FIXERS SPEAK! Disinformation rules your discourse. This weekend, the fixers spoke: // link // print // previous // next //
MONDAY, APRIL 6, 2009
Selling us progressives our snark: Lets see if we have our basic facts straight: Levi Johnston is 19 years old. Over the weekend, the half-sister of his former girl friends father got herself arrested for burglary. Somehow, this put Johnston into this headline. To purchase more snark, just click here.
Funny she (didnt) ask: You hate to take Colin Powells side when it comes to last weeks interview. As we noted on Friday, Powell was instantly evasive when Rachel Maddow asked him about the interrogation of prisoners like Abu Zubaida, about specific interrogation techniques he may have helped approve. This was Maddows first question on the subject, a perfectly adequate start:
Powell was instantly evasive, as we noted on Friday. To review his evasive replyand Maddows weak follow-up questionsee THE DAILY HOWLER, 4/3/09. (Scroll to the bottom.)
Given his instant evasions, you hate to take Powells side in this matter. But on Friday night, Maddow offered a mild disclaimer about something shed said Wednesday night; in the process, she was quite disingenuous about what had occurred in her session with Powell. Does Maddow ever tell it straight? Heres her full statement Friday night. To watch the full statement, click here:
I personally do not ever want guests on this show to feel like they are being portrayed in a way that they did not intend to portray themselves? For the record, thats a very strange remark. But in reviewing her earlier comments, Maddow committed an obvious howler. (Well guess she may hear from Powell again.) Does Maddow ever tell it straight? Increasingly, our analysts ask us.
What was wrong with Maddows statement? Note how she described her session with Powell: We discussed, among other things, meetings that he attended with other top Bush administration officials at which the subject of harsh interrogation techniquestorturewere discussed. So said Maddow on Friday night, pausing and taking a head-bob on torture. But thats a very shaky account of what happened on Wednesday nights program.
Did Maddow and Powell really discuss meetings he attended with other top Bush administration officials at which the subject of harsh interrogation techniquestorturewere discussed? Maddow was bold on Fridays show, making this statement when Powell was absent. But in her actual session with Powell, she never asked if torture or specific torture techniques were discussed at the meetings he attended. In the following question, she slickly implied that this had occurredbut Powell quickly broke in and denied it. For the record, this was Maddows fourth question on this general topic:
Powells statement is somewhat hazy. What constitutes a meeting on torture? What did the principals decide the US could do with respect to trying to get information from individuals in our custody? But as she did throughout this interview, Maddow failed to ask the obvious follow-up, the question which would have forced her guest to speak with specificity: We now know that Abu Zubaida and at least two others were in fact water-boarded. Were you present at any meeting where the use of water-boarding was discussed? The question practically wrote itselfbut Maddow kept failing to ask it. But so what? In accordance with an emerging pattern, she went on TV two nights later and seemed to imply that this had been settled. With Powell, she shied away from asking. Two days later, she treated the matter as if it were settled fact.
As we said on Friday, Maddow deserves some credit for raising this topic at allalthough, to be honest, she basically had to. (Were surprised that Powell agreed to be interviewed.) But in fact, she did a very poor job questioning Powell about this central topic. Lets be clear: This was the only chance your side will ever get to ask Powell the relevant questionsand Maddow repeatedly failed to ask them. But then, Maddow has been quite good, in recent weeks, in playing soft with her guests when theyre physically present, then talking tough when theyre no longer there. This pattern continued Friday night, in that rube-pleasing smack about Powell.
Maddow held back in that segment with Powell. But then, what else is new? In fact, progressives and liberals have been poorly served by a string of career liberal journalists in the past fifteen years. With that in mind, wed suggest you consider one possible reason why Maddow failed to ask Powell the obvious question. Were you present when water-boarding was discussed? Why didnt Maddow ask?
We dont know the answer to that question, of course. But we think you should ponder the following:
At age 36, Maddow is on her way to massive media stardom. Shell be very rich and very famousas long as she doesnt blow it. (Not that she cares about such things, of course.) And guess what? In the past fifteen years, your interests have routinely been canned by rising stars in the career liberal media. These individuals have seemed to know the basic rules of the media game: You cant become a big media star if you push outside the boundaries. (Around here, its called the Parry effect, in honor of someone who did keep pushing.) Well spare you the obvious individual examples, although weve discussed them in the past. But Maddow is going to be very bigunless she somehow blows it.
Is that why she didnt ask those questions? We dont have the slightest idea. She says she was tense, and she seemed to be tense; that may be the full answer right there. (Though it isnt a reassuring answer.) But please be clear on one basic fact: Despite her bold talk Friday night, Maddow failed to ask the basic question when she actually interviewed Powell. Who knows? Maybe this is what happens when the gang at GE gets to pick our star journalists for us.
FIXERS SPEAK: For decades, fixers have ruled the American discourse. Saturday morning, in the Washington Posts letters page, we got to see how this sad process works.
Youll rarely see the process laid out more clearlythe process by which voters get disinformed on our most central policy matters.
At issue was the current Senate proposal to reduce the estate tax. (The proposal is sponsored Jon Kyl, the Arizona Republican, and Blanche Lincoln, the Arkansas Democrat.) On Thursday, the Post had published a very solid editorial denouncing the solons proposal. Headline: More Tax Cuts for the Rich? A Senate amendment to reduce the estate tax should be defeated.
On the same day, the New York Times published an even better editorial on the same topic. The Times editorial was especially good because it debunked three bogus claims about the estate taxbogus claims which have long been used to argue against this tax.
In its editorial, the Times argued these points:
The Times reviewed familiar claimsmisleading claims which are constantly used by estate tax opponents. Again, this editorial appeared last Thursday, the same day as the Posts.
Two days later, the fixers replied, in the Posts letters page.
On Saturday, the Post published three letters about the estate tax; all three letters criticized the papers editorial. The first letter came from Lincoln and Kyl, co-sponsors of the senate proposal. And what a letter this letter was! It almost seemed the pair had told their staffs to study that New York Times editorialso they could repeat all the misleading points the Times had just debunked. Heres how the Lincoln/Kyl letter began:
Slick! The solons used the term death tax, just as the Times had said. Exploiting a trivial aside in the editorial, they pretended that the Post had endorsed tak[ing] 55 percent of a persons assets. (Later, they repeated this canard, complaining about business owners paying more than half their value to the government when they die.) And of course, they recited the double taxation canard, which seems to be required by law wherever estate tax reduction is sold. But then, all three letters to the Post repeated this required old saw. The other two letters railed against the evil of triple taxation:
That second letter came from the director of policy at a limited government think tank (Americans for Prosperity). The third letter seems to have come from an Average Joe, but he helped drive the disinformation along. The view that the federal government has the right to tax someone's earned and accumulated wealth simply because he or she dies is outrageous, nonsensical and immoral, he thundered. As the Times had noted, lingo that like leads many people to think the estate tax hits all those who die.
Lets make sure we understand what happened in last weeks exchange:
On Thursday, the Post and the Times both argued against reduction of the estate tax. Both newspapers, especially the Times, complained about the bogus claimsthe disinformationwhich have always been used to drive this campaign along.
Two days later, the disinformation was dumped on our heads once again. Citizens read, three separate times, that the estate tax constitutes double taxation. They were led to believe that the Post had endorsed taking 55 percent of a persons assets after death. (That is impossible under the plan the Post really did endorse.) And the term death tax was thrown all around; Kyl and Lincoln used it three times. Lincoln and Kyl even dragged out those yeoman farmers who are supposedly harmed by this troubling, 55 percent seizure. Thats another bogus/misleading claim which has long been used by estate tax opponents. The Times didnt discuss this claim last week. But there it was, just two days later, in the Post. Again.
Seldom do we see the way the fixers shape our discourse so clearly. On this, as on so many issues, a string of highly misleading claims were ginned up, long ago, inside pseudo-conservative think tanks. In this case, opponents of the estate tax have recited those claims ever since. If you read that Times editorial, you saw three such claims debunked. And presto! The fixers scrambled their jets! Two days later, the claims were backand the Post felt they had to be published.
Remember: The Post opposes the fixers position. But they seemed to feel they had to publish their misleading claims all the same.
Similar disinformation campaigns rule other parts of our discourse. The mainstream press lazily lets them flourish. Big newspapers repeat or publish the bogus claims, even when the bogus claims work against that papers editorial policy. For this reason, the United States is full of citizens who know the following things:
This process has ruled your world a long time. From 1994 through 1996, this is how the public learned an important fact about the new GOP Congress:
The public learned that Bill Clinton was lying when he kept saying the opposite. And then, from 1997 through 2000, the public learned these things (and many others) about another big liar:
In fairness, the New York Times corrected that last bit of blatherin July 2007! (See THE DAILY HOWLER, 8/1/07. No, we arent making this up.)
Our discourse has been ruled by the fixers for a very long time. In the case of those basic budget matters, deceptive claims get invented in spin shops, then get repeated incessantly. In some cases, major news orgs promote the fake claims; in other cases, they politely stand aside as others voice the fake claims. But this disinformation rules large parts of our discourse, getting fake knowledge in everyones heads. Public polling frequently shows it: College students know theyll never see a dime of Social Security. After all, the programs trust fund is a pile of worthless IOUs. The program will go bankrupt in 2041.
This process has ruled our discourse for decades. But youll rarely see the process enacted any more clearly than in this instance. On Thursday, two newspapers told the truthand so, the fixers swung into action. Two days later, their misleading claims appeared in the Post. Again!
By the way: The career liberal world has tolerated this grinding process for decades. They politely sit back and keep their traps shut as the public gets disinformed. (Sometimes, of course, they repeat the bogus claims.) Its safer and easier to function this way; why rock the boat and threaten good jobs? Theyve behaved this way for a very long time. Given the way we enjoy getting conned, its likely this gang always will.