Inventing the Internet and Running the Media

[Clutch Munny]

Just ran across this by noodling around. It's an old story now, but besides being a masterful (if horrifying) fact-finding about the "Invented the Internet" lie about Gore, Bob Somerby's (http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh120302.shtml) analysis illustrates something much deeper about how compliant, and incredibly fucking lazy, the cadre of celebrity pundits really is.

[maddog]

I'm not sure I really want to know that they are worse than I imagined.

#1167

[Crumb]

I wish I could vote for Al Gore for president. He seems like a guy telling it like it is.

[Javaman]

Ugh. Even though I knew most of the story behind Gore's statement, I couldn't finish the story about the devilishness of the spinners.

[fragment]

Seemed to me like the spinners just did what spinners do, which is reprehensible, but not sufficient to explain the story. The real problem seems to be the media which swallowed the spin and ran with it unquestioningly.

[The Lone Ranger]

Seemed to me like the spinners just did what spinners do, which is reprehensible, but not sufficient to explain the story. The real problem seems to be the media which swallowed the spin and ran with it unquestioningly.

That's what I don't understand. It's not just that the media were lazy or looking for sensational stories -- by and large, they seemed to just hate Gore. You could scarcely listen to the news or read the newspapers without noticing that the pundits seemed to be going out of their way to find bad things (whether true or not) to say about Gore.

Perhaps the most obvious examples were during the debates. I listened to the first debate, and the differences between the two candidates were glaring. Gore was calm, articulate, and showed a keen grasp of the issues. Bush was nervous,, inarticulate, and clearly did not have a good grasp of the issues. What's more, he outright lied on at least 2 occasions.

Gore simply mopped the floor with Bush.

So, you can imagine my surprise when I read the analyses the next day, and most of the pundits were going on and on about how well Bush did. Did any of them mention the fact that Bush flat-out lied about the Texas Patient's Bill of Rights -- which he claimed in the debate to have been a big supporter of, when, in fact, he had vigorously opposed it?

The 2000 campaign was simply astonishing. Bush could (and did) outright lie about his record, and no one called him on it. Yet the press trumpeted every RNC claim about Gore's supposed dishonesty and -- by some strange Bizarro logic that I've never been able to fathom -- it was Gore who was constantly derided by the press for his "dishonesty."


I just don't understand it. It seemed like the "mainstream media" just hated Gore and weren't even bothering to pretend they were being fair when it came to how they presented the two candidates.

Cheers,

Michael

[Clutch Munny]

Seemed to me like the spinners just did what spinners do, which is reprehensible, but not sufficient to explain the story. The real problem seems to be the media which swallowed the spin and ran with it unquestioningly.

I agree that's the story. The final third or so of Somerby's analysis is terribly damning on that score, and is the most important part of the write-up. He traces the spread of some unique and grossly dishonest phrasing from RNC press releases into mainstream pundit burbling, over the course of a few days.

Even if some of those lazy buffoons wouldn't recite directly from RNC talking points, the Republican party media -- FOX, WSJ, WashTimes, etc -- basically act as "spin launderers", if I may coin a phrase. Talking heads who might have hesitated to mimic Karl Rove didn't hesitate to mimic other talking heads, not for a moment.

[viscousmemories]

It took me two days to read that article, and all I got was this lousy depression!

[fragment]

Even if some of those lazy buffoons wouldn't recite directly from RNC talking points, the Republican party media -- FOX, WSJ, WashTimes, etc -- basically act as "spin launderers", if I may coin a phrase. Talking heads who might have hesitated to mimic Karl Rove didn't hesitate to mimic other talking heads, not for a moment.
That's the curious thing I noticed in that article - that once established by some, the idea stuck. It seems once a story hits a critical mass it gets treated as established fact in the media, no matter what the real facts are. I'm reminded of Negativland's Christianity is Stupid prank (see here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negativland#1980s)). I'm not sure why this should be, is it laziness, or an intellectual incapacity to question accepted truths?

Of course, the same criticisms apply to anyone who accepts media stories, which is more or less all of us at some time or other, although some of us more often than others.

[Clutch Munny]

Of course, the same criticisms apply to anyone who accepts media stories, which is more or less all of us at some time or other, although some of us more often than others.
What made this so ghastly wasn't really the occurrence of a tipping point, I don't think, though that was part of it. The awful part was, first, that these people had a professional mandate for fact-finding and accuracy, and second, that the correct information was obviously, easily, gloriously available to anyone who conducted the most cursory search for it.

There seemed to be a kind of gleeful perversion involved - a pure joy in hammering Gore that took root among the punditocracy and was skilfully fed by the RNC and its instruments. Everyone wanted to be in on the joke.

[viscousmemories]

And the saddest part, for me anyway, is that there doesn't seem to be any way to prevent it happening again.

[fragment]

Clutch, I agree the media is more culpable than the public, in that it is an industry that trades on providing information that, at least, isn't easily discovered to be false. As vm alludes to, though, what you going to do? The two options that spring to mind are to establish some institution that enforces media standards, and to encourage greater criticality among the general population. Not sure if either is particularly practical.

[Clutch Munny]

I agree, it's unlikely that this sort of thing will go away.

I think the problem is multifarious, and a solution would have to be as well: Some sort of name-and-shame accuracy enforcement agency; better education, including analysis of case studies like this one; and much more stringent media ownership laws... for starters.

[Qingdai]

Media ownership is a great way to start.

Media really belongs to very few people and they are still trying to consolidate. There used to be laws saying you could own only a few radio stations, newspaper, cable services and TV stations per market. The FCC has completely abandoned that mission. So this is the media we get, a complete lack of investigative journalism and spin being reported wholesale.

[JackDog]

And the saddest part, for me anyway, is that there doesn't seem to be any way to prevent it happening again.

I disagree. I think that we're light-years ahead of where we were in 2000 and a phony like Bush will never be allowed to circumvent the system ever again. The major difference between now and the 2000 presidential election is the internet. Sure, it was around back then, but it was nowhere near as big as it is now...and it'll only get more pervasive. Nobody will ever be able to get away with lying about who they are ever again, unless they start lying about who they are from the get-go.

[Freddy]

I voted for Gore in 2000 and would vote for him in 2008 if he ran. However, he ain't got no money for a run. For the guy who invented the net that is surprising.