RETURN OF KURTZ (PART 1)! We asked about the old Howard Kurtz. Today, he appears in the Post: // link // print // previous // next //
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 19, 2007
PALACE PLAY GROUP: Only life in a sumptuous palace can produce a cohort like this one. For starters, we think of Maureen Dowd, whose ears must have been burning last week as Robin Givhan stole her crown as the worlds dumbest human. Today, Dowd fights back hard:
If theres a way to get dumber than this cohort is, it will only be found inside a palace, where all the children are given too much and are told that theyre grand and quite glorious. For the record, Dowd spends todays column on Candidate Clinton—more specifically, on what she describes, in paragraph 3, as the Old Hag routine. She attributes this routine to men—though if we want to be halfway honest, Dowd invented this sick game herself.
But if you want to talk about dumb today, you cant restrict yourself to Dowd. We also get the Village Dunce Milbank, complaining again, for the ten millionth time, about all that talk—also from Candidate Clinton—about all those boring old policy matters. Please remember: This is the child who spent an entire column in May complaining about all the big words Al Gore has used in discussing his new, best-selling book. Repeatedly, Gore had been reminding his listeners that he was the smartest guy in the room, Milbank cried. And Milbank certainly had a good point. Indeed, one of the phrases Gore had used was the marketplace of ideas. According to Milbank, Gore had also pompously referred to the exchange of goods and services.
Youre right. A dunce like that could only be grown inside a smothering palace. But then, Patrick Healy competes for mommys attention too, with this blather—about Hillary Clinton—in todays New York Times. Poor Patrick! He just cant get the Vile Old Hag to tell us how gruesome she is:
Poor Healy! A slightly younger version of Dowd, he just cant get the bitch to admit that people dislike her because shes so bad.
These people are simply astounding—and they constitute a serious national problem. Yesterday, we spoke telephonically with a well-known journo—a name so big it would knock off your socks—and he commented on this strange cohort. Well paraphrase, but fairly closely: Its amazing to think, the gentleman said, that the worlds most powerful nation is in the hands of a group like this. And as you may know, the weeks most remarkable pundit offering came in the astounding column you can read by clicking here. One part of that piece really does say it all. (Readers, can you still say Vince Foster?) Its very hard to explain the world in which such a startling column appears. Denial crowds in when such conduct presents. Well hold our remarks until Friday.
Kurtz has done this sort of thing before. On at least three occasions in 1999, he raised the question of the harsh coverage and punditry being directed at Candidate Gore—even eliciting, on one occasion, several startling explanations for that peculiar coverage. Way back then, Roger Simon told Kurtz that the press corps was going to make [Gore] jump through the hoops because we want to hear him say what a terrible reprobate [Bill Clinton] was. (I dont think theres anything wrong with that, Simon weirdly added.) Simply put, that statement was astounding—and it has been mentioned by virtually no one on earth, from that day right up to the present.
In that statement, we can now see the future fate of the world. Liberals agree not to say so.
But that was the coverage of Candidate Gore. This morning, Kurtz examines the coverage of Candidate Clinton. He starts by quoting a much-maligned scribe who makes a fairly obvious observation:
As usual, Fineman plays dumb in explaining the alleged free ride for Obama—in explaining that tilt in the playing field. Lets face it: Simon must have been drunk, back in June 1999, when he blurted the truth to Kurtz—when he said the press corps was kicking the tar out of Candidate Gore because they hated Bill Clinton so much. (Jim Warren told Kurtz something similar.) Today, Fineman seems to know the rules better; he knows he must scratch his head, and puzzle hard, about the tilt in the current coverage. But Halperin states a fairly obvious fact—and Fineman doesnt seem to have disputed it.
Lets be clear: Different people have different views about the merits of the Major Dem hopefuls. For ourselves, we dont know how well end up voting; our inclination has shifted many times in the past six months. (Weve contemplated four or five different votes.) But in our view, it would be hard to disagree with the premise of Kurtzs piece—a piece which critiques the work of the press, not the merits of the various Dem candidates. For example, lets go back to the first observation made in Halperins quote:
Could anyone fail to see the merit of Halperins observation? In the weeks before the crucial October 30 Democratic debate, at least one Clinton/Gore-hating cable talker begged Obama, night after night, to take off the gloves and go after Clinton. (More on this fellow in Parts 2 and 3.) And then, in the crucial debate itself, two of Jack Welchs most worthless Lost Boys kept inviting Obama and Edwards to go after Clinton, all through the evenings two hours. (More tomorrow.) But while its deeply OK to criticize Clinton, criticism of Obama produces Scripted Group Opprobrium—the only kind of opprobrium these trained seals really know. Later on, Kurtz gives a good example of this tilt in the field:
Just last week, Billy Shaheens suggestions about Obamas youthful (and meaningless) drug use created a storm in the mainstream press; pundits were deeply group-outraged. But the earlier suggestion recorded by Ambinder passed with barely a word of comment. There are no perfect parallels in the real world, permitting perfect claims about double standards. But in that passage, Kurtz records a strong example of the tilt in the current playing field. In this passage, he records yet another:
In our view, it would have been stupid to make a big deal out of Mondays friendly question. But back in November, the press corps stupidly fired its Scandalgate engines when a similar event involved Clinton. They pretended it was a very Big Deal; poor Patrick Healy was very upset. But then when the press corps feigns outrage in recent months, stupid seems to run just one way.
Kurtz cites a few examples which arent especially convincing. But then too, he cites a recent event which is hugely worth noting:
When Gregory interviewed Clinton on Monday, you gazed on pure press corps propaganda. Good boy! Raising a silly, tortured complaint about (what else?) the intolerable criticism of Obama, Gregory challenged Clinton on the same point six times (the industry standard is two), then announced at the end, with a bit of open disgust: "So you're choosing not to answer that question. Trust us: When journos interject that opinion in a setting like this, theyre breaking from their normal practice—and theyre telling you to distrust this candidate. But then, Gregory had been crying real tears in an earlier part of that interview. Careful! He was touching on the years biggest example of press corps misconduct—one Kurtz avoids altogether:
Once again, we see the point that Halperin raised—the way the boo-hooing boys of the press corps complain when Clinton criticizes Obama. Why, she had questioned Obama for his ambition! In fact, it isnt entirely clear that she had—but without question, Obama had questioned Clinton for her ambition, for weeks, in the silly comments about her twenty-year plan which eventually led to Clintons rebuttal. But as of Monday, Gregory was still crying real tears about the Clinton campaigns loathsome conduct—while failing to cite the identical conduct which had launched it. And Gregory cried about the Clinton campaigns greatest outrage—the troubling way they dared to complain about that Philadelphia debate.
Careful! Gregory didnt mention the names of the people who conducted that debate—the debate which changed the shape of the Democratic campaign, the most remarkable press event of the year. Of course, Gregory is paid several million dollars a year by his owners, and he knows that he must never name the more powerful men who propagandize around him. But then, Kurtz failed to cite that important Philly debate at all—the most striking press corps event of the year, the event which showed, in its most blatant form, the current tilt in the press playing field. Yes, Kurtz raises some very good points today, as he did three times in 1999. But even he wont go so far as to name the real names that need naming.
Lets make sure we understand whats involved in Kurtzs report:
Ultimately, there is no way to quantify favorable coverage; different people will disagree about the merits of the press corps conduct. And of course, people will disagree about the virtues of Clinton, Obama and Edwards—and about the other Big Dems who comprise the campaigns current field.
But the press corps has waged a powerful war over the course of the past fifteen years—a war which liberals have largely agreed not to name, or notice, or criticize. Today, the old Howard Kurtz returns to the Post, and he pokes around in this war once again, as he did three times in 1999. This war has changed the shape of world history. Its too bad career liberals wont go there.
TOMORROW—PART 2: Watching your leaders accept their 4-Fs.
FRIDAY—PART 3: In Kurtzs piece, three names are AWOL.
DON'T MISS BOEHLERT: Don't miss Eric Boehlert, writing about the one great sin--criticizing the press as a Democrat. We'll be mentioning some of these events in the next two days.