From Propaganda to CW

Glenn Greenwald explains how it's done:

STEP 1: A new right-wing gossip (Ben Smith) at a new substance-free political rag (The Politico) seizes on some petty, manufactured incident to fuel personality caricatures of Democratic candidates.

STEP 2: The old right-wing gossip (Drudge) uses his old substance-free political rag (The Drudge Report) to amplify the inane personality caricatures.

STEP 3: Right-wing hacks with pretenses of respectability -- like Mickey Kaus and others -- follow the script by "analyzing" the gossip and embracing it.

STEP 4: National media outlets -- such as AP and CNN -- whose world is ruled by Drudge, turn the gossip into "news stories."

STEP 5: Our Serious Beltway Political Analysts -- in this case, the very somber and smart Substantive Journalists at The New Republic -- mindlessly repeat all of it, thereby solidifying it as conventional wisdom, showing that "even Democrats and liberals are embarrassed by their candidates."

Quite true. One thing worth observing is that Step Five involves adopting this meta-posture. Instead of saying "I'm disparaging Polician A because I don't like blah blah blah" you just assert -- often over and over again -- that blah blah blah is a critical vulnerability. But, of course, these things wouldn't be vulnerabilities if the press didn't spend their time jumping up and down and pointing at them. Not that there's anything wrong with jumping up and down and pointing at real flaws, but this kind of doing-it-but-not-doing-it is sad.

Comments

"Right-wing hacks with pretenses of respectability -- like Mickey Kaus..."

I don't know who this Greenwald is, but if he categorizes Mickey Kaus as "right-wing" in relation to himself, Greenwald must be to the left of Stalin. Kaus is certainly not a left-wing Democrat, but a fair characterization of him would be "centrist Democrat".

Posted by Fred | April 18, 2007 12:09 PM

Personally, I think the Edwards haircut piece is far more dangerous to Edwards than the Obama piece to Obama-- because it is far more concrete. And plays into the potential hypocrisy of the devoted populist (with the gigantic home).

But Politico and Drudge are largely irrelevant--unless they are genuinely picked up by many others.

Posted by PaulD | April 18, 2007 12:24 PM

Taking the troll bait: Fred, to the left of a centrist democrat != to the left of stalin.

Posted by MMgood | April 18, 2007 12:25 PM

Ben Smith has been around New York for a while covering local politics. I don't think he's right-wing. I have been disappointed with how he's conducted himself since he went to Politico, though.

Posted by Antid Oto | April 18, 2007 12:31 PM

This analysis is completely wrong.

At best, The Politico and Druge are neoliberal / neocon

New Republic is neoliberal

AP and CNN are liberal

If you want to see a REAL conservative source, then look at Chronicles Magazine, Middle American News, or VDare.

Posted by Real Conservative | April 18, 2007 12:36 PM

Step 5 is just the 2000s version of the 1990s Clinton-hating trick ... "London's Daily Telegraph is reporting that [insert wild Clinton rumour here]."

Posted by P O'Neill | April 18, 2007 12:41 PM

Glenn hits the nail on the head when he calls Politico a "substance-free political rag." Their existence has been very enlightening in showing how the elevation of corrupt beltway gossip works.

Posted by Gwen | April 18, 2007 12:43 PM

On the subject of non-stories finding unwarranted traction perhaps yglesias could identify the sinister process at work which saw him - sobre, smart and substantative as he no doubt believes himself to be - so blithely endorse the the transparently manafactured wolfowitz 'scandal'? In fact so taken in by this was he that he deemed it proof of wolfowitz being "incredibly corrupt"

Posted by pimp hand strikes! | April 18, 2007 12:46 PM

"Real Conservative," it seems that your correction of the "analyses" could have used a bit more formulation. Did you even read the post? No where does it say that CNN or the AP are "conservative." It labels AP and CNN as "national media outlets". And the New Republic? The implication is that the liberals use unsubstantiated gossip to tarnish the Democratic candidates they don't support. (Another reason that I, as a leftist, have as little use for liberals as I do for conservatives.) Read a bit more closely next time.

Posted by KD | April 18, 2007 12:56 PM

Oh and Glenn "WOW im an even bigger hack than matt yglesias" greenwald's little conspiracy theory hinges on not only asserting things that he couldnt possibly know, standard fare for such crap, but actually asserting things that anyone who knows anything knows are false. Mickey kaus is a "right wing hack"? The associated press a republican progpoganda arm? the new republic bamboozled by the right wing blogosphere into being water carriers for bush? Fuck off

The obama speech got coverage because it was so nakedly cynical and dazzingly stupid(tying together outsourcing and the v tech shootings? once again, fuck off). The edwards shit is just the ususal crap that gets tossed about for a lack of anything better to write.

Posted by pimp hand strikes! | April 18, 2007 12:58 PM

It's at least worth quoting what Obama actually said:

"There's also another kind of violence that we're going to have to think about. It's not necessarily the physical violence, but the violence that we perpetrate on each other in other ways," he said, and goes on to catalogue other forms of "violence."

"There's the "verbal violence" of Imus."

"There's "the violence of men and women who have worked all their lives and suddenly have the rug pulled out from under them because their job is moved to another country."

Posted by Steve Sailer | April 18, 2007 1:06 PM

As a response to Virginia Tech, that's hilariously tin-eared. It's just straight warmed-over Jesse Jackson from 20 years ago. And the Don Imus reference ... that's pure self-parody.

Posted by Steve Sailer | April 18, 2007 1:08 PM

MMgood:

"Taking the troll bait: Fred, to the left of a centrist democrat != to the left of stalin"

I assume you are being deliberately obtuse (perhaps a generous assumption), so I will explicate for you. The reason Greenwald comes across to me as a radical leftist ("to the left of Stalin," in my hyperbolic phrase) is not because he is to the left of a centrist Democrat; it is because he considers a centrist Democrat to be "right wing". If you think the middle is the far right, than it stand to reason that you are far to the left.

Posted by Fred | April 18, 2007 1:08 PM

Fred, Kaus is simply not a centrist Democrat. He calls himself one, but if you call a tail a leg, a dog still has four legs.

He is a hack, and he is deliberately helping the right wing: thus "a right wing hack."

Posted by Hamilton Lovecraft | April 18, 2007 1:28 PM

Ignoring the flame-fest here for a second.

I think some hacker (partisan-oriented but not on the staff of a campaign) is eventually going to get into some major candidate's home computer and find what porn sites they have visitted. Said hacker will then give whatever accounts for "evidence" to drudge and enough conservative blogs.

I think the current cycle of elevating tawdry gossip to evening news will hit the climax then.

Posted by Tony V | April 18, 2007 1:30 PM

Kaus is the mainstream equivalent of a concern troll, he may call himself a "centrist democrat" but he has effectively been carrying water for the RNC talking points for years now. That Fred purports to not understand that is maybe more telling than he would like.

And for pimphand. Recusing yourself from personnel decisions about your girlfriend and then dictating precise terms for her compensation and mandating in advance, based on no performance measure at all, that she will automatically be promoted once if you stay one term, and then again if you stay another is prima facie evidence of corruption. Wolfowitz directed that if he stay long enough his live-in girlfriend would be promoted to a World Bank Vice Presidency. What more evidence do you need for corruption than that?

Posted by Bruce Webb | April 18, 2007 1:43 PM

Of course, if you are running for President, or if you are yapping on the radio for hundreds of hours per year, some of your improvisations are going to fall terribly flat. One could reasonably expect a little forgiveness following an apology, but that is exactly what Sen. Obama did not extend to Imus, demanding he be fired for one improvised remark.

Posted by Steve Sailer | April 18, 2007 2:02 PM

No, Steve, Obama did nothing of the sort. He simply observed that if someone on his staff had said what Imus did, that that person would be fired. And of course, if anyone at CBS, from the mailroom to the CEO's office had said that, they would likely be fired as well. CBS simply applied that standard to another one of their employees. Is it true that you make a living whining on behalf of racism, Steve?

Posted by Dr. Anatole Gavage-Huskanoy | April 18, 2007 2:14 PM

Steve, you're kidding only yourself if you think Imus was fired for *one* remark. He has a long history of this type of remark; this one was just especially egregious, but not really out of character.

Posted by matt | April 18, 2007 2:27 PM

Wow:

I don't know who this Greenwald is

That pretty much screams "I'm a troll!"

And Kaus is, and long has been, a right-wing hack. It is extremely unfortunate that Slate continues to lend him a veneer of credibility.

Posted by Bryan | April 18, 2007 2:44 PM

Imus "has a long history of this type of remark;"

And Obama has a long history of racial enmity, as documented at vast length in his autobiography.

Posted by Steve Sailer | April 18, 2007 2:51 PM

The GOP has built a formidable Right Wing Noise Machine that helps them win elections by demonizing opponents and framing issues in GOP friendly ways. Their narrative trickles down to the MSM and before you know it Brian Williams and Rush Limbaugh are repeating the same talking points.

For decades now Dems have relied on the MSM to fight back against the GOP machine, begging MSM to "please be fair". It is not an effective strategy.

Dems need to build their Liberal Noise Machine. It is the only way they can fight back the Right Wing Noise Machine and hope to have an even playing field.

Posted by DonB | April 18, 2007 2:57 PM

"Kaus is certainly not a left-wing Democrat, but a fair characterization of him would be "centrist Democrat"."

Mickey Kaus can best be described as an "Ann Coulter Democrat" as MY put it. In other words he is not a Democrat. His views would fit right in with Newsmax and NRO.

Posted by DonB | April 18, 2007 3:00 PM

Re; Obama

I am not an Obama supporter but I want to come to his defense.

When a tragedy like this happens politicians of all stripes exploit it to push their agenda. They did it on the GOP side by declaring their support for gun rights. Obama used it to advance his agenda. It is just politicians being politicians.

Posted by DonB | April 18, 2007 3:05 PM

"Kaus is the mainstream equivalent of a concern troll, he may call himself a "centrist democrat""

BTW, why should we judge people by what they call themselves?

Shouldn't we be judging them by what they do or say?

If Matthew Yglesias spent 100% of his blogging time defending Ann Coulter and assorted lunatics on the right, reflexively trashing liberals, spreading smears about Dem politicians and promoting a right wing agenda would it matter if he called himself a neoliberal?centrist?whatever?

Posted by DonB | April 18, 2007 3:16 PM

I think Glenn's post is excellent, but it misses a key point about how these vicious anti-Democratic memes enter into the mainsteam.

Glenn has "right-wing" villains doing all the work in Steps 1 to 3, with the mainstream press getting involved only at Step 4, at which point they turn the gossip into "news". That's not really how it works -- it's not even how it worked with the "Breck Girl" stuff that prompted Glenn's post.

The Breck Girl meme originated with *Maureen Dowd*, not Rush Limbaugh. The truth of the matter is that the most committed producers of anti-Democratic memes have been mainstream columnists and journalists working for the New York Times, the Washington Post and the Associated Press. The horrible media treatment of Bill Clinton, Al Gore, John Kerry, Howard Dean... and now Hillary Clinton, John Edwards and Barrack Obama (or whoever else the Democrats choose as a nominee) has largely been driven by mainstream pundits working on their own steam, not by right-wing lunatics or FOX News.

This is an important story that Glenn's (otherwise excellent) post misses.

Posted by Eric | April 18, 2007 3:16 PM

"The Breck Girl meme originated with *Maureen Dowd*, not Rush Limbaugh."

Not true. Dowd was quoting Rush talking points.

There is another thing to consider. MSM reporters/pundits fear the GOP/conservative machine. They'd think twice before going after a GOP politician. They fear being targeted by Rush/FOX/WSJ editorial page. OTOH, they know they can go after Dem politicians without any risk of retaliation. There is no liberal machine to go after them.

This has been going on for decades now. MSM reporters/pundits know what they can get away with, who they can pick on and who to treat with kid gloves.

Posted by DonB | April 18, 2007 3:32 PM

DobB -- Are you sure? If so, apologies for the error. My general point stands, though. Btw, I agree with the point you make about the absence of negative consequences of going after Democrats (though I hope this is starting to change, as Dems get better at working the refs) vs. the negative consequences of going after GOP politicians. I would add that repeating anti-Dem memes has not just been costless for prominent pundits, it has historically been rewarded.

Posted by Eric | April 18, 2007 4:26 PM

"but this kind of doing-it-but-not-doing-it is sad"

Would this be a good time to whip out the word apophasis?

Posted by Clay | April 18, 2007 4:33 PM

"DobB -- Are you sure?"

Rush started the "Breck girl" meme.

"I would add that repeating anti-Dem memes has not just been costless for prominent pundits, it has historically been rewarded."

This is my point. Ridiculing a Dem politician is a free shot for a journalist/pundit. There is no fear that corporate higher ups will be unhappy or liberal media outlets will come after them.

MSM journalists who accused the Clintons of every crime in the book are still employed at respectable media institutions. Some of them even have Pulitzers. They have paid no price. Au contraire, they have prospered. Same with MSM journalists who told lies about Gore in 2000.

Compare that to journalists kinder and gentler coverage of Bush on everything from his national guard service to finances to lies about WMD. One journalist who crossed the line Dan Rather was fired. If every journalist who had told lies about Clinton/Gore had been fired major news rooms would be empty.

The bottom line is journalists fear offending GOP. They don't fear Democrats.

Democrats need to change this dynamic. They need to build a Liberal Noise Machine. Media Matters is doing a great job but it is only a first step. Dems need a liberal paper in DC, liberal radio stations and way down the road a liberal cable network.

Posted by DonB | April 18, 2007 5:44 PM

The truth of the matter is that the most committed producers of anti-Democratic memes have been mainstream columnists and journalists working for the New York Times, the Washington Post and the Associated Press.


I think that this comes from the fact that much of the mainstream press are left-of-center Democrats who bend over backward to prove to themselves (more so than the right-wing media critics) that they are "objective." Since these journalists tend to agree with the Dems on substantive issues, they look to the substance-free "issues" to even the score.


The question is how should the Democratic candidate handle this sort of nonsense? After the last two presidential campaigns, perhaps they should ask Bob Shrum what to do - and then do the precise opposite.


That doesn't mean liberals shouldn't start their own memes against the GOP candidates. "Multiple Choice Mitt" is priceless. The Chris Rock summary on Rudy=pitbull who might eat your kids is also brilliant.

Posted by mhp | April 18, 2007 6:14 PM

"That doesn't mean liberals shouldn't start their own memes against the GOP candidates."

Democrats don't have meme "carriers". They don't have a noise machine to amplify and spread the meme and nudge MSM along.

GOP memes about liberals become conventional wisdom because they have carriers. Right Wing Noise Machine repeats it over hundreds of radio stations, FOX, WSJ editorial page, NY Post, Moonie Times.............before you know it the meme makes it to Meet the Press.

Posted by DonB | April 18, 2007 6:20 PM

"GOP memes about liberals become conventional wisdom because they have carriers. Right Wing Noise Machine repeats it over hundreds of radio stations, FOX, WSJ editorial page, NY Post, Moonie Times.............before you know it the meme makes it to Meet the Press."

DonB, This is where I disagree with you. The main promoters and carriers of anti-Dem memes are mainstream pundits, journalists, newspapers and TV networks.

Posted by Eric | April 18, 2007 6:38 PM

Are you kidding, "Fred"? MICKEY KAUS DATES ANN COULTER!!!

Posted by David Ehrenstein | April 19, 2007 10:22 AM

Neither Rush nor Maureen started the Breck Girl meme.

Edwards did. By primping his hair for five minutes like a teenage girl to a CAMERA, flicking his hair to see that it lay and flipped *just so*.

Haven't you seen the video?

http://youtube.com/watch?v=2AE847UXu3Q

Nobody fairly gets credit but Edwards.

Posted by anil petra | April 19, 2007 3:34 PM