This repository has been archived on 2017-04-03. You can view files and clone it, but cannot push or open issues/pull-requests.
blog_post_tests/20040919181819.blog

181 lines
13 KiB
Plaintext
Raw Permalink Blame History

This file contains ambiguous Unicode characters!

This file contains ambiguous Unicode characters that may be confused with others in your current locale. If your use case is intentional and legitimate, you can safely ignore this warning. Use the Escape button to highlight these characters.

MSM Loses its Power to Swing Elections
<p>One of the most notorious lines of the 2004 campaign season came to us<br />
in Mid-July when Evan Thomas, the Assistant Managing Editor of<br />
Newsweek, said: &#8220;Let&#8217;s talk a little media bias here. The media, I<br />
think, wants Kerry to win. And I think theyre going to portray Kerry<br />
and Edwards Im talking about the establishment media, not Fox <br />
but theyre going to portray Kerry and Edwards as being young and<br />
dynamic and optimistic and all. There&#8217;s going to be this glow about<br />
them is going to be worth, collectively, the two of them,<br />
that&#8217;s going to be worth maybe 15 points.</p>
<p>Thomas&#8217;s admission validated the charges made in Bernard Goldberg&#8217;s<br />
book <cite>Bias: A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distort the<br />
News</cite>, and capped waves of evidence from recent sociological<br />
studies by the Pew Foundation, scientists at UCLA, and others that<br />
have scrutinized the establishment that the bloggers call &#8220;MSM&#8221;<br />
(Main-Stream Media). All the evidence shows that the MSM is extremely<br />
left-wing compared to the U.S. population as a whole. Content analysis<br />
has repeatedly demonstrated how this bias both distorts public<br />
perception of specific issues and makes most Americans grossly<br />
mis-estimate where the political center of popular opinion actually<br />
is.</p>
<p>But the reaction to Thomas&#8217;s admission from Republicans and<br />
conservatives was more weary than angry. They have been wrestling<br />
with the reality of pro-Democrat and left-wing bias in the MSM since the<br />
counterculture wars of the 1960s. Ironically, however, Thomas&#8217;s<br />
public admission may have come just as the MSM&#8217;s power to reframe issues<br />
and swing national elections was suffering a critical breakdown.</p>
<p>Part of what I&#8217;m talking about the Ra<sup>th</sup>ergate<br />
forged-documents scandal, of course. It is not yet resolved as I<br />
write, ten days after the original <cite>60 Minutes II</cite> story<br />
and a week after the evidence of crude fakery became undeniable to all<br />
but the most blinkered Bush-haters. Dan Rather is still hanging<br />
tough, and the editorial position of the <cite>New York Times</cite><br />
is still &#8220;Fake But Accurate&#8221;. But the longer the holdouts cling to<br />
their forged evidence, the more damage they will take to their<br />
reputations, with effects that will go beyond the current election<br />
cycle.</p>
<p>Just the prompt effects of the scandal are interesting. The most<br />
obvious one is that John Kerry now seems headed for a Dukakis-like<br />
thrashing in the presidential elections. As I write, the<br />
anti-Bush-leaning <a href='http://electoral-vote.com/'>Electoral Vote<br />
Predictor</a> website is projecting Bush at 331 electoral votes and<br />
Kerry at 207. The site notes that this is the most lopsided spread<br />
since it was launched.</p>
<p>There are many reasons besides Ra<sup>th</sup>ergate that Kerry is<br />
losing so badly. He&#8217;s a pathetically weak candidate &mdash; a lousy<br />
stump speaker with no program and a nearly nonexistent legislative<br />
record, who ran on his Vietnam service only to have that prop knocked<br />
out from under him by former crewmates and superiors who accuse him of<br />
having been cowardly, opportunistic, and unfit for command. In fact,<br />
Kerry has no discernable political base of his own at all; his entire<br />
appeal comes from not being George W. Bush.</p>
<p>But Kerry&#8217;s weaknesses, glaring though they are, are not the<br />
interesting part of the explanation. It&#8217;s the MSM&#8217;s inability to<br />
cover them up and make them a non-story that is really<br />
interesting. The attempt to present Kerry and Edwards as &#8220;dynamic&#8221;,<br />
&#8220;optimistic&#8221; and &#8220;young&#8221; to which Evan Thomas admitted has mostly made<br />
them look vacillating, frivolous and jejune instead. CBS, the New<br />
York Times, the Boston Globe and the other centers of the MSM had also<br />
been trying very hard to bury and discredit the Swift Vets;<br />
nevertheless, <cite>Unfit For Command</cite> is now the #1 nonfiction<br />
bestseller in the United States.</p>
<p>Nor were the MSM, despite a visible effort to do so, able to<br />
suppress the evidence that Dan Rather&#8217;s anti-Bush memoranda had been<br />
forged. In fact, as I write they are proving unable to defend even<br />
the exculpatory fiction that Rather was an innocent dupe. The fact has<br />
come out that CBS was told in advance that two of the six documents it<br />
had were almost certainly bogus by its own examiners, and then witheld<br />
the other four from expert scrutiny and ran with the story anyway.<br />
The implications of that fact are being now dissected not just on<br />
partisan right-wing websites but out where the general public can see<br />
it.</p>
<p>There has been a lot of talk since the Ra<sup>th</sup>ergate<br />
scandal broke that the rise of the blogosphere made all the difference<br />
this time around. And sharp bloggers fact-checking the mainstream<br />
media made all difference in Ra<sup>th</sup>ergate itself, there is no<br />
doubt about that. But Ra<sup>th</sup>ergate is only part of a larger<br />
picture that goes back through the Swift Vets at least to the Jayson<br />
Blair scandal, and amidst the peals of blogger triumphalism I think<br />
it&#8217;s time to pull back at this point and get a little perspective.</p>
<p>As an immediate reality check, the bloggers had very little to<br />
do with the success of the Swift Vets&#8217; book. It is indeed remarkable<br />
that the Swift Vets were able to get their story past the big-media<br />
gatekeepers, but nothing that the gentlemen at<br />
<cite>InstaPundit</cite> or <cite>Power Line</cite> or <cite>Little<br />
Green Footballs</cite> uttered can have had much influence on that.</p>
<p>For a more comprehensive explanation, I think we need to look at<br />
a couple of trends that are larger than the rise of the blogosphere<br />
itself, and which actually drove that rise rather than being driven<br />
by it. One of these is obvious: the plunging cost of communication.</p>
<p>Before the Internet and cheap long-distance phone calls, pulling<br />
together a cooperative network large enough to produce and back<br />
<cite>Unfit For Command</cite>, or to perform forensic analysis on the<br />
Rather memos, would have been an extremely expensive and long-drawn-out<br />
operation. The market for ideas had a much longer clearing time then.<br />
In fact it is rather unlikely these sorts of organization would even<br />
have been attempted more than a decade ago &mdash; everybody&#8217;s perception<br />
of the time and money cost would have been prohibitive.</p>
<p>Other forces are in play as well. One is that people are less<br />
willing than they used to be to derive their identities and a static<br />
set of political affiliations from the things about themselves that<br />
they can&#8217;t change. Your family&#8217;s politics is a far less important<br />
predictor of your vote than it was a generation ago (which, among<br />
other things, is why conservative talk of a &#8220;Roe effect&#8221;, of liberal<br />
abortion supporters selecting themselves out of the population, sounds<br />
so much like wishful thinking). Union membership stopped being<br />
predictive sometime in Ronald Reagan&#8217;s second term. Even traditional<br />
racial and ethnic interest blocs seem to be crumbling at the edges.</p>
<p>Increasingly, political power is flowing to consciously-formed<br />
interest groups that arise to respond to individual issues and survive<br />
(if they survive) as voluntary subcultures. The Swift Vets and<br />
MoveOn.org are highly visible examples of the trend. Internet hackers<br />
organizing against the DMCA and for open-source software is another.<br />
Indeed, the blogosphere as we know it is a voluntary subculture formed<br />
largely from the reaction to the trauma of 9/11.</p>
<p>To people in these subcultures, traditional party and ideological<br />
labels are less and less interesting. Case in point: Glenn Reynolds<br />
(aka InstaPundit), the pro-Iraq-war, pro-gay-marriage,<br />
anti-gun-control, pro-drug-legalization king of the bloggers. Is he a<br />
liberal Democrat with some conservative positions? A South Park<br />
Republican? A pragmatic libertarian? Not only do Glenn&#8217;s own writings<br />
make it difficult to tell, he seems to determined to flirt with all<br />
these categories without committing to any of them. Other prominent<br />
bloggers, including those who broke Ra<sup>th</sup>ergate, exhibit a<br />
similar pattern. The MSM, looking through a left-wing prism, sees it<br />
as conservatism &mdash; but most bloggers despise the Religious Right<br />
and Buchananite paleoconservatism as heartily as they loathe Noam<br />
Chomsky.</p>
<p>Finally, I think we need to look at what bloggers call the &#8220;cocoon<br />
effect&#8221; and understand that it too is a special case of a larger<br />
phenomenon. Even among bloggers who describe themselves as liberals<br />
there is a widespread sense that the MSM has become a sort of cocoon<br />
or echo chamber, in which left-liberal orthodoxy is shaped by a tiny<br />
self-selected elite and never questioned because no alternatives are<br />
ever permitted a serious hearing. Thus the MSM often experiences honest<br />
shock, disorientation, and disbelief when it is forced into<br />
contact with actual reality.</p>
<p>But it isn&#8217;t just bloggers who notice that cocoon. So do<br />
blue-collar workers, firearms owners, rural residents, and indeed<br />
anybody who lives in &#8220;red state&#8221; America. It wasn&#8217;t always like this;<br />
before 1965 or so your average auto-worker in Birmingham and an<br />
editorial-page writer in New York City might have disagreed on much,<br />
but they lived in the same political universe and spoke the same<br />
language. The Vietnam War ended that; during and after it, elites in<br />
academia, show business, and the media embraced the preoccupations of<br />
the New Left even as heartlanders were rejecting them.</p>
<p>The journalism schools went with them, and the MSM has been<br />
drifting steadily further out of touch ever since. An index of the<br />
drift is the the way that the degree of trust Americans have in<br />
journalists has plummeted since 1970. Today, survey instruments find<br />
Americans rate journalists lower in integrity and honesty then<br />
used-car salesmen or lawyers.</p>
<p>It&#8217;s a commonplace among analysts of American politics that the<br />
dispute over Vietnam has been at the bottom of our culture wars ever<br />
since. So there is some sort of completion in the fact that the<br />
disconnect between the MSM and the rest of America reached a critical<br />
break while the MSM was attempting to boost on its shoulders John<br />
Kerry &mdash; the man who cofounded Vietnam Veterans Against The War,<br />
who met with North Vietnamese Communists while still a Naval officer,<br />
and who described our involvement there as an extended war crime.</p>
<p>A long-serving governor of Louisiana once boasted that he could not<br />
fail of reelection unless he was caught in bed with a live boy or a<br />
dead girl. Thanks to Ra<sup>th</sup>ergate, George W. Bush has a lock<br />
on the White House unless he&#8217;s at least as seriously embarrassed<br />
during the next forty days. Kerry&#8217;s approval ratings are hovering<br />
around 36%. It seems that the MSM cannot deliver Evan Thomas&#8217;s<br />
15-point swing anymore &mdash; or, if it can, that the left-wing<br />
Democrats&#8217; base has dwindled to 20% of the population or less and the<br />
Democratic National Committee, too long swaddled in the media cocoon,<br />
is in far worse trouble than it understands.</p>
<p>Either way, the self-destruction of the MSM and the collapse of<br />
John Kerry&#8217;s candidacy looks to me like no fluke. It is, rather, a<br />
culmination of trends that have been building for three decades. The<br />
trend in communications costs is not going to reverse. Therefore<br />
media gatekeepers will continue to lose power, voluntary subcultures will<br />
continue to gain influence, and the MSM&#8217;s ability to set agendas will<br />
soon be one with the dust of history.</p>
<p>UPDATE: A reader wonders if the MSM ever had the power to swing elections. The Assistant Editor<br />
of Newsweek thought it could deliver 15%. Popular-vote margins in Presidential elections have often<br />
been 5% or less. What does that suggest?</p>