In my previous post, I took some umbrage with what I felt was Jon Stewart's evasion of the toughest questions in his interview with Rachel Maddow. Whenever an interviewee fails to answer the tough questions in an interview, I feel his message is diluted, and the post-rally analysis of Stewart has had that result. Although I know my blog is new and doesn't really command much attention (certainly not anyone who can influence the media or government policy... no offense, dear reader) I would like to take a moment to point out an example of where Jon was right about the left mirroring Fox's game plan.
On Friday, the following segment was the top story on Maddow's show.
To summarize:
1. According to George Bush's memoir, Sen McConnell (R-KY) privately urged Pres. Bush in Sep 2006 to bring troops home from Iraq in order to boost the Republican's chances in the '06 elections. That is to say, he suggested drawing down troops for political benefit. Sen McConnell in Decision Points "Your unpopularity is going to cost us control of the congress."
2. Bush declined his request, saying he "...set troop levels to achieve victory in Iraq, not victory at the polls."*
3. Sen McConnell, on Sep 4-6, 2006, repeatedly publicly decried the Democrat's calls for troop withdrawal. "Cutting and running is not a strategy for protecting the American people," was the basic (and most polite) jist of his condemnation.
4. When Maddow's team asked for comment on this hypocrisy, Sen McConnell's team responded with a standard "No comment on advising the president" line, stating that "the public record is clear on his unwavering support" for the war. He pointedly did not deny the President's recollection.
This "incredible story" of McConnell's "trouble on a grand scale" and "contemptible hypocrisy" makes up the first eleven minutes of Maddow's 46 minute show. I understand that hypocrisy is shameful, and McConnell has been caught red-handed. My question is, what difference does it make? Is this going to change anything? What makes this Kentucky story an "incredible" and "grand" national story?**
What I see is, McConnell supported his President publicly while disagreeing with him privately. I believe many of us have been upset with Reid and any number of our elected officials for not backing up President Obama publicly. I know I've written about how disappointed I am that Democrats haven't stood up for Obama's policies.*** McConnell did what the Republicans always do, he stayed in line and played ball. That's why they win elections and get things done when they're in power.
More importantly, why was this the most important thing to report on yesterday? Where was the reporting on supposedly impartial Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito's serving as the keynote speaker at the Nov 9, 2010 conservative American Spectator event? How about the reporting of Debt Reduction Committee co-chair Erskin Bowle's job on the board of financial giant Morgan Stanley? There are two great conflict of interest stories, both occurring right now and not four years ago, both very relevant to issues facing Americans today.
Is the McConnell story interesting? I suppose so. Is it a more factual version of sort of thing Fox News does to democrats on a daily basis? No doubt. However, it's nowhere near as relevant as the Bowles or Alito conflict of interest stories. If Maddow or Olbermann were to cover them, they'd add a lot of legitimacy to them. The facts are out there, but if you search Google the links I've provided are the most legitimate media sources available. No matter how many links Think Progress, Truth Out, or I provide none of us have the legitimacy of MSNBC.
So while I agree that unilateral disarmament is a bad idea, Maddow and Olbermann and the rest of the media could take an important lesson from Mr. Stewart. Stop the sniping. There is plenty of fact-based information out there to take down the right. Let the right lie and name-call all they want, put the damning evidence we have out there, rather than letting it fester on the backrooms of the internet.
____
* I do find this hilarious. Either GW Bush spoke in talking points even in private conversations, or he completely fabricated the quotes of his own speech to match up to the talking points he was making at the time. I don't know which is a more ridiculous option.
** I remember in the '08 election, when Biden was chosen as Obama's running mate, there was a rehashing of how one time he forgot to attribute a quote in a speech. I got into an argument with a conservative acquaintance of mine about how silly this issue was. This McConnell thing has about as much national relevance in my opinion.
*** Forget that Bush's team was out there pushing the same policies as McConnell, while Obama hasn't made much of an effort to get out there and push anything. Sending out a YouTube video a week before the election is hardly an effort to equal Bush's six year non-stop fear machine.
No comments:
Post a Comment