The Blind Praising the Blind

I continue to wonder what the point is of exercises like having Adam Nagourney or the team of John Harris and Jim Vandehei defend the ABC News debate. What the debate's critics are saying, after all, is that ABC's conduct was the apotheosis of everything that's wrong with MSM campaign coverage. To point out in response that the people most responsible for the MSM campaign coverage status quo thought it was good seems totally non-responsive.

What I'd like to see in defense of ABC would be to identify some likely Democratic Party primary voters in Pennsylvania or some other upcoming state who are now better-informed about the election than they were previously. Until that happens, though, I'm going to stick with James Fallows' observation that ordinary citizens show an extremely low level of interest in this sort of stuff. The fact that the people who've turned political reporting into appalling farce found the somewhat more appalling than usual farce of last week's debate even more delectable than the merely appalling debate work we'd seen earlier from Tim Russert and others is no kind of defense at all.

Comments

One would do well to also read Digby on the matter of the press. I don't have the column handy but she basically compared them to the people in Heathers

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | April 22, 2008 9:27 AM

Not to worry -- journalists like Nagourney and Harris are speaking as representatives of the average citizen when they say the MSM is doing a good job.

Posted by Tyrone Slothrop | April 22, 2008 9:32 AM

"I continue to wonder what the point is of exercises like having Adam Nagourney or the team of John Harris and Jim Vandehei defend the ABC News debate. "

They're not trust fund scumbags like you, Matthew Yglesias.

They're not mindless careerists willing to lie to advance themselves like you, Matthew Yglesias.

Why didn't you go into a field like investment banking where it's not a sin to pursue your own interests over the interests of the commons, Matthew Yglesias? Then you wouldn't have been such a scumbag.

Perhaphs you should call Nagourney, Harris, and Vandehei racists. That's your normal maneuver, isn't it?

Posted by Petey | April 22, 2008 9:35 AM

Ah, Petey the confidence trickster is here.

And I'll be googlebombing that, you fucking sociopath.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | April 22, 2008 9:41 AM

Petey: I'm not a trust fund scumbag, far from it, and I think it's pretty ludicrous to rely on the views of the major news producers' employees to evaluate the consumer-level quality of the news products they produce.

Note that had John Edwards or Hillary Clinton captured the nomination within the first week of primaries, this logic would still apply -- since neither the structure nor practices of major news producers vary with the results of political campaigning. Neither a Clinton victory nor, once President, a Clinton health care plan, would change the hostile, pro-hawk, pro-upper class institutional biases of our news production system.

But then, you've pretty much become nothing but a self-parodying character, returning here to proclaim "trust fund scumbag" with regularity so that you can feel you've somehow brought Google in line with your objectively workerist agenda.

Posted by El Cid | April 22, 2008 9:41 AM

As Atrios says, these are profoundly broken people. The gods will smite us if we don't break this curse. Oh,wait....

P.S. Petey, lay off the meth and get a good day and night and day of sleep, dude.

Posted by elle loco | April 22, 2008 9:42 AM

Petey (or someone else),

Could you explain what set you off in that post. It seems somewhat non-responsive, but as you're generally very sharp (though I usually disagree with you), I'm sure it comes from something.

Posted by Joe | April 22, 2008 9:43 AM

I so can't wait to use apotheosis in a sentence.

Posted by Lisa | April 22, 2008 9:49 AM

I so can't wait to use apotheosis in a sentence.

Posted by Lisa | April 22, 2008 9:50 AM

"P.S. Petey, lay off the meth"

Then how would I keep my home clean?

-----

"Petey: I'm not a trust fund scumbag, far from it, and I think it's pretty ludicrous to rely on the views of the major news producers' employees to evaluate the consumer-level quality of the news products they produce."

A perfectly fair point.

And an illustration of just how much of a scumbag Yglesias is that he's less reliable a source than Nagourney, Harris, and Vandehei.

It must be that the whole world are racists except for Matthew.

"But then, you've pretty much become nothing but a self-parodying character, returning here to proclaim "trust fund scumbag" with regularity so that you can feel you've somehow brought Google in line with your objectively workerist agenda."

One does what one can.

Someone's got to put an ounce on the scales to balance out the pounds the trust fund scumbags like Matthew Yglesias are putting on the scales.

Someone ought to stand up for universal healthcare, and I'm standing.

Posted by Petey | April 22, 2008 9:53 AM

The media whores, in addition to being a bunch of ego-inflated fatuous dumbfucks, are incredibly defensive. Every time I end up dealing with a member of the MSM directly, I am amazed at how fatheaded they are. They are scribes who lack substantive expertise but they think they're smartest people on earth -- like a lot of people who aren't.

Posted by The Fool | April 22, 2008 9:55 AM

Petey

I'm calling bullshit.

You had the same meltdown back in 2004 when Kerry/Edwards went down to defeat and al of a sudden, Markos was Satan. I don't know what it is about John Edwards going down to defeat that unhinges you, but get some help Petey.

Unlike 2004, I don't want to see you pen delusional rants about underhanded financial deals (Markos) or read the trustfund/douchebag two-step (Matt) until November.

See a doctor. Get some meds. Get off the internet for a while.

Posted by Sharon | April 22, 2008 10:21 AM

It really is bizarre; there's no reason for Petey to melt down like this. Edwards is still a relatively young man - he still has plenty of time to win the second election of his life.

Posted by Gabriel | April 22, 2008 10:25 AM

"See a doctor. Get some meds."

Well, since you're supporting the candidate who bashes universal healthcare, Sharon, perhaps you could provide me with a trust fund so I could get the medical care you deem me to so desperately need.

"I don't want to see you pen delusional rants about (Markos') underhanded financial deals"

If you think those concerns were delusional, perhaps you're the one who needs the meds. Chocolate fountains?

Posted by Petey | April 22, 2008 10:27 AM

Petey (or someone else),

Could you explain what set you off in that post. It seems somewhat non-responsive, but as you're generally very sharp (though I usually disagree with you), I'm sure it comes from something.

It's been a long time since that's been true. Petey has been a complete lunatic for months. He just comes around to embarrass himself from time to time when the meds aren't working.

Posted by J.B. | April 22, 2008 10:30 AM

"He just comes around to embarrass himself from time to time when the meds aren't working."

I continue to be confused as to how I'm supposed to get my meds when trust fund scumbags like Matthew Yglesias are willing to lie to defeat the candidate advocating for universal healthcare.

Posted by Petey | April 22, 2008 10:32 AM

Petey's having a blister outbreak.

Posted by biff diggerence | April 22, 2008 10:36 AM

Well Vandehei, Harris and Nagourney are all part of the same bullshit-driven MSM group as Stephanopoulis and Gibson -- and they have all to one degree or another been savaged in the lefty blogosphere.

And clearly they hate the fact that the great unwashed are picking on them and more importanly -- note the comments about Huffington and Olberman -- starting to have an impact on the way such MSM behavior is reported.

These are three exceedingly mediocre minds who --as the Fool so sagely notes above -- have egos that far exceed their IQs. They do not enjoy the notion of being questioned by those they deem themselves superior to.

Posted by Sir Charles | April 22, 2008 10:37 AM

Fuck off Petey.

Posted by horatius | April 22, 2008 10:39 AM

I continue to be confused as to how I'm supposed to get my meds when trust fund scumbags like Matthew Yglesias are willing to lie to defeat the candidate advocating for universal healthcare.

Why don't you mandate yourself to buy some coverage? Garnish your own wages if necessary.

Posted by southpaw | April 22, 2008 10:40 AM

The big picture - god forbid that issues that are important to Democratic voters and that may put the Republicans and the Bush Administration on the defenisive actually get an airing as legitimate issues. Pretty much the whole "MSM" has bought into it - I would be surprised if the likes of Nagourney and Vanderhei didn't come to the knee-jerk defense of Gibson's and Stephi's behavour

Posted by Ethel-To-Tilly | April 22, 2008 10:43 AM

The media whores, in addition to being a bunch of ego-inflated fatuous dumbfucks, are incredibly defensive. Every time I end up dealing with a member of the MSM directly, I am amazed at how fatheaded they are. They are scribes who lack substantive expertise but they think they're smartest people on earth -- like a lot of people who aren't.

Posted by The Fool

Major news producers love to dismiss reviews of their performance as the result of unsophisticated idealists who don't understand the "business" of news media production & distribution, but the business model also holds that, in the end, they produce products which can be reviewed for their quality just like any other consumer product.

Posted by El Cid | April 22, 2008 10:45 AM

Isn't it time to retire the MSM acronym/phrase "mainstream media"? There's nothing "mainstream" about it—it's very much a forum of the elite—and the term gives a false impression of authenticity.

Posted by Matin | April 22, 2008 10:46 AM

I've used this analogy at Eschaton and DailyKos for years now and it still seems to fit. The MSM are modern analogs of the dinosaurs who have become stuck in the La Brea tar pits of a modern digital era. What they write persists much longer than it used to, but the "punditry" have become used to denying their own words after an acceptable amount of time and are frustrated that there are many who keep those words to remind all of us exactly what the punditry did say.

The modern blogger in the form of DailyKos, Eschaton, TalkingPointsMemo and (insert your three or four favorite blogs here) are the little furry rodents of the day. They're destined to survive and prosper while avoiding the death throes of the tired, old MSM.

Posted by CybScryb | April 22, 2008 10:48 AM

the "point" is that those inside the magic circle reflexively defend themselves in this tautological fashion. they have no interest or incentive to understand the critiques launched at that time....

Posted by howard | April 22, 2008 10:48 AM

"Why don't you mandate yourself to buy some coverage? Garnish your own wages if necessary."

If I were a sick individual trying to buy coverage on the open market, do you have any idea what that would cost, "southpaw"? I really would need Matthew's inheritance to pay for it.

You are your anti-universal healthcare pals really are scumbags, "southpaw". I don't care which hand you write with. You sure ain't a lefty.

Posted by Petey | April 22, 2008 10:49 AM

Petey,

A simple question for you. Do you think a Universal Healthcare plan would even get through the Congress yet, even if, say, this primary race goes down to the convention and both Hill and Obama get knocked out and John Edwards or Al Gore steps in? You might want to check your fire until after the election, or aim it at the other side.

[Bill Kristol] served as chairman of the Project for the Republican Future from 1993 to 1994, and as the director of the Bradley Project at the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation in Milwaukee in 1993. Kristol first made his mark as leader of the Project for the Republican Future, a conservative think tank, and rose to fame as a conservative opinion maker during the battle over the Clinton health care plan.

In the first of what would become legendary strategy memos circulated among Republican policymakers, Kristol said the party should "kill", not amend or compromise on, the Clinton health care plan. The success of the Clinton proposal, he warned, would “re-legitimize middle-class dependence for ‘security’ on government spending and regulation”, and “revive ... the Democrats, as the generous protector of middle-class interests.” Kristol's memo immediately became important in uniting Republicans behind total opposition to Clinton's reform plan. A later memo advocated the phrase "There is no health care crisis", which Senate Minority Leader Bob Dole used in his response to Clinton's 1994 State of the Union address.

In 1994, after Republicans gained a majority in the House and began to institute the Contract with America, Kristol said, "The fact that government is no longer going to be so generous with taxpayers' money may be Scrooge-like, but it strikes me as rather responsible behavior. For too many years, some liberals have felt they were doing good by generously spending taxpayers' money. Now Americans, want to take a much harder look at what really does good and what does harm."

He currently serves as a foreign policy advisor to Senator John McCain's presidential campaign

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Kristol

And Petey, there is nothing wrong with a trust fund. Even the founders wouldn't have a problem with that. They just wanted to repeal the laws primogeniture and entails, (institute an estate tax). As Jefferson wrote in an 1813 letter to John Adams, “These laws, drawn by myself, laid the axe to the root of Pseudoaristocracy.”

Posted by Petey's Psyche Tech | April 22, 2008 10:50 AM

I watched George Stephanopoulos on "This Week" only because I wanted to see how he handled McCain. When McCain started spouting off about Obama wanting to hike the capital gains tax, he said it would impact 100 million Americans with mutual funds and 401(k)'s. George completely missed the opportunity to ask McCain why he didn't understand that one of the two most popular private retirement vehicles in the nation was taxed as ordinary income, and capital gains had nothing to do with it. He gave McCain a complete pass on blowing a very basic, fundamental, and heavily used tax rule. And this is the guy who's going to save our economy?

George also didn't push him on specifics of where the over $500 billion in tax cuts were going to come from. McCain threw out a few examples that didn't come close to adding up, but no statement that you could go to his web site and see the detailed list ... because there is no detailed list. George let him slide on that one too.

ABC "news" coverage is a joke.

Posted by LFC | April 22, 2008 10:52 AM

People usually rise in companies because they are competent at achieving the goals of the company. The employee may or may not believe whole-heartedly in what they do; it does not matter. All that matters is that they are keeping their boss happy and making the company successful. So in this context, it's perfectly logical for the MSM to circle the wagons. George and Charlie were putting out product that others in the MSM know will be rewarded by their employers as well.

And in the world of media-conglomeration and mega-corps, "success" does not equate to the "highest ratings". There are more lucrative concerns.

Posted by DanF | April 22, 2008 10:53 AM

"A simple question for you. Do you think a Universal Healthcare plan would even get through the Congress"

Yup.

The opposition lost a war and an American city. We've got a free shot coming up to use on anything we want. And like Jimmy Carter in 1976, Barack Obama wants to use that free shot on absolutely nothing at all. Fuck that shit.

I've got a lot of problems with Hillary Clinton, but at least she'll get us universal healthcare out of the current opportunity. The Edwards/Clinton universal healthcare plan is utterly workable and passable in the '09 - '10 environment.

Posted by Petey | April 22, 2008 10:55 AM

VanderHei: Pool Boy. This FDL post on his move with Harris moved to Bullshitico remains accurate.

The by-the-numbers characterisations of the ABC debate miss the point that it was excruciatingly structured and executed. Like a game where you notice the referees more than the players, no summary can capture the way it pissed off those in the room and watching on TV.

(Neither AdNags nor the Bullshiticans care to focus on $7m/year Charlie Gibson's reprised cluelessness on what the little folks earn.)

And Ad Nags proves once more that he's the go-to guy when GOPeratives want to sprinkle the media punchbowl with nasty little turds, in this case, the Brie/Velveeta line, which was utterly irrelevant to the substance of the piece. (See Daily Howlers passim.)

Thus, the Bullshiticans:

It is not reporters’ job to promote the opposition’s story lines — especially dubious ones like the suggestion that because Obama does not favor flag pins on his lapel it reflects adversely on his patriotism. But nor can serious reporters avert their gaze...

Yeah, the snarky response is obvious. They're not serious reporters. I got more substance on the primary from a five-minute BBC radio report, in which Jim Naughtie travelled through the rust belt and got people to talk about their lives, than from the past two weeks of American campaign coverage.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | April 22, 2008 10:56 AM

You sure ain't a lefty.

What makes you a "lefty"?

For all we know, you are a shit disturbing (or disturbed) right wing troll. Linking to John Edwards site proves nothing. Anyone can do it. Then again, maybe I really am a prohibitionist.

Posted by Petey's Psyche Tech | April 22, 2008 10:58 AM

Ordinary citizens, to their immense credit, show a very low level of interest in politics in general. I don't think debate format will really change that. The American people have more important things to worry about than politics. We, the people who can't stop following this shit, are the ones with the problem.

I still want to know why Petey thinks Matthew has a trust fund.

Posted by too many steves | April 22, 2008 10:58 AM

You sure ain't a lefty.

What makes you a "lefty"?

For all we know, you are a shit disturbing (or disturbed) right wing troll. Linking to John Edwards site proves nothing. Anyone can do it. Then again, maybe I really am a prohibitionist.

Posted by Petey's Psyche Tech | April 22, 2008 11:01 AM

Upton Sinclair explained the press in his book The Brass Check. Aside from brief periods in the 1930s and 1960s, it has always been on the side of power, and thus promotes garbage.

Posted by Phoenix Woman | April 22, 2008 11:09 AM

Democrats should be very careful before they accept a debate moderated by ABC again, like in the main election campaign.

"Debates" are hardly debates anyway, when they are more like joint questionings by people who have a strong interest in the entertainment value.

Posted by Bengt Larsson | April 22, 2008 11:10 AM

I've got a lot of problems with Hillary Clinton, but at least she'll get us universal healthcare out of the current opportunity.

All the Iraqi corpses must be worth it, then.

Posted by Delicious Pundit | April 22, 2008 11:12 AM

Upton Sinclair explained the press in his book The Brass Check. Aside from brief periods in the 1930s and 1960s, it has always been on the side of power, and thus promotes garbage.

Posted by Phoenix Woman | April 22, 2008 11:13 AM

What the debate's critics are saying, after all, is that ABC's conduct was the apotheosis of everything that's wrong with MSM campaign coverage. To point out in response that the people most responsible for the MSM campaign coverage status quo thought it was good seems totally non-responsive.

It doesn't seem totally non-responsive to the people most responsible for the MSM campaign coverage status quo. And on and on it goes ...

They still haven't figured out that an appraisal of a politician by someone who is being paid to defeat that politician may be a teensy bit subjective and agenda-driven. So this is way over their heads.

Posted by Rick Massimo | April 22, 2008 11:13 AM

The Edwards/Clinton universal healthcare plan is utterly workable and passable in the '09 - '10 environment.

Will confidence trickster Petey ever answer the question on what a Clinton nomination would do for the Senate map?

I don't like Obama's take-it-or-leave-it attitude towards universality. I do think that having Obama at the top of the ticket has the potential to deliver downticket gains that lead to a better bill. In contrast, having Clinton at the top of the ticket, especially after her your-state-doesn't-count campaign, makes life a lot harder for Dems to pick up Senate seats.

We've seen what the Senate currently does to good legislation.

For a huckster, Petey's really fucking naive if he doesn't think there are wingnuts lined up to reprise Bill Kristol and gain credit for killing another Hillary healthcare plane stone dead. I'd suggest Smirking Bill himself might take up the task, but he might be busy using Clinton's words against her to gin up a war with Iran.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | April 22, 2008 11:17 AM

Democratic voters should have listened to Sean Hannity to find out what was on their minds. The fact that they don't realize we only ask these stupid questions because they are shallow and only want to know this stuff shows how much primary goers are out of touch with the concerns of ordinary voters.

Posted by Charlie Gibson | April 22, 2008 11:20 AM

If you can't handle me lying about you now, how can you convince voters you can debunk the lies I tell about you in the Generals?

Posted by George Stephonopoulos | April 22, 2008 11:26 AM

At the risk of standing in the way of one of the more impressive thread hijackings that I have ever seen, can we talk about the merits of what Nagourney and Harris/VandeHei are actually saying?

Nagourney is saying that all the policy stuff has been done and their isn't much difference.

For all the concern voiced about the lack of discussion about issues like Iraq and health care, it seems fair to say that even the most slightly attuned Democratic voters already have a well-formed sense of the views of Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama. Further, one of the central dynamics of this campaign — and why things have seemed so strained as the candidates have sought areas of difference — is that these are two Democrats with fairly similar views of the world.

Harris and VandeHei have a much more interesting point, accusing the complainers of situational ethics caused by Obama kool-aid drinking.

In fact, the balance of political questions (15) to policy questions (13) was more substantive than other debates this year that prompted no deluge of protests. The difference is that this time there were more hard questions for Obama than for Clinton.

Moreover, those questions about Jeremiah Wright, about Obama’s association with 1960s radical William Ayers, about apparent contradictions between his past and present views on proven wedge issues like gun control, were entirely in-bounds. If anything, they were overdue for a front-runner and likely nominee.

If Obama was covered like Clinton is, one feels certain the media focus would not have been on the questions, but on a candidate performance that at times seemed tinny, impatient and uncertain.

They also straightforwardly confess to pro-Obama biases on the part of the reporters they have assigned to the campaign and then start channelling their inner Howard Kurtz. They finish with a back at you to the critics.

In the wake of the debate, it is time for Obama’s cheerleaders in the media to ask some questions of themselves.

Anyone want to go for an Yglesias award?

Posted by Carl | April 22, 2008 12:19 PM

at least she'll get us universal healthcare out of the current opportunity. The Edwards/Clinton universal healthcare plan is utterly workable and passable in the '09 - '10 environment.

Petey not only are you a racist but you're a moron too.

Posted by Mike | April 22, 2008 12:22 PM

This really is a milestone in the War against the Media. Since Whitewater, the Media has always taken the stance that it had critics, Right and Left, and that balance of criticism from "both" sides proved that they were doing their job.

This political campaign will be:

Democracy v. Media

and the Media is acknowledging that it is a fight, and that the Media are opposed to the Democracy.

Posted by Bruce Wilder | April 22, 2008 12:40 PM

"Petey" is obviously a parody troll, like "Al." His apparently lucid periods are merely the setup for the current batch of trolling and thread derailments (for which I apologize for contributing to).

Posted by mwg | April 22, 2008 1:21 PM

Granted, they had to scrape around to find something to argue about, but this whole debate over "mandates" vs. Obama's "voluntary" plan is silly at this stage. Hillary's experts say you need to have a formal mandate, Obama's experts (who are every bit as impressive as hers, and a lot more so in that field than Krugman) say you can get there (or almost entirely there) without it. I don't expect our candidate to be a healthcare policy guru. I expect him or her to be committed to solving the crisis in health insurance -- which is, very simply, (1) the huge number of uninsured Americans; (2) the conflict for healthcare providers when faced with an uninsured patient between the need to care for patient and the need to be compensated for it; (3) the virtually universal fear of losing the source of health insurance -- i.e., a job; and (4) the fear of ever-rising and unpredictable healthcare costs burdening American-based companies, generating layoffs, fear of hiring new employees, and impaired competitiveness in the world marketplace.

Both Clinton and Obama are committed to attacking the issue aggressively. I personally think Obama will be better at galvanizing public support to pressure Congress to get something done and inoculating the public against another Harry and Louise campaign -- that's his great skill and it's one of the reasons for his staying away from "forcing" anyone to do anything -- but Clinton picked up something from her wounds in the 90s, too.

Posted by urban legend | April 22, 2008 1:51 PM

Nagourney is saying that all the policy stuff has been done and their isn't much difference.

Well, he's wrong. He's suffering from classic Bubble symptoms, in which the policy details are sooooo booooring, the stump speeches and responses are gratingly familiar, and the ancillary bullshit is the only thing that distinguishes a day in Pittsburgh from one in Raleigh from one in Indianapolis.

(Karen Tumulty is doing a much better job at Time's blog, in part because she's engaging with commenters who respect her talent as a reporter and want it applied to best effect.)

For VandeHei and Harris, it's a different bubble: that of the referees' union. Sorry, I endured much of that ABC debate, and rationalising the calls after the fact doesn't change the fact that the officiating sucked.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | April 22, 2008 2:05 PM

Strange how at the top of the thread Petey appears to be a moron troll and by the end of it I have to wonder if the opposite is true.

Are all Obama supporters here against universal healthcare and mandates? If so, I seriously need to reconsider how I am going to vote. Luckily I have an hour before my flight back to Pitt to consider.

So, guys, tell me. Why are Obama supporters here so against mandates and efforts to pass serious healthcare legislation?

Posted by PA-Dem | April 22, 2008 2:19 PM

Mr. Obama, McCain grilled us BBQ ribs, and not the cheap kind either, but you know the ones without much fat and gristle, and the meat comes of the bones? And he wore one of those cute chef hats and apron, and he had lots of condiments, where you had onions sliced crosswise in those long strips, and chopped fine like you get in Pico de gallo? And he had napkins, too, with a real high-grade paper and these little "McCain 2008" logos. So I guess my question is, do you do enough to court the press?

Posted by Adam Nagourney | April 22, 2008 2:56 PM

I'm for a mandate and an effort to pass serious healthcare legislation. Since single-payer is the goal, however, I'm not sure where all the calls for ideological purity come from.

Posted by Kimmitt | April 22, 2008 3:13 PM

How does commentary on the debate or questions of label pins and sniper fire have anything to do with the PA debate?

I'm new here, who's this @#$@ moron ?

Posted by Stem Cell Dude | April 22, 2008 3:29 PM

That 1993 healthcare legislation lost us the 96 elections.

How come we're not talking about that.

Posted by Stem Cell Dude | April 22, 2008 4:41 PM