In today’s NYT, Paul Krugman (sorry, TimesSelect) talks about the effect of the Little Lie on media discourse and perceptions of an administration:
The Clinton years were a parade of fake scandals: Whitewater, Troopergate, Travelgate, Filegate, Christmas-card-gate. At the end, there were false claims that Clinton staff members trashed the White House on their way out.
Each pseudoscandal got headlines, air time and finger-wagging from the talking heads. The eventual discovery in each case that there was no there there, if reported at all, received far less attention. The effect was to make an administration that was, in fact, pretty honest and well run — especially compared with its successor — seem mired in scandal.
And indeed, that’s part of what happened with the hazing of Deval Patrick the first few months. I have not, nor am I going to claim he and his staff have done everything right. But there has indeed been a drip-drip-drip of fake scandal pumped out by the media, full of insinuations with no follow-up. Have we heard any follow-up on that oh-so-shady Mr. Buckley, who’s trying to weasel his way into a pension by actually working three more years, up to age 73? Any follow-up from the RomneyHacks on Suzanne Bump?
[crickets]
Luckily, most folks seem to be able to discern what’s a real issue from what isn’t. I hope the local muckrakerati are paying attention.
—Senator Joe McCarthy by Richard H. Rovere, Meridian Books, 1960, page 110
I found this quote in Sid Blumenthal’s The Clinton Wars just the other day. Rovere explained pretty well how such lies get accepted.
<
p>
Krugman blames the right wing noise machine, but some of the false information spread about the Clintons and Gore started with Respected Pundits like Maureen Dowd and Frank Rich as Bob Somerby often points out.
<
p>
At the very least, reporters and pundits who fill the pages of our newspapers should take a moment to reflect about what they’ve been writing. Which way is the media herd trampling? Do the pieces they’ve written follow the herd or stand on their own? Have they considered the possibility that the herd might be wrong? Lastly, is it all factually accurate? I can imagine reporters and pundits must be very busy people, but so much is influenced by their work, and that’s worth a little reflection.
…just when did Maureen Dowd or Frank Rich become “respected pundits”?
<
p>
As far as I can tell, Dowd was at all times a humorist. I read her words, laughed at them, and ignored them. And Frank Rich was originally a NYC theater critic (back when NYC had theater), and he has transformed himself into something of an entertaining pundit, while “teaching” “creative writing” at Columbia “University.”
<
p>
Their scribblings are entertaining. But that’s about it.
<
p>
One of the things that I find interesting is that the NYTimes charges, not for their news columns, but for their op-idiotorial columns. I suppose that that means that they value their op-idiotorial columns more than they value the news that they distribute. That, to me, is backwards. I don’t particularly care what Maureen Dowd or Frank Rich has to say about something that’s largely irrelevant anyway. I want to know what the news is*.
<
p>
*And the NYTimes isn’t particularly good at providing that.
And has defunded the labor relations commission. So that Suzanne Bump may have full control over it. The quid pro quos for all that labor support seem to be coming round.
<
p>
<
p>
I especially love that last quote. We have investigated ourselves and we have done nothing wrong.
is to have his hack job eliminated. No wonder they’re freaked.
This an arm of the government with a backlog of cases stretching to 2002 and according to one person who worked there it’s not using the taxpayers money efficiently. EaBoClipper should be happy it’ll be disbanded.
<
p>
Unless all that Republican talk about ending government waste is just something they say to get elected.
Aw Joel, that couldn’t be true …
<
p>
COULD IT????!!!
…you almost jumped the shark had you allowed “Ben LaGuer” to be a poster. Thank God you didn’t. But now you’re using the same Patrick talking points to rationalize a lackluster 100 days. I haven’t given up on the guy and some of the criticisms are swallow and stupid. But others are disturbing. Even considering to buy the Leg. Leaders with a pay raise is not what politics of hope is about. Instead of tackling tough reform to cut costs he’s the pied piper for BMG sycophants looking for the easy way out. Sure “closing loopholes” sounds good, but when Romney over stepped this 4 years ago we called him on it for raising taxes. (And what will you do next year?)
<
p>
The chief reason Deval has gotten bad press and watered down his support is that he has not advanced an adgenda–allowing other folks to fill the void. There is still hope for all us people that checked in, but Charlie please, no more Deval talking points, your way to good for that.
<
p>
And you, I’m having SSSOOO much more fun over in Bizzaro land…ain’t I EaBo and PP?
You sure are. Finally put two and two together.
…and you’ll find out who…there is symetry with one and the other two wouldn’t play into my grand scheme…and believe me, it’s crazy enough to be different halfs in bizarro world.
… and some not so good ones. Anyway, I’m thinking of doing a 100-days post, and I’ll address some of this.
<
p>
One, you’re not addressing the point of the post. There’s real news, and then there’s fake news. Let’s just know the difference, and keep an eye out for the junk.
<
p>
Two: As I said, I’m not excusing everything that Patrick’s done — and may I point out, Frank, that when I criticized Patrick on the Ameriquest call, that was on the front page of the Globe and indeed, went international on Reuters and AP. So I don’t think Patrick really wanted that to happen.
<
p>
Three: I actually agree with you that Patrick might have used the first few months a bit more aggressively, and I seem to remember that I didn’t much like the pay-raise quid pro quo idea either. In fact, I didn’t even say that the Caddy/drapes stories were absolute non-stories, only that they weren’t front page stuff.
<
p>
Four: Raising taxes is raising taxes. Romney did it, and Patrick’s doing it. Call it what it is. Let’s just be honest — would that Mitt had done so. I don’t remember spinning that at all. But we’ve got a deficit and some necessary investments to make.
<
p>
Frank, I don’t spout Deval’s talking points. I’m perfectly capable of spouting my own, thankyouverymuch. It’s very easy to read something like this and say “Charley’s drunk the Kool-Aid!” Maybe. But just include my whole record, huh?
BTW, I used that word nearly two weeks before Patrick did.
…I saw the word hazing and just reacted. And face it, BMG is filled with apologists for the last 100 days. Yes, you have been tough, but sometimes you sound like the chorus around here.
…it was Deval. Because the media reported on the Cadillac, every time Deval screws up, we get to say “there’s no there there”. Because the media got crazy about the drapes, we get to say that there’s nothing to see here, and move along. Because Deval called the media “dealers”, we get to dismiss journalism as an agenda.
<
p>
Deval and his followers have carefully innoculated themselves against the truth by selectively remembering past media decisions, so as to not interfere with hero worship. The same dynamic is advancing well vis-a-vis Obama.
That’s total crap. I support Patrick when I think he’s right. And I criticize him when I think he’s wrong. When I think the media has gotten it right, I say so. And when they blow it, I say so. That’s not hero worship. He’s the candidate we supported, and it’s not surprising at all that mostly we support what he does.
<
p>
Sabutai, you, on the other hand, seem willing to believe anything bad about Patrick, and unwilling to read the local newsmakers critically.
<
p>
I’m sorry, but your second paragraph is just trolling.