Liberals Turn on ‘Liberal Media’

Liberals say mainstream pundits are hewing too close to the establishment.

Josh Romney (left) talks to Chuck Todd, chief White House correspondent for NBC News, about attracting young demographics to the Republican party during the "Conversations with the Next Generation Town Hall" at the Improve Comedy Club in Tampa, Fla., Aug. 29, 2012. 
National Journal
Lucia Graves
Sept. 26, 2013, 3 a.m.

What star­ted as a firestorm on Twit­ter, turned in­to an angry pe­ti­tion and by noon on Wed­nes­day more than 1,000 pro­gress­ives had called NBC’s Wash­ing­ton bur­eau to tell people just how mad they were at Chuck Todd.

The NBC polit­ic­al dir­ect­or’s trans­gres­sion came dur­ing a con­ver­sa­tion on Morn­ing Joe last week. Todd, in an ex­change with former Gov­ernor Ed Rendell about mis­in­form­a­tion that has pro­filer­ated about the Af­ford­able Care Act, said something that cre­ated a lib­er­al firestorm (em­phas­is ad­ded be­low).

Rendell: “I think the biggest prob­lem with Obama­care, it’s not a per­fect bill by any means, was the mes­saging. If you took ten people from dif­fer­ent parts of the coun­try who say they’re against the bill, sat them down, I’d love to have ten minutes with them and say, ‘Tell me why you are against the bill.’ If they told you any­thing, it would be stuff that’s in­cor­rect.”

Todd: “But more im­port­antly, it would be stuff that Re­pub­lic­ans have su­cess­fully mes­saged against it. They don’t re­peat the oth­er stuff be­cause they haven’t even heard the Demo­crat­ic mes­sage. What I al­ways love is people who say, ‘Well, it’s you folks’ fault in the me­dia.’ No, it’s the Pres­id­ent of the United States’ fault for not selling it.”

That was enough to set off lib­er­al crit­ics at Talk­ing Points Memo and oth­er lib­er­al out­lets, who ar­gued that by lo­gic­al ex­ten­sion he was shirk­ing the me­dia’s duty to cor­rect false­hoods. Where mem­bers of this crowd would usu­ally fo­cus their at­tacks on “lies” spread by Fox News or vari­ous right-wing per­son­al­it­ies, Todd’s com­ment had them turn­ing on a main­stream pun­dit.

The back­lash is con­sid­er­able. Nicole Belle, ed­it­or of the pro­gress­ive blog Crook­sand­Li­ars.com, launched a pe­ti­tion on CRE­DO­Mobil­ize.com ur­ging the pres­id­ent of NBC News to is­sue a pub­lic apo­logy. The pe­ti­tion has garnered more than 133,000 sig­na­tures since it was pos­ted last week. An­oth­er ef­fort, en­cour­aging act­iv­ists to call NBC headquar­ters, has in­spired more than 1,500 phone calls.

Todd didn’t im­me­di­ately re­spond to a re­quest for com­ment but tweeted his de­fense:

Some­body de­cided to troll w/mis­ld­ing head­line: point I ac­tu­ally made was folks shouldn’t ex­pect me­dia to do job WH has FAILED to do re: ACA

— Chuck Todd (@chuck­todd) Septem­ber 18, 2013

He’s in an un­com­fort­able po­s­i­tion, but Todd does have some high-pro­file com­pany. An­oth­er tele­vi­sion per­son­al­ity ac­cused of par­rot­ing es­tab­lish­ment talk­ing points, or at least the ap­pear­ance of do­ing so, is CNN’s Stephanie Cut­ter, a former Obama deputy cam­paign man­ager, who has been tar­geted for her White House ties by the left-wing me­dia watch­dog FAIR.

Cut­ter, who’s re­portedly still ad­vising the Obama ad­min­is­tra­tion on com­mu­nic­a­tions strategy, has ar­gued that her re­la­tion­ship with the White House is ac­tu­ally an as­set. FAIR thinks it’s more an as­set to the ad­min­is­tra­tion than to CNN.

“A TV pun­dit is paid to say what she thinks,” the or­gan­iz­a­tion wrote in an “Ac­tion Alert” telling mem­bers to con­tact CNN about Cut­ter. “A polit­ic­al spin doc­tor is paid to say whatever line is most likely to pro­mote her cli­ent’s agenda. It’s a glar­ing con­flict between two very dif­fer­ent re­spons­ib­il­it­ies.”

The is­sue is that journ­al­ists have an im­port­ant role to play as crit­ics, and you can’t plaus­ibly do that if you’re too con­nec­ted to or un­crit­ic­al of the es­tab­lish­ment or if you just dumbly par­rot what you’re told. It’s a top­ic that James Fal­lows, who has long had a par­tic­u­lar in­terest in me­dia, has been writ­ing about for years.

Take, for ex­ample, his cov­er­age of the vote on Pres­id­ent Obama’s job bill in 2011. High­light­ing a Wash­ing­ton Post head­line that read, “Sen­ate Has Be­come a Cham­ber of Fail­ure,” Fal­lows ex­cerp­ted a para­graph with the fol­low­ing in bold:

The Sen­ate’s top two lead­ers [Re­id and Mc­Con­nell] have spent the past nine months try­ing to trick, trap, em­bar­rass and out-man­euver each oth­er. Each is hop­ing to force the oth­er in­to a mis­take that will bur­den him and his party with a great­er share of the pub­lic blame. On Tues­day, as usu­al, it was hard to tell wheth­er any­one was win­ning.

Fal­lows in an art­icle titled “Chron­icles of False Equi­val­ence, Chapter 2,817” re­spon­ded thusly:

No, it is not hard to tell. Since Scott Brown’s vic­tory over Martha Coakley and the end of the Demo­crats’ 60-vote ma­jor­ity, Mitch Mc­Con­nell has flat-out won, and (in my view) the pro­spects of do­ing even routine pub­lic busi­ness have lost, by mak­ing the re­quire­ment for 60 votes for any­thing seem nor­mal rather than ex­cep­tion­al. And by even­tu­ally lead­ing our ma­jor me­dia to present this situ­ation as an “every­one’s to blame” un­for­tu­nate and in­ex­plic­able snafu, rather than an in­ten­ded ex­er­cise of polit­ic­al power by one side.

Dan Froomkin, writ­ing in The Huff­ing­ton Post earli­er this month, offered some timely in­sights in­to why writ­ing a neut­ral story on non-neut­ral is­sue is not, in fact, good journ­al­ism. His chosen sub­ject was the House vote to make deep cuts to the food stamp pro­gram and the en­su­ing cov­er­age, which fo­cused on the polit­ic­al play-by-play rather than the fact that the pro­gram has kept mil­lions of Amer­ic­an fam­il­ies from go­ing hungry.

The New York Times ed­it­or­i­al board this morn­ing said the vote ‘can be seen only as an act of su­preme in­dif­fer­ence,’ ” Froomkin wrote, “But that’s not the way the pa­per’s own re­port­ers covered it. Like those at es­sen­tially every oth­er main­stream news or­gan­iz­a­tion, they wrote it straight. They fo­cused on pro­ced­ure. They quoted both sides. And they called it a day.”

Looks like lib­er­als won’t let lib­er­als — or any­body — get away with that any­more. This is just the most re­cent ex­ample.

What We're Following See More »
STAFF PICKS
These (Supposed) Iowa and NH Escorts Tell All
2 hours ago
NATIONAL JOURNAL AFTER DARK

Before we get to the specifics of this exposé about escorts working the Iowa and New Hampshire primary crowds, let’s get three things out of the way: 1.) It’s from Cosmopolitan; 2.) most of the women quoted use fake (if colorful) names; and 3.) again, it’s from Cosmopolitan. That said, here’s what we learned:

  • Business was booming: one escort who says she typically gets two inquiries a weekend got 15 requests in the pre-primary weekend.
  • Their primary season clientele is a bit older than normal—”40s through mid-60s, compared with mostly twentysomething regulars” and “they’ve clearly done this before.”
  • They seemed more nervous than other clients, because “the stakes are higher when you’re working for a possible future president” but “all practiced impeccable manners.”
  • One escort “typically enjoy[s] the company of Democrats more, just because I feel like our views line up a lot more.”
Source:
STATE VS. FEDERAL
Restoring Some Sanity to Encryption
2 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

No matter where you stand on mandating companies to include a backdoor in encryption technologies, it doesn’t make sense to allow that decision to be made on a state level. “The problem with state-level legislation of this nature is that it manages to be both wildly impractical and entirely unenforceable,” writes Brian Barrett at Wired. There is a solution to this problem. “California Congressman Ted Lieu has introduced the ‘Ensuring National Constitutional Rights for Your Private Telecommunications Act of 2016,’ which we’ll call ENCRYPT. It’s a short, straightforward bill with a simple aim: to preempt states from attempting to implement their own anti-encryption policies at a state level.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
What the Current Crop of Candidates Could Learn from JFK
2 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

Much has been made of David Brooks’s recent New York Times column, in which confesses to missing already the civility and humanity of Barack Obama, compared to who might take his place. In NewYorker.com, Jeffrey Frank reminds us how critical such attributes are to foreign policy. “It’s hard to imagine Kennedy so casually referring to the leader of Russia as a gangster or a thug. For that matter, it’s hard to imagine any president comparing the Russian leader to Hitler [as] Hillary Clinton did at a private fund-raiser. … Kennedy, who always worried that miscalculation could lead to war, paid close attention to the language of diplomacy.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Hillary Is Running Against the Bill of 1992
2 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

The New Covenant. The Third Way. The Democratic Leadership Council style. Call it what you will, but whatever centrist triangulation Bill Clinton embraced in 1992, Hillary Clinton wants no part of it in 2016. Writing for Bloomberg, Sasha Issenberg and Margaret Talev explore how Hillary’s campaign has “diverged pointedly” from what made Bill so successful: “For Hillary to survive, Clintonism had to die.” Bill’s positions in 1992—from capital punishment to free trade—“represented a carefully calibrated diversion from the liberal orthodoxy of the previous decade.” But in New Hampshire, Hillary “worked to juggle nostalgia for past Clinton primary campaigns in the state with the fact that the Bill of 1992 or the Hillary of 2008 would likely be a marginal figure within today’s Democratic politics.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Trevor Noah Needs to Find His Voice. And Fast.
3 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

At first, “it was pleasant” to see Trevor Noah “smiling away and deeply dimpling in the Stewart seat, the seat that had lately grown gray hairs,” writes The Atlantic‘s James Parker in assessing the new host of the once-indispensable Daily Show. But where Jon Stewart was a heavyweight, Noah is “a very able lightweight, [who] needs time too. But he won’t get any. As a culture, we’re not about to nurture this talent, to give it room to grow. Our patience was exhausted long ago, by some other guy. We’re going to pass judgment and move on. There’s a reason Simon Cowell is so rich. Impress us today or get thee hence. So it comes to this: It’s now or never, Trevor.”

Source:
×