Meet the Press Meets New Host

 
As reported here (and broken by the Huffington Post) on Tuesday, Dec. 2, David Gregory will become the permanent moderator of “Meet the Press.” NBC News officially made the announcement on Sunday morning.

The network used the appearance of President-Elect Barack Obama on Sunday's program to name Mr. Gregory, who will start next week. Tom Brokaw, the interim moderator, formally introduced the new host at the end of his interview with President-Elect Obama.

Mr. Brokaw announced that this Sunday would be his last as what he called “the temporary moderator” filling in for his longtime friend, Mr. Russert, who died of a heart attack in June, and praised Mr. Gregory as both a great journalist and personal friend.

Mr. Gregory called the appointment “an incredible honor,” and promised to follow Mr. Russert’s advice to “hold leaders accountable.” He added, “It’s all about preparation” and said he would take on the job “with great purpose.”

A personal note here about Mr. Gregory: I had the pleasure of working with him in the mid-90s before his assignment to the White House and the meteoric rise to his career. He was an occasional substitute host for Chris Matthews on what was then called "Politics with Chris Matthews" on CNBC (before it became "Hardball" and moved over to MSNBC). Along with Tim Russert, I considered him a fair, hard-working journalist. He was always respectful toward members of the crew and took care to personally thank everyone at the end of each live show.

He also had an endearing, comedic propensity for tripping over camera and audio cables, as well as the assorted detritus of television studios in general, even though they were secured to the floor with gaffer tape. We always chuckled and passed it off on his oversized foot---Mr. Gregory is upwards of 6'5" and possesses at least a 14 shoe size. It's hard to navigate studio materiel with snow shoes, you know.

(sources: NY Times, AP)

Media Watch: Business as Usual

 
Lest we all think media outlets are severely biased and at each other's throats, last week Fox and NBC put our concerns to rest with their announced plans to pool video news gathering á la the Associated Press or Reuters.

Executives from NBC and Fox say the move is intended to save money in the economically-strained business of local news in which costs for a microwave truck and crew sent out to cover stories, can run a station into the red quickly and efficiently. And so, rather than each station sending out the required people and materiel to cover a story, the combined operation assigns just one of each, saving a reporter, a crew, and perhaps even a chopper for each gig. The journalistic Montagues and Capulets say this is a pilot project, hoping to roll it out nationwide.

In truth, NBC and Fox have been passionately romancing one another for more than a year in the carnal bed of business called Hulu, to which they give new episodes of their shows, sell advertising, then innocently tell the actors, writers, and directors of those shows that there's virtually no revenue flow from online ventures. This new alliance involves the very news divisions whose commentators are putting on the unrestrained, brutal show of mutual hatred. Hello Bill O'Reilly and Keith Olbermann!

On CNN Sunday, James "The Ragin' Cajun" Carville reminded us that in terms of what's said publicly, "you have to discount the campaign by 80 percent. That happens in politics." Having been privy to off-air, backstage conversations in the past, my guess is that he's going low with that number. The salacious all-out brawls that are platinum for Fox News and MSNBC ratings are equally insubstantial and ethereal when it comes to the business of making money.

That, dear friends, does not cut down partisan lines.

Even Murdoch Gets The Blues

 
Interestingly absent from Obama's presser on Friday was the gravitas (averted gaze) of Fox News. They weren't physically AWOL, mind you, they just didn't get called upon. It's a detail that for the most part flew under the radar, but it's fairly piercing. It will be intriguing to see how the conservative network will adjust to a Democratic Party holding the White House and a majority of Congress. In the immediate days after the election, the likes of Major Garrett, Britt Hume, and Chris Wallace backpedaled and miraculously softened their stance on Obama, praising him with accolades and various marks of acknowledgment for everything from his campaign, to his community-organizing past (gasp, Rudy!), to his power of uniting and inspiring people at the national and international levels.

Michael Wolff, a Vanity Fair columnist who is writing an authorized biography on Rupert Murdoch's career and family, claims that even Murdoch is embarrassed by Fox News. In spite of objections from Mr. Murdoch (naturally, one must save face publicly), Wolff describes great strain in the relations between Mr. Murdoch and two of his top executives---CEO Roger Ailes and Peter Chernin, president of News Corporation. Wolff fired back at Murdoch's camp---which had obtained an early draft of the book, despite much hush-hush on the manuscript: "I’m obviously annoyed that they’re looking at an early version of the book, and a purloined one at that. In essence News Corp. is holding stolen goods.”

The story from the New York Times continues: "The objections raised on behalf of Mr. Murdoch came after an article on Mr. Murdoch and the book was published in Vanity Fair in the October issue in which Mr. Wolff wrote that Mr. Murdoch was making friends with liberals and that he had soured on Fox News and Mr. Ailes.

“For a long time, he was in love with the Fox chief, Roger Ailes, because he was even more Murdoch than Murdoch,” Mr. Wolff wrote in the October Vanity Fair piece. “And yet now the embarrassment can’t be missed — he mumbles even more than usual when called on to justify it; he barely pretends to hide the way he feels about Bill O’Reilly.”

The question that has many in the media scratching their heads is why Mr. Murdoch agreed to give such open access to himself and his family. “It’s a big question,” said David Drake, the book’s publicist at Doubleday. “It will always remain a mystery.”

But while we may rejoice at the metaphorical wheels coming off Fox News' wagon, let us not forget what Mr. Murdoch truly is: a risk-taking entrepreneur, media mogul, and---in effect---a corporation. He understands that on 5 November, 2008 the environment changed and the rules were re-written. If he wants to continue to rake in the profits, his coverage needs to change. If he keeps Fox on its current track, the network will become marginalized and its shareholders will lose money. It's quite simple and analogous to the T. Boone Pickens endorsement of green energy. Men like these know very well the power of "green." In the end, it is truly the only thing that interests them.

Fact Checking the Liberal Media

 
Seventeen years ago I walked into the U.S. Information Agency newsroom a green kid just out of college with skewed delusions of following in the footsteps of Papa Hem, who got his start at the Toronto Star. I got dumped onto the LATAM desk where I thought I’d be forever writing short, three-hundred word-ers about the dismal state of the banana trade in Nicaragua, or the rogue bus filled with poor women and children tumbling into a ravine in La Paz. The hard-and-fast rule, then, even for small, regional pieces, was to always buttress up the story with two independent sources. Nothing ever went out on the wires without a two-source confirmation. I pulled stuff from AP, UPI, Reuters, various sleepy or inebriated stringers out in the field, even AFP, the French news service—in spite of my ignorance of the language. On AFP stories I would look for confirmation of names or places, anything to get the damned thing out to the language services, in order to be translated. We sometimes even used FBIS, the hush-hush (I guess not anymore) “news service” provided by CIA to some of us with medium clearance. Although we couldn’t name the source, we’d be able to use it as confirmation for our piece. Those were the days.

And then came the 24-hour (all in a row!) news cycle, with the explosion of MSNBC in ’95 and the subsequent outlets (CNBC, Fox, Bloomberg) competing on CNN’s already-established turf. Like a fool, I moved out of news writing and into TV production, working on several political talking heads shows—most of which are still around, using the same tired pundits. Reporting changed suddenly. Chunks of time had to be filled fast, and producers and news directors ran with un-confirmed stories, knowing full well if their network wouldn’t put it on the air, the competition would. Numbers, numbers! It was all about those teeny percentage points spit out by Nielsen. This whole dirty un-checked business culminated in early ‘05 when CBS anchor Dan Rather resigned over his rushed and admittedly flawed story on President Bush’s National Guard Service. And so the Ultimate Journalist took the bait and paid for it all with the abrupt and un-ceremonious end to his career. I remember shaking my head in disbelief at the asinine move, in spite of my disdain and disgust for W. Rather was a great journalist. But not this time. Emotions got in the way, and management pushed to get out a bogus "exclusive."

The Right continually harps on the media being liberal. I’ve heard this song for decades, only what it strategically fails to trumpet is the fact that “the media” is owned by corporations, and the big boys and girls at G.E., Disney, and Viacom don’t usually like leaning to the left, especially when it comes to pumping out the profits and pleasing their shareholders. However, nor do they want to ignore anything. In fact, by pushing a “liberal” media, they cover all the bases. If you sniff hard around parent companies of media outlets, you can smell the quintessential corporate culture---the analogous philosophy to the auto industry giants working to ameliorate both the neo-hippies who rattle the cage, screaming for environmental responsibility, as well as the gun-totin’, truck-drivin’ good ol’ gas-guzzlin’ boys and girls (re: real Americans!) from the heartland . Take Toyota for example--a company whose outrageously-popular Prius has been the best-selling hybrid for years. If you paid close attention, however, Toyota lobbied aggressively (and successfully) last year in fighting the tougher-mileage CAFE standard for its gas-guzzling truck and SUV division. This is how corporations operate. Nothing new.

And so, back to fact checking. Whether or not I believe the media is liberal, conservative, or independent, I have outlets and venues for cross-referencing what I read---much like back in those dark days when I had to sit on my story and watch the wires for confirmation. Yes, I read the New York Times, The Huffington Post, Slate, The Washington Post, but I also check out The Wall Street Journal, The Looney Rev. Moon’s Washington Times, Kristol's and Barnes’ Weekly Standard, and (gasp!) Fox News. In fact, Roger Ailes and I go way back to ’94 when he employed me for his now-defunct “America’s Talking” network (Chris Matthews got his TV start on that, as well).

The point is, we’re almost into 2009 and there are enough sources online and otherwise to dispel or support any kind of information. It’s up to us to be pro-active. Reading and frequenting sites or publications exclusively, based on party affiliation is, in my opinion, highly irresponsible if one aims to be well-informed. Slapping labels on The Media should not amount to ammunition for any particular political party. But we let it. We’re lazy (well…some of us at least) and we like being fed tidbits and soundbites because it’s easier that way. Fox News says jump and we jump. We’re more content being parrots than researchers. I know, some of us are more privileged with larger chunks of time, but nobody said gettin’ edumacated is easy. Do the work and stay well-rounded. The liberal or conservative or whicheverthehellwaytheylean media ought not to sway or affect the innate desire for the truth.

“The Truth is Out There.” (Damn, I miss that show).

FAIR's Top Ten (this one goes to eleven)

FAIR released a Media Advisory yesterday titled "Top Troubling Tropes of Campaign '08." Were they not such elite liberal media snobs, they could easily have opted for the more crass, less alliterative, equally accurate "Bullshit Narratives '08." It's an excellent rundown, in FAIR's typically thorough style, of the dominant and disingenuous strands of spin the corporate-owned media is weaving.

I have some favorites. Skip right past #1, John McCain as Maverick, and you arrive at Obama as Elitist. This has been one of the most puzzling to me. Apparently, because McCain, born into Naval royalty and currently living in seven houses purchased with the money Joe SixPack dumps into his wife's purse, is kind of an asshole, and Obama, who was raised by a single (mostly) mother and worked as a community organizer, is both eloquent and humble, McCain "gets us" and Obama is "out of touch."

Hey, America, just because McCain reminds you of your skirt-chasin', gamblin', angry buddies doesn't mean he gives a shit about or understands you. Did you learn nothing from wanting to have a beer with W?

I'm also quite fond of #5, Shifting to the Right is "Good Politics." I actually, unfairly, blame the Green Party for the continuing existence of this trope. Because they insist on trying to be relevant in the national elections, something they were given premature access to with Nadar's two reasonable showings in how many tries, they essentially chop off the most progressive end of the Democratic Party. Tactically, if Obama isn't going to get McKinney supporters votes, it could be justified to say the smart move is a slight Right shift, hoping to capture more at the Center to compensate for what is lost on the Left. Still bullshit, but reasonable or at least arguable given the tenor of the discourse.

(And, listen before I get a bunch of flak from angry Greenies, my personal political views align more closely with the Green Party than the Democrats. Yes, I believe we need multi-party national elections, absolutely. I just don't think the Greens are there yet. The last 16 years have polarized the political landscape, and there is too much at stake in any given national election - I don't have time for the preciousness of your ideals, not in this climate. Stop going on AirAmerica and taking shots at Obama - you'll be gladly welcomed back after the election and encouraged to push him hard for the Progressive agenda. For now, push for run-off voting, get more state and local officials elected, demand media access for your candidates. When the Green Party is strong enough to take a seat at the national table, instead of shrill squeaks resplendent with "should" that amount to a request, please, for perhaps a seat, then and only then will it be time.)

Ooh, and #9, False Balance, is one to keep an especial eye out for these last two weeks. As McCain/Palin continues to flail and blunder, mounting ever more desperate and dubious attacks, the corporate media will continue to try and level the field. They, remember, have the most to gain from a down-to-the-wire horse race.

And, besides, should the seventh seal be broken and McCain actually wins, they don't want to get thrown off the plane.

Lies from/of the Liberal Press

The whole Liberal Media nonsense? It's purely a gut thing. It ties into and co-justifies the other narratives that people who use that label believe. It is true because it feels true to them, and, as with all cases of faith, they aren't going to let rational analysis get in the way.

Let's just imagine it's true, that the media is made up of nothing but Card-Carrying, Bleeding-Heart, Secular-Humanist Liberal Elite. Would not Obama be their man? Would they not take every chance to cast him in the best possible light? Perhaps even to the point of distorting truths in his favor?

And yet, the Liberal Media insist on complicity in distorting Obama's tax plan. Again. Already. Huh? Liberal? Really?

(Ahh, cognitive dissonance. I think the Right rides it like a daily caffeine buzz.)

CBS failed in an almost pardonable way in setting up their coverage of the Obama and McCain tax plans. In classic "lies, damn lies, and statistics" style, they posed as representative three income levels that were actually skewed high. Quibbling, maybe, but clearly the way an analysis like this is framed, through the choice of example, will affect the outcome.

But this right here slays me:

"The network asked an accountant identified as Matt Yuskewich of Columbus --who, CBS didn't inform its viewers, is also the treasurer of the Ohio House Republican Campaign Committee--to “[run] the numbers” for these families' tax bills..." (emphasis mine)

So, let's again imagine, in our fairytale land of rainbows and bubblegum, that the Liberal Media is not a myth. Wouldn't the Liberal Media have to be some motherfucking hapless dupes to choose a Republican campaign worker to "run the numbers."

Now, again, this is where we have to stand up and be the ombudsmen that proud media outlets once had, and have since sent out to pasture. When a major network again tries to drag the middle to the Right, call them out, make sure that the watchdog groups like FAIR and Media Matters for America have too many echoing voices to be labeled as lunatic fringe.

And the next time taxes come up in a conversation with anyone but one of the top 5% of richest Americans, tell them, clearly and in short, declarative sentences, to get their facts straight. Don't allow the empty narrative that "Obama will raise taxes!" to pass unchallenged.

FAIR: CBS Cheats on Tax Coverage

Media Hate

I don't plan to make a habit of posting the same thing to both my blogs, but I thought this one was appropriate. I have a regular feature I started a couple of months ago on my main blog where every Monday I rant about the the things I'm hating at the moment. It can be anything from dog poop on the sidewalks to the mole on my neck and range from just one thing to a long list of a half-dozen or more. Sometimes I want it to be tongue-in-cheek, other times I'm really pissed. It has for obvious reasons been political at times, especially with the election season really going now.

Anyway, this is my Monday Hate post today. Which I titled Monday Newsman Hate.

-------------------------------------------

I've got just one thing I'm hating today, besides my mother. (Don't even get me started. I found out she believed and forwarded that awful email going around lying about what was in Michelle Obama's Princeton thesis, basically accusing Mrs. Obama of being a "black power" racist. It is one of the most disgusting things I've seen in all of the awful slander being thrown at that family. It looks like something written by the KKK)

But bitching about my mother will do none of us any good at this point, so I'll just stick with one item for today's hate list, which I'll also post over at my political co-blog.

Here's who I'm really annoyed with today:

Scott Pelley. The hiring of Pelley as a correspondent for 60 Minutes marked a low point for the news magazine, at least until they tragically let the fluffy Katie Couric sit at the adults' table.

Pelley's interview last night with John McCain was infuriating. He doesn't lob softball questions, he gently arcs badminton shuttlecocks at perfect spiking level.

As to be expected, McCain made sure to take every opportunity, no matter what the question was, to: a) Bring up his five years in a prison camp in Hanoi and: b) make false accusations about Barack Obama's record and his own record.

And what does Pelley do, especially when McCain tells lies about Barack Obama? He moves on to the next topic.

It's not like McCain said anything new that Pelley wasn't able to check on right away. McCain came out with all the same stupid talking points he's been saying for weeks now, stuff that Pelley could have easily had follow-up questions to challenge McCain on his claims.

McCain claims that Obama has never reached across the aisle to to work with the other party, despite there being a mountain of evidence to the contrary for both his time in the Illinois Senate and the U.S. Senate. Pelley says nothing.

McCain says Obama is the most liberal Senator based on "his voting record." It should have been pointed out that Obama was called that by a right-wing magazine attack machine, the same one that called Kerry the most liberal in 2004 (gee, what a coincidence), and that their survey has been easily discredited due to the fact that they just pick and choose which votes to count in the survey.

Hell, you wouldn't even have to go through all of that. Just mention that the U.S. Senate still includes both Bernie Sanders, a self-described Socialist, and Ted Kennedy to make the point that it is kind of a silly accusation.

But did Pelley do either?

Even in his own record McCain tells really big lies and Pelley can't bring himself to challenge the Senator. He asked McCain how his administration would be different from Bush's and two of the things he mentioned were torture and the 9/11 Commission recommendations.

Did Pelley then ask him why, if that were true, he has either voted "no" or not even voted every time the 9/11 Commission recommendations came before the Senate and that he also voted against the bill banning torture?

Do I have to answer that question for you?

Brokaw and the "Middle" Myth

So, apparently Tom Brokaw sees himself as heir to the Tim Russert legacy. In the aftermath of the Olbermann-Matthews demotions, while he denied being overly-involved (an MSNBC source claimed he had advocated hard against Olbermann and Matthews because he felt the objectivity of the network was at stake), he admitted how he felt. “I think Keith has gone too far,” said Mr. Brokaw. “I think Chris has gone too far.”

And certainly the tongue-wagging at MSNBC that led to the demotions wasn’t confined to Brokaw. An MSNBC source cited by the New York Observer said, “Every day-side anchor, every producer, everybody was told the word on high is that no more edge... Be especially careful not to inject any sort of opinion or ridicule or anything like that. Play it straight down the middle.”

There are two problem with this reasoning. The first is simple: why worry, when FoxNews would never bother with such dithering despite their obvious Right-bias. They would instead make the argument that their reporting is necessary in the face of the liberalness of the rest of the media (which ties directly into current Republican campaign rhetoric about the Liberal Elite Media).

And this segues into the other problem: one’s perception of the middle is a function of where one positions himself/herself and where he/she positions the opposition. It isn’t an objective line, across which the Right and Left are equidistant. As I pointed out in the anecdote that started this post, two people can judge the same media left or right of center depending less upon the media itself than where they sit.

Brokaw himself provides a perfect example of the flaws in the reasoning, an example of someone who positions himself as centrist and objective, and yet falls into the thrall of the Right.

FAIR issued an action alert after Brokaw said several times during the DNC that the Democrats had to “be careful” about attacking McCain’s service record. This after both Clintons had praised McCain’s service and sacrifice. FAIR asked an important question: “Nothing in Hillary or Bill Clinton's speeches suggested any criticism of McCain as a Vietnam veteran--in fact, they both praised his service to his country--so Brokaw presumably isn't referring to Swift Boat-style attacks on his military record, but to criticism of McCain in general. Exactly how “careful” does Brokaw believe Democrats must be in challenging their political opponent in a presidential election?”

Brokaw’s response was infuriating: “My comments came before Senator Clinton and President Clinton's speeches—and, in fact, they did finesse the issue. It is disappointing to see you try to make a piñata out of me to promote your website. Any fair reading of my remarks would support that conclusion.” First, it is just wrong given that one of the comments FAIR initially cited was in response to a question following Bill Clinton’s speech. But, further, he actually gets snippy and defensive (piñata? please.) when challenged on his own objectivity and centrism, when it is fairly argued that his comments set him to the right of someone else’s perceived center.

It’s about time we all challenge the notions of an objective center, the Right’s repeated calls for (false) parity and the mass media’s cowering aspect in the face of Republican challenges. The Right has no illusions about what they are doing – throwing a tow rope and hook on “center” and dragging it right. And it is time we demand that media stop trying to walk some imaginary centrist line and remember that democracy operates best, and the center becomes a real(er) place, when an aggregate of disparate voices is heard.

Kicking the perceived-leftists from anchor spots merely allows Right-leaning media, which accepts no mandate to maintain the center, to dictate the terms of the discourse. And when we are talking about corporate-owned media, that is the discourse of moneyed-interests and status quo.

And have you taken a look at our quo the last eight years? Because that is the menu, re-packaged as “change,” that the now-even-better-protected Republican ticket is serving up.

New York Observer: Hard Fall: What Happened to NBC?

FAIR: Brokaw Warns Dems to Lay Off McCain

FAIR: Brokaw responds to FAIR

Ignoring The Elephant In The Room

Watching the old cable television news tonight, I heard Rachel Maddow (finally a female host on cable news that's not a dumb bimbo) pose a question to a woman reporter from the L.A. Times. It was basically, why is this election so close if the polls are so much against Bush, the GOP and indicate that something like 85% of the people say this country is headed in the wrong direction?

The woman from the Times, whose name I have forgotten, gave a fairly long and nuanced answer, mostly about how divided this country is right now. At no point did she say the thing that is so damn obvious, and that no other member of the press wants to say either.

IT'S BECAUSE BARACK OBAMA IS BLACK!

Look, I know that Obama's campaign can't say it, they would be accused of "playing the race card" and the Republicans would be able demonize him just like they've been doing it to black people for years with their "southern strategy" (that works in more places than just the south).

(Though this does not stop the McCain-Palin campaign from screaming sexism where none exists)

But come on, why does the mainstream media insist on pretending like it is not there? Who are they afraid of pissing off?

I firmly believe, and I could be wrong but there is no way of proving it either way, that if you put Barack Obama in the body of a white man (like the old Eddie Murphy "Mr. White" sketch) and keep every single thing abut him the same (well, turn his wife and kids white too) he would be polling about twenty points ahead of McCain and could probably win 45 states.*

We will never move forward in this country on the issue of racism by refusing to acknowledge its existence.**


*Maybe not prove, but one strong piece of evidence is how McCain had been getting his butt kicked in the polls all summer by "generic Democrat."

**This is the real issue, not the wrongly-used "issue of race" or "race problem" phrases that get tossed around. Race is not the problem, racism is. Replacing the word racism with the word race is just as ignorant and wrong as saying "terror" instead of "terrorism."

Here We Go Again...

There is a little piece of news that is still not getting the coverage it deserves. There is an attempt to suppress voting among college students going on in in Virginia.

The county registrar in the part of the state where Virginia Tech is located sent out a couple of releases with completely false information in an attempt to scare college students from registering in the county, or to cancel a recent registration. This is after a voter registration drive by the Obama campaign signed up thousands of VT students.

This is such a blatant attempt to suppress the vote of a demographic that is polling heavily in Barack Obama's favor in a state that he is going to be very competitive in.

Among the outright lies the county registrar put in this release:

If students register under their college address their parents could lose the right to claim them as dependents on their taxes.

They might be kicked off their parents health or car insurance.

They could lose scholarships.

Just as in 2000 and 2004, the GOP will lie, cheat and steal to win this election.

What's really sad is that this should be front page news in every newspaper in America, as any effort to disenfranchise voters should be, but in the supposedly "liberal" New York Times it was only on page A14.

The press should be ashamed of themselves for not making this bigger news.

I... I just can't talk right now

During the last presidential election, a family member I'd rather not call out was helping me out by babysitting the kidlet for a couple hours. It was the wife's first work trip since I took over childcare, and my first multi-day swing flying solo, so my nerves were understandably thin.

When I came back home after a few glorious hours of freedom, the babysitter informed me she had turned away a Kerry canvasser earlier, indicating no interest in funding his ads.

I tried to find a middle ground to send the babysitter away gracefully, muttering something about "Yeah, I wish they'd all just stop with negative ads, especially third parties like these Swift Boat wackos."

(Y'see, I was naive enough to believe a Republican could clearly SEE the hypocrisy of supporting Bush, who AT BEST was a barely adequate Guardsman, by attacking Kerry's ACTUAL REAL SERVICE record.)

But the babysitter expressed support and interest in what the Swift Boaters had to say, to which I expressed outrage (thin nerves, recall), as they had been pretty seriously undercut pretty much everywhere.

"Oh, yeah, well, where?" the babysitter asked.

"Everywhere!" I (I'll be honest here) squawked. "CNN, MSNBC, the networks...!"

"Well," the babysitter said, "those are all pretty liberal."

I stopped dead, dumbstruck, like I had just been solidly smacked across the snout with a rolled-up newspaper. Because, here I was a progressive that saw these media outlets all, everyone on that short list and so many more, in the pocket of corporate interests and cowed by the administration.

Um, did I say cowed? Those droopy-eyed mutts lapped up whatever bullshit line they were fed and fell on their backs asking for belly rubs. Ooh, nickname me next, Mr. President!

And yet here was the babysitter, proclaiming them liberal shills not to be trusted.

The Right has spun this narrative of the "liberal media" for years. And it's fucking nonsense. Conglomerate-run corporate mass media? Liberal? Please. Doesn't Rupert fucking Murdoch own half of it?

Does such a thing as progressive media exist? Yes. Of course. You can easily find the people that work for such outlets by following the smell of mace. But this monster of the "liberal media" is a myth cut from whole cloth, in which the Right casts all dissent as coming from fey intellectuals with a grudge against business and The God-Blessed America TM. (It's just one small part of the way the Right has so sufficiently shat upon the word "liberal" that even I don't want it attached to me, usually choosing "progressive" and feeling a bit shamed for being pushed to it.)

And now they're dragging it out again to justify keeping Palin away from reporters, at least for a "few more days."

So we get this vintage bullshit from McCain campaign manager Rick Davis:

"Why would we want to throw Sarah Palin into a cycle of piranhas called the news media that have nothing better to ask questions about than her personal life and her children?" he asked.

"So until at which point in time we feel like the news media is going to treat her with some level of respect and deference, I think it would be foolhardy to put her out into that kind of environment."

Are you kidding me? A "cycle of piranhas" would have been asking the administration every single fucking day for the last six years, "So, any WMD yet? Any proof of that al Qaeda-Iraq connection? Anything? Any good reason yet for American blood and tax dollars disappearing into the desert? Anything? Beuhler?"

Pirahnas? Wait, isn't she a barracuda? That's not a fair fight?

How about this? For however long you won't let reporters talk to Palin, don't say shit about Biden. Nothing. Forget his name.

Either that, or let her talk. Because the truth is, she took the gloves off in her speech. If nothing else, the big "fuck you" she gave community organizing, which far beyond being just crucial to the survival of democracy was in fact that within which the democracy in which we currently live was born (the Tea Party wasn't an Executive Order), was a call to bring it.

Hey, Palin! May I call you Sarah? No? Ms. Madame Governor Pitbull it is. Listen, you got the chance to take your shots, you got the big hurrahs, but was that all just WWE bullshit, or are you going to come out and take some questions without whining about the big, mean, liberal pirahnas?

Oh, and listen, just parent-to-parent? You don't want questions about your family? Stop identifying yourself so centrally as a MOM! I mention that I'm a dad to anybody, the dumbass at the bus stop or the cute barista I'm trying to stop flirting with, I expect them to ask about my kid. That's the way it works. Hell, identifying yourself as anything is a social request to be asked about that thing. That's why spies never say, "I'm a hockey spy!"

Don't let them get away with this fairy tale about the liberal media anymore. Somebody wants to be in a position of power like this? Find a way to talk to the people. Your asking to work for us. Sit down for the interview.

And enough with all the short skirts and coy winking, you minx. That ain't gonna fly with this daddy. Hey, can I tell you all about my kid?

Reuters: Palin to meet media in a "few days" says McCain