TPMDC
« TPMDC Morning Roundup | Home | Court To Coleman: No, We're Not Changing Our Ruling Against You »

More Malkin Insanity

Conservative commentators are going wild over the small number of journalists who have chosen to go into the Obama administration. It's proof, they say, of the media's liberal bias. Michelle Malkin goes into a rant on this.

Oh, please.

We're in economic chaos and print media is in free fall. I have no doubt that if John McCain had won, you would have seen some journalists head into the administration. In case, you missed it, no shortage of reporters love the guy.

As for the bias of those who've gone into the administration, let's take them one by one. There's my old Time colleague, Jay Carney, who is working for Biden. I don't think I'm giving away a state secret to say that more than a decade ago, as I recall, McCain had some interest in hiring Carney and the two have been friendly personally even while occasionally battling it out in print. Carney is probably one of the least partisan people I know. Jill Zuckman of the Chicago Tribune, after all, went to work for Ray LaHood, the Republican Secretary of Transportation from Illinois who she knew well from writing for the state's largest daily. Peter Gosselin of the L.A. Times, the widower of the late and much liked New York Times reporter, Robin Toner, who passed away recently, should hardly be begrudged for giving up the maelstrom of the Tribune company and Sam Zell to go work for Tim Geithner who was Hank Paulson's partner as much as he is Barack Obama's. In other words, big deal.

And even if they'd gone to work for more partisan figures or had more partisan leanings themselves, so what? I'm not sure it's a bad thing.

Besides, I'm of the school that service in government is good for journalists. I worked at the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights after college and the experience has always given me a more supple understanding of how government works. Many of my colleagues from the center-left The Washington Monthly where I began my career in journalism--James Fallows, Walter Shapiro, Paul Glastris, Steven Waldman and the magazine's founder, Charles Peters--have all worked in government.

I see no one on the right complaining about Michael Gerson having gone from U.S. News & World Report to the George W. Bush administration or William Safire's exodus from the Nixon administration to The New York Times. (I realize I'm conflating columnists and reporters here, but still, the point is the same.) Left and right can bitch about the MSM but I really don't think government service, whether it's Jay Carney or Tony Snow or Chris Matthews, should really be condemned. Geoff Morrell of ABC News went to work as the Pentagon spokesman under W. Now he's still there under Bob Gates who obviously stayed. Am I supposed to be alarmed by that?

Media bias is a perennial debate and I know how many TPM readers, I'm sure, see a right leaning bias in the MSM. But it strikes me that bias and government service are different questions, each worth parsing on their own.


36 Comments

| Leave a comment
user-pic

Malkin has an unfair advantage in this arguement, in that when biased conservative journalists want to go to work for the Republicans, they can go get jobs at Fox News -- while liberal journalists have to do it the old fashioned way, and go to work for Democratic politicians. It skews the numbers.

user-pic

LMAO!...and MSNBC, CNN, NPR, ABC, NBC, CBS, NY Times, WaPo, LATimes...

user-pic

I don't get it? What's your point. 1/2 of those entities or more are worse than fox entertainment. Have you ever read the publications or watched the news stations? Just because lush says its so, doesn't make it so.

user-pic

Which half would you consider more conservative than FoxNews?

user-pic

First, I didn't say "conservative," whatever that means. Second, I would say npr, until january 20. You realize that darth vader's wife was controlling npr's "news," don't you. ABC, CNN, WaPo, CBS. Not sure about the latimes anymore. Haven't read it in a while and I know they changed ownership. NBC and MSNBC aren't too bad news wise, same with the NYTimes. It depends on the topic. Sometimes they also spout republican talking points without any investigation or fact checking. I actually found it very telling that sometimes I would switch between cnn and fox and they said exactly the same talking points at almost exactly the same time. That's news? I don't think so.

What's your basis of the allegation? Lush or insanity.

user-pic

"The pattern of donations, with nearly nine out of 10 giving to Democratic candidates and causes, appears to confirm a leftward tilt in newsrooms..."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19113485

"Putting Money Where Mouths Are: Media Donations Favor Dems 100-1"
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=301702713742569

user-pic

Really? And who controls the content, the reporter? Are you kidding me. The minute a reporter goes off the reservation, off with their head. It's the corporate heirarchy at the top of the food chain who are ruby red republican through and through that control the content.

user-pic

I forgot...Marla Mapes and Dan Rather were caught up in a Vast Right-wing corporate conspiracy when they made up the Bush AWOL story and produced the fake documents to back it up...

user-pic

1. The story was true. It was when the king was on one of his coke binges.

2. What happened to rather after that? Oh, yeah, that's right they made him president of CBS. Off with his head, he went off the reservation.

user-pic

He lied and used fake documents...he lost credibility even with the left...that's why he had to quit. He let his personal bias "out" on air...100 to 1...you think it has no effect on what stories are covered or how they're reported on?

user-pic

Really? You have to stop getting your propoganda from lush and insanity.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/SHOWBIZ/TV/09/21/rather.lkl/index.html?iref=newssearch

Incidentally, who lied about the king's dui offenses that were covered up as well so as to not harm his political career? Where are those documents as well as his guard records? Hmmmm, I wonder what happened to those documents. They just "disappeared." Maybe they were lost in a coke induced haze by the parties involved. Pathetic.

user-pic

"Nobody to this day has proved these documents were fraudulent," Rather said...So he's insane and incompetent...that's why he was fired.

user-pic

Was lush fired? Really? That's news. Gotta link?

user-pic

And naturally the silence from Wallace is deafening. "Proof"...a word he simply does not comprehend. How pathetic and laughable.

user-pic

By the way, last time I heard a copy of a document isn't fraudulent. Has the rule changed or something? Before you spout off, I said copy, not a photo-copy. Big difference.

user-pic

Forgive me, but who gives a crap what Malkin says?

What else you got?

user-pic

Nuttin. How many cents a word do you think? Long and boring.

user-pic

Cooper gets paid by the comma, not by the word. How else can you explain this sentence?

In case, you missed it, no shortage of reporters love the guy.

user-pic

Malkin. Insanity. Redundant.

user-pic

Hasn't this been going on for ages? I just finished Team of Rivals, where I learned that the journalist Noah Brooks had been tapped to replace John Nicolay and John Hay as Lincoln's secretary in his second term. Of course, he never got to take the job but still, this isn't exactly a new phenomenon.

And for the love of pete, Tony Snow was Bush's press secretary.

user-pic

Matthew, Matthew, Matthew. You're talking like common sense, reason and fairness have something to do with anything Malkin--or anyone else in the wingnut blogosphere or radio space--says. What you'll get in return is your address, daily schedule and pictures of your home posted all over their websites.

user-pic

Among journalists in W's Administration, not only Snow and Gerson, but James K. Glassman at State.

user-pic

Ok. Connect the repubs to Rush (drugs, nonsense, screaming) and Malkin (whine, whine, whine). And hammer it over and over and over and over....

user-pic

Agree ... there is no point being polite to right wing blowhards.

Viewers and readers take politeness and reason as weakness.

Cooper's lengthy, logical piece above is a waste of effort.

A quick, violent kick to the crotch works much better.

Cooper : insult Malkin to her face on camera ... be sure to include a mocking tone and a sneer.

user-pic

I think I'm noticing a pattern. Conservatives can't figure out why they are not in power and the only logical justifications they can come up with is foul play; journalists in the tank, Soros's influential money, ACORN, etc.

For them, it is inconceivable that someone beat them fair and square since only their ideas make sense.

user-pic

No, it's inconceivable that someone beat them fair and square after all they did to rig the election.

user-pic

This is the MO.

Listen to these people enough (and I mean REALLY listen. No rolling your eyes and pretending), you realize that there is an element of psychosis in their belief system. They believe so strongly that they are right - that anyone who disagrees with them must be either a) lying b) believing a lie told to them or c) corrupt. There is no other option, because the person disagreeing with them is (in their mind) wrong but is somehow debating with facts (that, in their mind, almost sound plausible, but MUST be lies!). The human mind is an amazing thing. It has a built in bullshit detector. Their detector is working just fine, its just wired backwards.

This is why the Acorn thing lit a fire under them with such intensity even while all of us were trying really hard to see the actual scandal. To them, this was proof of all three of the above. Acorn is corrupt. Obama knows it and is lying to protect them. People believe him. Its the perfect storm of the conservative belief system.

This belief system works at first because people view this sort of stance as strong. "Well, that guy has a strong opinion, he has obviously thought things out, he must be right!" See Rush for reference. However, over time, people begin to see through it. Once you are proven wrong a couple times (the economy says hello!), the game is over. Your psychosis is revealed and people stop listening to you. If you don't adjust and start TRUSTING that people with different points of view than you could (imagine this) perhaps be RIGHT!, then you will never be credible again. Ask yourself the last time you heard someone like Rush or Malkin or Hannity say "I get really pissed off at X, it drives me crazy! But a Liberal I know explains that X is the way it is because of Y. I still hate X and wish it would stop, but I understand Y." Seriously. Never.

Look at what is happening with the House GOP. They are running around claiming that they won something. They even claim that the people believe them (polls be damned!). The problem for them is that they ACTUALLY believe that. They think they really won. All the normal people agree, and anyone who doesn't well, they are either a) lying b) believing a lie or c) corrupt. Once the lies stop, the world will return to order.

user-pic

mostman: With your permission, I'm sending your comment off to some friends. You have nailed exactly what it is, that we all saw the other night in Alexandra Pelosi's much-maligned (surprise, surprise!) documentary, "Right America... Feeling Wronged".

It's definitely psychosis. And the R's, very calculatingly, spent decades lining-up America's sickos, and using their mental illness as a bond of commonality to form a voting bloc... which we euphemistically refer to as their "base".

Now, if you haven't caught the documentary yet (and you really shouldn't distract yourselves with Pelosi's later backtracking for the horror that her lens actually exposed), make an effort to do so. Be warned, however: this is scarier stuff than you might expect, going in!

user-pic

Sure thing - spread it far and wide :)

user-pic

You forgot d) satanic.

user-pic

Which is actually just a subheading under corrupt. :)

Don't forget - Satan was an Angel who fell victim to his corrupt morality. He is the root of all corruption!

user-pic

It's an easier transition for journalists to go to work for a Democrat. You don't have to lie as much, it's not required to name your first born son, 'Billy Joe,' or put a 'fish' on your business card.

user-pic

Matthew,
i don't know why you bother to give Malkin any airtime, but to address your point specifically, I find people like Andrea Mitchell, Carl Cameron, or now I guess Claire Schiffman, people who have spouses in positions of significant power more alarming than journalists going to work for the man.

Stephanopoulos is either a good journalist or a partisan, but he's the one on tv and his relationship with the Clintons is no secret. Same deal with Tony Snow, Pat Buchanan or Chris Matthews. But the married power couples where one is in an administration and one is reporting on it, that seems to me a serious conflict of interest. A cave dweller like Andrea Mitchell may be a seasoned vet, but there's no conceivable way that for all the access her experience and relationships bring that she is not at least slightly biased when it comes to reporting on issues effecting her husband. To be otherwise would be to be inhuman.

user-pic

Don't forget Diane Sawyer (tricky Dick), Pat Buchanan (ditto) and Ron Nessen (Ford).

user-pic

The bias in the press is towards wealth and power, not liberal vs. conservative.

If people really wanted the truth, Amy Goodman would be hosting the CBS evening news and referring to the fiasco in Iraq not as a war on terrorism but a war FOR oil.

user-pic

A bit off topic but here is a remake of Cantors Aerosmith video. This should make the GOP proud their representatives voted no.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMJXLF4mFlY

Leave a comment

Advertisement
Please disable your adblocker!
Ads are how we pay the bills!

Subscribe

Josh
Marshall

Bio

Elana
Schor

Bio

Matt
Cooper

Bio

Eric
Kleefeld

Bio

Advertise Liberally
Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address