By Request: The Media

Southpaw asks:

There's been a lot of talk about the unbalanced media environment in this election, and how it benefits McCain. What should Democrats actually do to counteract that advantage? (aside from opting out of the public financing system and running a buttload of paid media.)

I think that what Democrats should do is the same as what ordinary citizens should do -- support good media, punish bad media. If you subscribe to The Washington Post stop, and explain to them in a detailed letter why you're stopping. Subscribe to The American Prospect, and The Nation, and Mother Jones. When you read a Media Matters item about some BS on cable read the contact information under the "Take Action" banner and send them a note. If your note is going to the General Electric corporation, make sure to tell them you like Countdown and that Rachel Maddow should host a television show.

Powerful elected officials can do all those things but can also, as Republicans do with conservative media, support progressive media with access and praise to help raise the profile of progressive institutions.

Doing the "ordinary person"-side stuff can be tedious and annoying, but it must be done. Working the refs is hard work, and the right got where it is today by putting in the hours.

Comments

This is, of course, what I did with the Atlantic....which was at one time a thoughtful journal of ideas but became just another Washington political rag (leaning ever rightward beginning in the Michael Kelly days -- he actually put a be-fanged Al Gore on the cover in the 200 election season -- but continuing under the subsequent leadership, the move to Washington, etc).

Posted by walden | July 7, 2008 5:09 PM

This is, of course, what I did with the Atlantic....which was at one time a thoughtful journal of ideas but became just another Washington political rag (leaning ever rightward beginning in the Michael Kelly days -- he actually put a be-fanged Al Gore on the cover in the 2000 election season -- but continuing under the subsequent leadership, the move to Washington, etc).

Posted by walden | July 7, 2008 5:09 PM

And liberal bloggers need to continue to call out powerful MSM figures.

Also, let me second the notion that Michael Kelly was a f****** scumbag.

Posted by Andruw | July 7, 2008 5:31 PM

the unbalanced media environment in this election, and how it benefits McCain

Of course, that's been scientifically proven false. The science shows that the media present Obama in a far, FAR more positive light than they do Obama.

But then again, liberals like Matthew and Southpaw don't believe in science. They have a faith-based belief that the media favor McCain. And there isn't any amount of science that will cause them to rethink their faith based belief. There will always be people like Matthew and Southpaw who don't care about science. Those of us who live in the reality-based world - who believe in science, even if the science challenges our faith - understand that science sometimes tells us things we don't want to believe. But for those who live exclusively in the faith based world - like Matthew and Southpaw - the faith that the media favor McCain will always outweigh the scientific evidence that the media in fact favor Obama by far.

Posted by Al | July 7, 2008 5:52 PM

But Al, have you heard about any science?

Seriously, there is no doubt the MSM favored Obama in the Democratic primary. Or perhaps more accurately, disfavored Clinton.

But I think we may have seen a pivot over the past couple of weeks, the coverage of the McCain deficit reduction, um, plan(?) being the obvious example.

Posted by Andruw | July 7, 2008 6:12 PM

Al,
Or you could just look at McCain having the press over to one of his many homes for a BBQ and then being rewarding by that very same press corps with donuts and coffee at a press conference.

Like Matt said, it's working the refs (or in this case, it's simply bribing reporters with free food). Journalists who are doing their jobs should have an adversarial relationship with those they cover. They certainly shouldn't be rubbing elbows and cracking wise with a public figure because it destroys their ability to be critical and objective.

Posted by Mike P | July 7, 2008 7:01 PM

Unbalanced media? The fact that you suffer from the utter delusion that the field is tilted towards McCain speaks volumes.

If McCain had "refined" his message as much as Obama in the last couple of months, he'd be in tatters.

It's unbalanced, alright - just not in the way your delusions run.

Posted by James Robertson | July 7, 2008 7:28 PM

Obama has rushed (clumsily) to the center, but some of the stances he's taken are consistent with things he's said in the past and in some cases (ahem, Iraq) he hasn't changed at all.

However, there's a long and ever growing list of instances in which McCain has changed his stances.

Wake me up when he's called to the rug about taxes, or energy, or virtually anything else he's talked about.

Posted by Mike P | July 7, 2008 7:34 PM

I'm not crazy about the WaPo editorials either, but is that enough to make the Post "bad media"? They're one of the 5 best newspapers in the country, without a doubt. If it weren't for the Post's reporting, we'd know a whole lot less about government and politics. Bless Mother Jones's little heart, they do great work, but if I had to choose I'd certainly rather have the Post.

Posted by too many steves | July 7, 2008 7:38 PM

There's something worse going on in the MSM than bias toward one candidate or the other, and it's a big reason why the Washington Post is now something like the functional equivalent of Pravda.

It's being noted by Atrios and others today that in previous administrations, credible questions of obstruction of justice by anyone attached thereto were the occasion of much wailing and gnashing of teeth in the MSM for weeks on end, and occasioned rapidly arranged appearances for mea culpas or mea exculpas.

Now we have multiplying accusations and seemingly incontrovertible evidence of obstruction of justice, and Sally Quinn and David Broder just don't seem to give a shit. Another round of julips, please--the dewpoint is cresting above 70 degrees....

What was that line about having a republic if we can keep it? This is where Al and other pricks are quislings--if Stalin was a Republican, they'd be Stalinists. The rest is noise.

Posted by elle loco | July 7, 2008 10:09 PM

"the right got where it is today by putting in the hours."

No, they put in the MONEY.

The Washington Post would go OUT OF BUSINESS before they let the public tell them not to print the crap they do print. So would the New York Times.

Except they wouldn't because some rich fucks would come along to bail them out and run them at a loss as long as the policies they promote kept them in the black, like the oil companies and the military-industrial complex.

These aren't "honest businesses" "trying to make a decent profit" while "doing a good job". They are organizations that represent and support the Establishment and they will not change no matter how much you send them little notes about how they suck.

Many years ago, allegedly William Casey publicly said that most of the mainstream media were either owned or controlled by the CIA. He wasn't joking, either. There have been articles written about how many publications - including, IIRC, your cited Mother Jones - actually have significant numbers of ex-CIA analysts writing for them, allegedly because they "write well".

Like the KGB general in the Bond movie said, "Nobody ever leaves the KGB" - or the CIA.

Grow up, Matt. The world doesn't run by letters to the editor. I learned that back during the Goldwater campaign when I wrote letters to the Bristol (CT) Press and got into a letter column argument with another citizen (who I knew). The Press came down on my father and requested I stop submitting pieces because it was upsetting the local clergy.

Nobody in the MSM is going to upset the corporate rulers of this country or the politicians those corporations have bought.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | July 7, 2008 10:54 PM

"If McCain had "refined" his message as much as Obama in the last couple of months, he'd be in tatters."

You wanna take another crack at that Robertson? Or just take it back now?

Posted by mike | July 7, 2008 11:29 PM

Right, but elle, the reason you know about all of the bad shit Bush does is because of the WaPo news pages. I'd say it's worth putting up with Sally Quinn and David Broder to have that.

Posted by too many steves | July 7, 2008 11:33 PM

Mike,

You can get back to me after Obama heads to Iraq, and "refines" that position as well.

Posted by James Robertson | July 7, 2008 11:45 PM