by Damozel | This needs to be quoted, and so I am quoting it. Here's Glenn Greenwald on the reaction of certain media pundits---and he's talking about "mainstream" ones, mind you, including specifically Chris Matthews---to Hillary's New Hampshire win.
The endless attempts to predict the future and thus determine the outcome of the elections -- to the exclusion of anything meaningful -- is a completely inappropriate role for journalists to play, independent of the fact that they are chronically wrong, ill-informed, and humiliated when they do it. It would all be just as inappropriate and corrupt even if they knew what they were talking about, even if they were able to convert their wishes into outcomes.
The very idea of discussing issues, examining the candidates' positions, or even analyzing voter preferences does not and cannot even occur to Chris Matthews. That -- the most elementary nuts and bolts of standard, healthy journalism -- is way, way beyond the scope of what our media stars are able to do or want to do.
Petty personality-based gossip and speculative, worthless chatter is all they know....Can one find more compelling proof of all of this than their juvenile, sadistic, lynch-mob savaging of Hillary Clinton over the last several days based on the pettiest and most fact-free assaults and their long-harbored desire to see her crushed? (Salon)
Greenwald also has a word or two to say about Maureen Dowd's nasty attack on Hillary, which I previously addressed.
As is so often the case, Maureen Dowd today unintentionally provides a perfect view of the core sickness of our press corps:
When I walked into the office Monday, people were clustering around a computer to watch what they thought they would never see: Hillary Clinton with the unmistakable look of tears in her eyes.
A woman gazing at the screen was grimacing, saying it was bad. Three guys watched it over and over, drawn to the "humanized" Hillary. One reporter who covers security issues cringed. "We are at war," he said. "Is this how she'll talk to Kim Jong-il?"
Another reporter joked: "That crying really seemed genuine. I'll bet she spent hours thinking about it beforehand." He added dryly: "Crying doesn't usually work in campaigns. Only in relationships."
Bill Clinton was known for biting his lip, but here was Hillary doing the Muskie. Certainly it was impressive that she could choke up and stay on message.
Dowd is describing here the conversation that took place in her "office" -- which happens to be the newsroom of The New York Times -- between what are undoubtedly very Serious Journalists....
And in this one short passage, on vivid, revolting display is every repellent attribute that defines the Standard Modern Political Journalist:
*Jaded, bitterly cynical coolness masquerading as sophistication (no emotion, no passion, is even real);
* Vapid, shallow stupidity (political matters judged exclusively by Drudge-like personality distractions);
* Mindless recitation of idiotic, Kristol-like right-wing talking points (we need manly Tough Guys, not Girly Crying, for our Wars);
* The basest and most glaringly obvious strain of sexism (no mention of the endless crying episodes from GOP Warrior-Cheerleaders);
* Their self-absorbed and almost-always-wrong belief that their own insulated biases are how the Regular Folk Think (hence, Hillary's "crying," which voters apparently either appreciated or ignored, was going to doom her candidacy, just as Huckabee's press conference would doom his in Iowa);
* Herd-like adolescent malice rituals directed towards the Hated Loser (NYT reporters grouping together to chortle and cackle oh-so-knowingly at the Wicked Witch). (Salon)
RELATED BN-POLITICS POSTINGS
- The Reports of Their Deaths Have Been Greatly Exaggerated
- Hillary & The Politics of Change versus The Politics of Gender; Update: Bill Clinton Strikes Back
- MSNBC on the Media: Gunning for Hillary, Worshiping Obama
- That Certain Unhinged "Segment of American Political Life"
- Huck Puts Paid to the Prophecies of Right-Wing Pundits
Comments