Day: October 6, 2009

The Lunatic is: IN

In amongst Michelle Cottle’s epic takedown (don’t get too excited, it’s 15 years too late by my count) of Betsy McCaughey, we have this tidbit:

Her standard m.o. (as “Daily Show” host Jon Stewart recently experienced) is to greet each bit of contradictory evidence by insisting that her questioner is poorly informed and should take a closer look at paragraph X or footnote Z. When those sections don’t support her interpretation, she continues to throw out page numbers and footnotes until the mountain of data is so high as to obscure the fact that none of the numbers add up to what she has claimed.

The natural linkup to this observation is in the activities of Sarah Palin, and Cottle goes there too:

…[Palin’s] scorching self-regard and ostentatious disdain for politics-as-usual infuse even her most self-serving fabulisms. Palin, of course, hawks homespun wisdom, faith, and common sense, in contrast to McCaughey’s figures and footnotes. But both women have an uncanny ability to shovel their toxic nonsense with nary a blink, tremor, or break in those dazzling smiles. People of goodwill and honest counsel don’t stand a chance.

The issue is really that these sorts of people feel safe in the assumption that they cannot be effectively countered given the constraints of the modern news cycle. They know that, no matter how prepared the host/anchor may be, they have to move on within 90 or 180 seconds and can thus be easily filibustered into oblivion. Muddy water: sprayed. It’s out there now; mission accomplished.

The solution, of course, is almost as pathetically obvious as it is unimplemented. CNN (and the rest; to keep it simple I’ll refer broadly to all the respectable, 24/7 news networks as “CNN” from here on out) essentially run on floating schedules. If they need to report for 6 hours on a car chase, they fucking do it. Wolf (or whoever) will just sit there and repeat that we’re waiting for, uh, something to happen. And then cut to some guy also waiting for something to transpire.

Sooner or later, then, they need to spend as much time as it takes to reduce McCaughey (or somebody like her) to tears on national television. Simply pull out every one of her page attributions. Turn off her microphone while you find it so she can’t further confuse issues. Dispatch that point. Move to the next. As long as it takes. She runs out of material or simply runs off the set. Either way: victory. Pyrrhic to be sure, but a step.

Sure, this will be gruesome live television, but excellent YouTube material. Somebody will edit it down to 90 seconds of pure joy. Which then, of course, fits back into CNN’s attention span. All it takes is the will to do the initial, extremely long-form interview. Jon Stewart could even do it, were he willing to call her back “on” and then expend a day wearing her down. Jim Cramer was easily cowed; he had a job to protect. McCaughey and her ilk are more like kamikazes. Occasionally they survive their attack run, but that outcome is purely incidental to them. They need to be made to see the fundamental hopelessness of such tactics such that they choose not to employ them in the first place. Realizing that they will simply be called to account on national television for as long as it takes will dissuade all but the craziest. That last subset will simply no longer receive bookings after being seen as fundamentally unhinged.

Such a trip to the woodshed would only need to be done once or twice. The worst of these offensive people would then dutifully scuttle back under whatever rock they live when not being offered a national audience.

Beck (and not the good one)

Ben Cohen tosses something out there, so by Cokie’s Law, we’re required to take it up:

Advertisers pulling their brands from Beck’s show is a signal that there are boundaries that cannot be crossed. It is a warning to Fox that their bottom line will be affected if it continues to promote such hateful speech, and that a growing cross section of the public are turning their backs on the Fox brand.

And the bottom line for Murdoch is that he cannot tolerate it for long.

And the problem with this line of reasoning? The various advertisers that have pulled their products have done so from Beck’s program, and/but not from FOXnews as a whole. The bottom-line is just the same; those ads just moved to another time slot, and less-caring ads moved from that other time slot into their place. The Masters has a harder time paying its way than does Glenn Beck, for Christ’s sake. And so, Murdoch, ever conscious of the bottom line without regard to particular policy (here Cohen and I agree) will say: gimme gimme gimme.

Excessive

Bob Somerby reacts to this tidbit from the WaPo:

It is possible to sympathize with Clinton. Today, when the mainstream media seems so weakened, we forget how powerful—and arrogant—the New York Times and The Washington Post, along with the networks and news magazines, seemed to be in the early and mid-1990s. They were part of a giant scandal machine that dominated official Washington in the first few years after the Cold War. The endless string of special prosecutors and the media’s obsession with Whitewater seem excessive in retrospect.

with this:

It didn’t seem excessive to Thomas when Rush Limbaugh suggested that Hillary Clinton helped murder Vince Foster.

It didn’t seem excessive to Thomas when Jerry Falwell spent years peddling the Clinton murder tapes—remaining an honored guest on Meet the Press, and on cable “news” programs.

It didn’t seem excessive to Thomas when Dan Burton was shooting up pumpkins in his back yard, showing how Foster may have died.

It didn’t seem excessive (or strange) to Thomas when the original special prosecutor got canned by a panel of right-wing judges—and was replaced by a well-known conservative functionary.

It didn’t seem excessive to Thomas when Fools for Scandal published the documents the New York Times had disappeared in the course of inventing the Whitewater “scandal.”

It didn’t seem excessive when a first lady was called a “congenital liar” by a bungling major columnist. It didn’t seem excessive when the Village called her every name in the book as they pretended that she had lied about the Cubs and the Yankees. It didn’t seem excessive when the Post published that disgraceful piece by Andrew Sullivan, two days before the 1996 election. (Headline: “Clinton: Not a Flicker Of Moral Life.”) It hadn’t seemed excessive when that same baboon had published that crap by Betsy McCaughey, in 1994—a piece whose fraudulence became quite clear in rather short order.

These events made perfect sense at the time! To Thomas, they only seem excessive in retrospect! By the way, did it seem excessive when the Post and the Times invented all that sh*t about Candidate Gore, then pimped it for twenty straight months?

Did that seem “excessive” in real time?

Wowie. My reaction seems tame in comparison. Read the whole thing.