By David Sirota The new media economy encourages ever more violent vitriol because that’s now become the most reliable way to build a following and, thus, generate profit. Related Entries January 13, 2011 Obama and Palin Speeches Compared January 13, 2011 WikiLeaks Exposes the Danger of Pakistan’s Nukes
Continue reading …By Joe Conason The law requires us to assess Jared Lee Loughner’s mental state and motivations, but we might do better to analyze our own craziness. Related Entries January 13, 2011 Obama and Palin Speeches Compared January 13, 2011 WikiLeaks Exposes the Danger of Pakistan’s Nukes
Continue reading …enlarge The endless debate continued in 1996. Click here to view this media Since it was an election year, contenders from the GOP were off and running in the Iowa Caucus with Bob Dole the odds on front runner for the Republican nod. The Bosnian War Crimes Tribunal was getting underway and Anti-Abortion activists were bolstered by the new Congress and the endless pursuit in overturning Roe V. Wade was starting up again with both sides as heated up as ever. Jack Kevorkian was back on trial. The IRA took credit for a bomb set off in London, killing two people and AT&T and MCI were teaming up to share phone lines, now that the new Telecommunications Bill allowed more competition in the marketplace. Remember MCI? Here is the news of January 12, 1996 as reported on NPR’s Morning Edition.
Continue reading …enlarge I admit, Sarah, I’ve had even more trouble taking you seriously ever since Matt Taibbi in “Griftopia” absolutely nailed your persona as that of a Piedmont Airways flight attendant, only without the polyester neck scarf. I keep picturing you leaning in and asking, “Would you like a beverage?” with that sort of professional “warmth.” But you’re not that benign — and clearly, you don’t see your job as that of serving. You’re narcissistic, and reckless. You’ll say or do almost anything to get a wave of emotion (and validation) out of your followers. You feed on both the adoration — and the attacks. Now, I realize that someone sat you down after the unhappy intersection of your “bullseye” map and the shootings in Tucson and explained to you that you had to make a public statement. But of course you insisted that ultimately, it would still be about you. Of course it would. And that’s how your “statement” turned out to be an extended exercise in self-defense . (“Blood” libel, Sarah? Really? You as Christian martyr?) You’re whiny, and vindictive. Because you think small, Sarah. You are small. The kind of people who love you? They’re small, too. They love seeing themselves reflected in you . They love being victims, they love being urged to “reload”. They’re armchair revolutionaries who fantasize holding hated political figures at gunpoint. I feel sorry for them. I feel sorry for you, too. I’m a liberal, I can’t help it. Because that whole “us against the evil world” thing is so spiritually impoverished. It’s grounded in hostile self-defense, and it’s destructive. Where’s the creative spark of the divine in saying no and tearing down? In division instead of inclusion? In just plain lying? I hope the time has come for you to leave the national stage, Sarah. You’re just not a nice person, and you bring out the worst in people. Hell, you’re not even pretty , not really. Because when you’re attacking people, and you get that mean look on your face, you look as ugly on the outside as you are on the inside. enlarge
Continue reading …As far as I can tell, the reaction to Palin’s video statement and President Obama’s speech has been pretty disparate, and interesting. One theme shines through: Both were commenting on the same event, but the focus was very, very different. The video is The Nation’s John Nichols commenting on the differences and similarities. His conclusion: If Democrats claim the mantle of civic involvement and responsibility, that’s not such a bad thing. Tristero over at Digby’s blog thinks this speech transcended his race speech . I do, too. I think this speech was even more personal for him than the race speech was, because it touched on so many of his core values: civil involvement, setting an example for children, and family. But more than that, it highlighted something that’s fairly easy to intuit but harder to pinpoint: Proper analyses of this great speech are surely forthcoming from people far more qualified than this blogger. Garry Wills, who examined Obama’s famous race speech by comparing it with Lincoln’s Cooper Union address, will, I hope, weigh in. What I’d like to focus on is something about the speech that probably wont get remarked. I also noticed these things during the campaign, and until I understood what was going on, it drove me (not to mention many other people) almost crazy with despair. But I think it ultimately played a central, if usually unheralded, role in Obama’s spectacular victory. I’m talking about Obama’s uncanny skill at setting traps for his political opponents, traps in which they themselves – ie, not Obama – act foolishly or so otherwise poorly that they disqualify themselves as serious opponents, who emerges from these fiascos looking not only like the only rational choice but, more emotionally, as the only conceivable choice. Alan Colmes highlights the differences between Bill Clinton and Barack Obama in these situations, and than heavens someone did before my head exploded over the constant media drumbeat on this being Obama’s “Clinton moment”. Conversely, President Obama used the moment to summon us to our higher angels. Disagree all you want about his politics, his religion, or even his birthplace. It is no accident that Barack Obama achieved the highest perch in American politics partly because of his ability to inspire. Bill Clinton felt our pain. Barack Obama speaks to it. He, along with many others, also gives Palin low marks for her tearing-down of others at a time where lifting up is needed. Sadly, for Governor Palin, she took what could have been a teachable moment and used it to continue her practice of being defensive, divisive, and accusatory. And whoever injected the phrase “blood libel” in her missed opportunity was either ignorant of its true meaning or was playing the basest form of politics. Nate Silver thinks this was probably an easy speech for the President to give , because there was a big gap in the room where adults should be, which the President filled well. I would only add this to his analysis: The other contender for the 2012 election did NOT fill that role. The cynic in me wants to say that, in this context, this was a relatively easy speech for Mr. Obama to deliver (in a political sense rather than an emotional one). Nobody seemed to be playing the role of the adult in the room or moving us toward closure, which provided Mr. Obama with an opportunity to do so. Mr. Obama played that role very well tonight, although I suspect that almost all of his predecessors would have done the same. By contrast, the right-wing voices are somewhat predictable. It began with Michelle Malkin’s apoplexy over the t-shirts, which were not an invention or thought of the White House, but which were part of the University of Arizona’s plan for the service. Of course, it was certainly easier to focus on those than it was the substance of his speech. Rush Limbaugh, who is never one to waste an opportunity to remind everyone who is really in charge, slammed the entire service as a “pep rally” and had some harsh words for the Fox News panel that complimented the speech. Glenn Beck? He couldn’t quite go where Rush did, so he complimented the speech but slammed it for being “late.” Who knew there was a time limit on grief? And wingnut WorldNetDaily went there, calling it Obama’s “Reichstag Moment”, while calling for outrage on the right for Sarah Palin’s “blood libel.” Other than the crazies at WND, though, there wasn’t much good said about Palin’s statement/speech. That won’t stop her from trying in 2012, though. I expect the announcement any day now.
Continue reading …While the liberal media, particularly Obama acolytes at MSNBC, immediately jumped down former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin's throat for her use of the term “blood libel” in a video statement yesterday, it appears the network has not always thundered with righteous indignation at the use of the term. Tthere was no reaction from MSNBC's Chris Matthews in 2000 when Jack Kemp used the term to describe a harsh radio ad the NAACP had used against then-Gov. George W. Bush (R-Texas) nor in 2006 when Mike Barnicle used the term in reference to Sen. John Kerry having been criticized by a group of Vietnam War swift boat veterans. Kemp used the term on the December 19, 2000 edition of “Hardball,” while he and Matthews were discussing why so few black Americans actually voted for Bush. In that exchange, Kemp lamented as “blood libel” a harsh ad the NAACP National Voter Fund ran that suggested Bush had blood on his hands for failing to support a hate crimes bill. Here's the relevant portion (emphasis mine): KEMP: …I think racial reconciliation in America is a key issue, a very important issue, and I've got to say this as a Republican, and the party of Lincoln cannot lose 92 percent of the African-American vote any more in this century.
Continue reading …Daily Kos blogger Jed Lewison plugged the president and Sarah Palin’s respective speeches about the tragedy in Tucson into a word cloud generator to create a visual representation of the rhetoric. Lewison says “the clear emphasis of President Obama’s word choice was on focusing on the victims and that which unites us as a nation, whereas Palin focused on her grievances and what drives our country apart.” Daily Kos: The word clouds show the contrast between their two approaches. They both recognized Saturday’s shooting for the tragedy that it was, but the clear emphasis of President Obama’s word choice was on focusing on the victims and that which unites us as a nation, whereas Palin focused on her grievances and what drives our country apart. Read more Related Entries January 13, 2011 White House Mum on Palin’s Latest Words January 13, 2011 WikiLeaks Exposes the Danger of Pakistan’s Nukes
Continue reading …NewsBusters publisher and Media Research Center president Brent Bozell will appear on tonight's “Hannity” as well as tomorrow morning's “Fox & Friends” and C-SPAN's Washington Journal. All three appearances will focus on the media's biased coverage in the wake of Saturday's assassination attempt on Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Arizona). Tonight's “Media Mash” segment on “Hannity” should air around 9:30 p.m. EST. Bozell's live interview on “Fox & Friends” should commence live around 8:15 a.m. EST tomorrow morning. Just after the “Fox & Friends” appearance, Bozell will sit down at C-SPAN's Washington Studio for the January 14 edition of “Washington Journal,” a call-in interview program. That appearance is scheduled at 8:30 a.m. EST. For an archive of NewsBusters coverage of bias following the Giffords shooting, click here.
Continue reading …A spokesman for the shock jock’s syndicate says a Tucson, Ariz., billboard featuring Limbaugh’s name, the phrase “straight shooter” and bullet hole imagery was designed by a local station and removed after the shooting massacre that took place in that city. Politico via the Huffington Post : UPDATE: The billboard was removed on Monday, a spokeswoman for Limbaugh’s syndicator told POLITICO. “The ad campaign was created by a local Tucson talk radio station to promote its broadcasts of Rush Limbaugh’s nationally syndicated radio program,’ said Rachel Nelson, PR manager for Premier Radio Networks. “This particular ad—which uses the common expression “straight shooter” to describe Mr. Limbaugh’s candid and direct style—was designed and contracted by the local station’s promotion department. In the wake of the tragic events that have unfolded in Tucson, the station elected to take down this ad on Monday, January 10 – believing that discussion of its interpretation would not contribute to the desire for healing in the Tucson community.” Read more Related Entries January 13, 2011 White House Mum on Palin’s Latest Words January 13, 2011 WikiLeaks Exposes the Danger of Pakistan’s Nukes
Continue reading …