Bush campaign to highlight anything which drives down enthusiasm for Gore or any other Dem. If it required leaving out words or shading or misleading, that is a political decision. It is a political weapon.

It should not be the objective of the MCM* to do the same thing. The MCMers* should not be doing the work of any political party.

But they have been doing that. This year, Edwards' numbers, imho, have been stymied by the work of the MCM using stories which have a glimmer of truth but are not at all despositive.

As Somerby points out, the MCM sees "character" as of the utmost importance when examining Democratic candidates. Just this past week, the WaPo made a huge issue of one of Edwards' donors, Feiger, being indicted for some kind of donations laundering. Edwards did not know and could not have known. He was no part of the indictment. The article threw in some campaign donations issues for Hillary (Hsu) and something for Obama, iirc.

Republicans were not mentioned, even tho' a state campaign chairman for Romney had just been indicted and other high placed leadership for other candidates had been forced to step down due to other illegal actions.

Wonder why only Dems were focused on?

Over the weekend, the WaPo had an editorial attacking Edwards for the Feiger thing.

Gee--wonder why....

So, go to DailyHowler.com (no caps necessary). Keep reading. Check the archives. See if you can figure out why the MCMers tend to attack mostly Dems. If you do, please let me know, bcz I surely haven't figured it out.

BTW, the story about Gore and Love Canal also pointed out that the MCM had developed a narrative about Poppy Bush--and we all know that one: That he saw a grocery store scanner and was all agog, as if he'd never seen one. Press was all over that one, followed by the comics. It fit the narrative.

Except...it wasn't accurate! What Bush remarked on was a new type of scanner which did things which had not been available previously. But that didn't fit the narrative, so the press just changed the facts to fit the story.

I feel guilty every time I think about that, bcz I thought it did sum up Bush I. I joked about it. There were plenty of reasons to not have his as president--his knowledge of grocery scanners was not one of them. But it's now "history," just as the one about Al Gore "inventing" the Internet. (I think Frank Rich or Maureen Dowd had something to do with spreading that meme.)

*MCM--Mainstream Corporate Media
*MCMers--Members of MCM

I'm implying that I'm too pure to indulge in smear tactics.  I'm a democrat, ergo, at least some democrats are too pure to indulge in smear tactics.  I'm far more frustrated with cynics that cry to be given breaks than I am with being a frustrated voter. 

I am willing to tell the truth as I see it, and document the truth as I know it.  Am I willing to smear?  Not on your tintype.  I am unwilling to become the beast I fight.

aMike

SeeDee,

I could just as well make the charge that those who so quickly charge 'anti-Jewish' bias, in each and every case where Likud policies are criticized, are 'anti-American'. Would you think such label unjustified?

This fantasy about Lieberman having Gore whaked by Mossad and handing over US foreign policy to "Tel Aviv" (I still don't really know what that means as the city routinely votes Labor, not Likud, anyway) is entirely your own load.  So, knock yourself out, SeeDee, and label me "anti-American" to your little heart's content.

Well, that's because Democrats are the feminized party in our little gendered political model, and are therefore expected to be pure of heart, civilized, compassionate, forgiving, open-minded, blah blah blah...

Or, to put it another way, Democrats have to be twice as competent to get half the credit, and whenever they get fed up enough to hit back, they're being irrational & offensive. Grrr.

What the hell is he talking about? Obscure generalities of reporting? Mentions no one, relates nothing. What'd I miss?

I'm totally with gonzone on this. Too many on the left seem to nurture a delicate sense of propriety that you remain polite while your ideological carotid artery is being cut. In no way am I advocating that we lower ourselves to the level of brazen lying and intellectual dishonesty that now characterizes the extreme right. But we sure as hell should've stopped being genteel in our arguments a very long time ago.

"These people really are not worth the powder to blow them up."

Oh yeah they are....

1) Absolutely Maureen Dowd deserves a big chunk of the blame for dumbing journalism down, or at least making it more superficial.

2) I remember that Social Security comment. I thought the election was over. That was the last time I misoverestimated the American electorate.

3) The debates were definitely the one aspect of the 2000 debacle that Gore and his team bear some of the blame for. When the Bush campaign was "playing the expectations game"--"We know this is going to be tough for little old Texas George!"--they didn't respond at all. I think it was before the first debate that the Atlantic Monthly (under the control of the psychotic Michael Kelly, may he rest in peace and find enlightenment as to how wasted and destructive the last years of his professional life were) ran that cover of Gore as a vampire. That should have told them right then what the MSM spin would be.

EXACTLY!!!!!

SOMEONE WHO GETS IT!!!

WHOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!

~bowing down before Oleeb~

What should Gore's campaign share some blame for? They basically won the election, certainly the popular vote. The people chose the correct person; it was the Supreme Court that made Bush our new King, or is that Dictator.

Excellent idea.

I doubt that is is "nothing", Brad.  Early on in the development of the "New Right" a concerted effort was designed and implemented to control media for political advantage.  We know about all the vanity press academic projects such as "The Bell Curve" but less known is that fact right wing think tanks developed and funded cadres of "experts" who were on stand-by to be used by media outlets, and distributed catalogs of "expertise" to boadcasters.  So you're on a news crew, busting your buns to get ready for the evening news broadcast, and the producer asks you to find an expert to talk on, say, the poor performance of students in inner-city schools.  The course of least resistance is to open the catalog of experts from say, Manhattan Institute, pick up the phone, and secure the commitment.  

Deep strategic thinkers on the left probably know about this, but they just don't have the bucks to duplicate the program. 

Neoboho

This is just not a credible analysis.  All those right-wing think tanks were in part a response to the (perceived) left-wing tilt of academia and the existing think tanks like Brookings that were more "objective" in their policy analysis.  Even if you think that calling them "left-leaning" is bullshit, these other pockets of expertise did not disappear.  There are still plenty of left-leaning experts on TV.

What the left lacks are so-called "policy entrepreneurs".  These are the folks who try to sell new ideas to politicians and, of course, the public.  The best known of these guys are the supply-siders.

Did you see the link behind the word smear?  And if you saw it, did you bother following it?  If you didn't here it is again.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smear_campaign.  Let let me quote a small, but appropriate part:

Smears often consist of ad hominem attacks in the form of unverifiable rumors and are often distortions, half-truths, or even outright lies; smear campaigns are often propagated by gossip spreading. Even when the facts behind a smear are shown to lack proper foundation, the tactic is often effective because the target's reputation is tarnished before the truth is known.

Now you may believe that one can indulge in this and keep one's integrity.  Sorry, I do not.  IF that makes me a wimp and pathetic, so be it.  And I'm sorry you're so easily galled.  But I ask you this.  Can you, in all conscience, indulge in the kind of behavior indicated by the paragraph above and expect even your friends to trust anything you say?  I can't.

I can be fully confrontational.  I'm confronting you here.  I can be angry too, and I suppose I am, though I try to reserve my anger for things of greater substance than the response you've given here. 

In my anger and throughout my confrontation...

• I have not lied about you,
• I have not smeared you.
• I have not called you names: pathetic, wimpy.
• I have not impugned your character. 
• And I haven't predicted a symbolic miserable death for you. 

I have, and do, suggest that you either assume that everything negative is a smear and that to not smear is to play nice nice, or you assume that saying anything whether true, or not, is fair game in a political confrontation.  There is no other way, no logic system imaginable, to parse your statement in conjunction with mine than to read it as saying that the only way to be angry and confrontational is to smear.  Either that, or you assumed I don't choose my words with care.

If an angry truth expressed with eloquent anger can't win the contest, then perhaps I don't deserve to win.  The truth is never, by definition, a smear.  Truth is an absolute defense against libel.  However, there is no way I can lie without becoming a liar, and a liar is a beast.  So, I stand behind what I say, pathetic, wimpy, or not.

aMike

And though all the winds of doctrine were let loose to play upon the earth, so Truth be in the field, we do injuriously, by licensing and prohibiting, to misdoubt her strength. Let her and Falsehood grapple; who ever knew Truth put to the worse, in a free and open encounter? Her confuting is the best and surest suppressing.

John Milton Areopagitica

So you're "grownup" and I'm not, eh? And you've haven't been name calling in my direction? No casting of not so clever aspersions at me? Mirror, meet name caller.

What you define as "name calling" was meant in a serious way. Those poor excuses for human beings deserve all the scorn I can heap upon their heads. I will not apologize for my feelings of outrage nor will I submit to your more delicate sensibilities of what is acceptable discourse on this weblog. Sorry if my coarse, blue collar pedestrian language is unfit in the company of an art appraiser but there you have it. Scold if you will, mark me incorrectly as a troll if you feel you must, but realize who is incorrect here please.

Hit piece on Gore?!!! Did the author of this posting and I read the same article? I just finished reading the entire seven page piece and it was hardly a hit piece. Time after time the author of the Vanity Fair piece takes to task the media who spread the lies about Gore. How on earth can Mr. Hundt consider this a hit piece? It defends Gore against those past media lies that damaged Gore ireperably. Read the article again, Mr. Hundt.

And in management from my experiences.