A Mighty Howl

by tristero

Bob Somerbyy is a treasure. Oh yes, Bob’s howled at me on occasion. I’ve never taken it personally (and he’s also said some kind things). Or rather, I’ve always taken it personally, as a kick in the rear to read carefully what I’m saying for implications I’ve missed or discounted. Even when I conclude that he’s wrong (dammit, Bob, of course I knew Bush was joking about that fish even if I didn’t say so!), he has made me think harder about writing about politics and its effect. Bob is right: the political discourse is so twisted it often takes an effort of will to untwist it. Even if you’re looking out for it.

Which is all prelude to saying that the problem with this quote got past me the first time I read it despite it all. The issue is Clinton’s “likeability” vs. Obama. The speaker is a Democratic strategist named Peter Fenn and he’s talking to Tucker Carlson:

[Obama] is very likeable. He has a great smile. He has a great way about him. I tell you, I like Barack Obama. Everybody is liking him. But the problem is you haven’t—you haven’t been—he hasn’t been bashed for fifteen years by the Republicans and Fox News.

Had this not been part of a Howler post, I never would have thought twice about that last sentence. Everyone knows this is true. Clinton has been mercilessly bashed by Republicans and their major media outlet.

Except it isn’t true. Or rather, it’s so far from the whole truth that it grossly distorts what has actually been going on all these years. Somerby incomparably reminds us:

As he spoke, Fenn was appearing on MSNBC, a cable channel on which Clinton has been mercilessly bashed for the past many years. Chris Matthews, the network’s top political figure, has displayed a loathing for Hillary Clinton (and for Bill Clinton and Al Gore before her) that surpasses the boundaries of comprehension; Matthews and his NBC buddies are major opinion leaders of the mainstream, insider press corps. Meanwhile, Carlson himself has often spoken about Clinton’s castrating ways. (And about what a fake, phony asshole Gore is.) In this conduct, MSNBC has reflected the Clinton-Gore hatred that has driven so much of the mainstream press elite over the past sixteen years.

But so what? Fenn, explaining why Clinton isn’t liked, says she’s been beat up by Fox!

And there you see, in all its glory, a central deception of the past sixteen years—a lie that has been handed to voters by a long string of liberals and Dems. To this day, major Dems and major career liberals pretend that it was the “right-wing machine” which led the attacks on the Clintons and Gore. [emphasis added]

He’s absolutely right. But really now, what does it matter? To be charitable towards poor Mr. Fenn, it’s perhaps an error of omission. After all, Fox represents Absolute Evil and the networks aren’t in that league, right?

No. That’s simply not so. And if you think so, take a trip through the Howler’s archives and marvel at the unbelievably nasty and gratuitous lies and distortions in the coverage of Gore, of the Clintons, and of other major Democrats from the major networks, from the major papers, from media outlets who claim to disavow Fox’s biased agenda but whose hateful coverage of leading Democrats is just as bad.

It’s true. Fox is not the problem but only part of it. Whatever the reasons, the major media hated/still hate Gore, hated Kerry, hate the Clintons. By all means read all about it on the Howler. Follow the links. Read what the non-Fox media, the “better” outlets have said and done. That is why Somerby won’t tolerate Fenn’s failure to include the mainstream in the list of Clinton bashers:

If the mainstream press corps turns on the next Dem nominee, will voters understand what they’re seeing? Or will they assume that, since it’s not Fox, the trashing must be well-founded?

The dead of Iraq are in the ground because of the story we liberals wouldn’t tell. Peter Fenn seems like a nice guy. Last night, within the context of insider Washington, he did keep himself highly likeable.

I don’t know the answer to Bob’s rhetorical question, whether viewers today -given the amount of pushback from blogs and a less turgid Democratic party – will think bashing from the mainstream has some foundation. But if I had to answer it, I’d guess they will assume the bashing must have some basis. But even if every reader and viewer in America was savvy enough never to be taken in by the media’s unprofessional coverage of the Clintons and other Democrats, it makes no difference. The media have a job to do and that is to provide us with dispassionate reporting. And, as we’ve recently seen, they are once again failing to do so, acting like sulking children. As they have done for years and years and years.

Again, Somerby is right. We should howl bloody murder at the way the media covers the candidates. The press needs to grow up, stop their addiction to Republican talking points and their lies. They need to report; how the candidates make them feel is, or rather should be, of no one’s concern except to their mommies and daddies.

[UPDATE: Oh, man, if ever I needed something to prove my point above, here it is, courtesy Duncan:

As my somewhat artistocratic aunt once said during a visit, as her ancient hound began avidly licking the intimate parts of our dog, I really don’t know what to say.]