Yes, Sarah, There is a Media Conspiracy
Sarah Palin talked on the campaign trail about trying to get around the elite media filter, but this week she’s pushed her way straight through it.
And the media – liberal and conservative, bloggers and network anchors – have responded by dedicating magazine covers, air time and online real estate to everything related to the book-promoting, media-bashing former governor of Alaska. No matter where Palin goes, the media follow – Andrea Mitchell even hosted her MSNBC show Wednesday from the Barnes & Noble in Grand Rapids, Mich., where Palin’s scheduled to sign books.
via The Sarah Palin-media co-dependency – Michael Calderone – POLITICO.com.
NBC News's Andrea Mitchell confronts Sarah Palin with the controversial Newsweek cover on November 18 in Grand Rapids, Michigan (Bill Pugliano/Getty)
Just to get this out of the way, since the teabaggers have apparently re-discovered my site and in response to the previous Palin post have begun bombarding me with letters of the “Yeah, but Obama…” genus:
Is the media out to get Sarah Palin? It seems like most of the letters I get are insisting that I admit it. “Surely you can’t deny,” writes one woman from Florida, “that no political figure in American history has had to put up with what Sarah Palin has had to put up with from the mainstream media.”
Now, this is the part of this red-blue schtick where I’m supposed to strike back without thinking and re-hash the history of, say, the Monica Lewinsky scandal in rebuttal and then, as the argument progresses, do the whole “I know you are but what am I?” thing until the end of time. I’ve decided from now on that I’m just not going to go there with any of this culture-war bullshit. It’s exhausting. I mean, hell, if you want to argue over who’s more justified in wallowing in media victimhood, that’s not a fight I mind losing. Mazel tov!
I would, however, like to point out a few things, none of which really involve taking sides in this particular cat-fight. In no particular order:
1) The political media has always taken it upon itself to make decisions about who is and who is not qualified to be taken seriously as candidates for higher office. Without even talking about whether they do this more or less to Republicans or Democrats, I can testify that I witnessed this phenomenon over and over again in the primary battles within the Democratic Party. It has always been true that the press corps has drawn upon internalized professional biases, high-school-style groupthink and the urging of insider wonks to separate candidates into “serious” and “unserious” groups before the shots even start to be fired.
At the outset of the 2004 campaign, for instance, the herd knew without being told that Kerry and Lieberman got the first paragraphs in the debate wrap-ups and Howard Dean, Al Sharpton and Dennis Kucinich got the last paragraphs. The corps fought against Dean’s unexpectedly strong showing all the way through the early primaries and it was no surprise to anyone when they pile-drove him into total insanity before Iowa. The point I’m trying to make is that the media has a long and storied history of just taking the gloves off and whaling on a dude until he screams uncle (in Dean’s case, almost literally) when they make up their mind about someone, and this phenomenon is not restricted to fights between Democrats and Republicans.
2) When that does happen, when the press corps decides to abandon all restraint and go for the head shot, it usually tells us a lot more about the reporters’ bosses and what they’re thinking than it does about the reporters themselves. Your average political reporter is a spineless dweeb who went to all the best schools and made it to that privileged seat inside the campaign-trail ropeline by being keenly sensitive to the editorial wishes of his social and professional superiors.
When their bosses were for the war, they were for the war, and they battered any candidate who was “weak on foreign policy.” When the political winds shifted four years later and the consensus inside the Beltway suddenly was that Iraq had been a hideous mistake, the campaign-trail reporters mysteriously started sounding like Sixties peaceniks on the plane and they hammered Hillary for refusing to admit her error on the Iraq vote (none of these pundits had to admit their mistake on the same question, but whatever), clearing the way for Obama.
The tone for all this behavior is always set somewhere way up the corporate totem pole, and it always reflects some dreary combination of simple business considerations (i.e. what’s the best story and sells the most ads) and internalized political calculus (i.e. who is a “legitimate” candidate and who is an “insurgent” or a “second-tier” hopeful). It’s not that the reporters are making this judgment themselves, it’s that they have to listen to what the apparatus Up There is saying all day long — not just their bosses but the think-tank talking heads they interview for comments, the party insiders who buy them beers at night, the pollsters and so on.
And when all these people start getting in their ears about this or that guy doesn’t have “winnability,” or doesn’t have enough money to run, or has negatives that are insurmountable, all that thinking inevitably bleeds into the coverage. It’s not that the reporters are “biased.” They just don’t have the stones, for the most part, to ignore all the verbal and non-verbal cues they get from authority figures about who is “legitimate” and who isn’t.
Once the signal comes down that this or that politician doesn’t have the backing of anyone who matters, that’s when the knives really come out. When a politician has powerful allies and powerful friends, you won’t see reporters brazenly kicking him in the crotch the way they did to Dean and they’re doing now to Sarah Palin. The only time they do this is when they know there won’t be consequences, meaning when the politician’s only supporters are non-entities (read: voters), as in the case of Ron Paul or Kucinich. Like America in general, the press corps never attacks any enemy that can fight back. To illustrate the point via haiku:
Journos are pussies
Only attack when it’s safe
Lay off entrenched pols
3) So Sarah Palin is now in that category of politician whom reporters feel safe in attacking.
Some of this is definitely her own fault — in addition to the dynamic described above, there’s an additional complicating converse that says that when a politician doesn’t kiss the press’s ass all day long, he or she can expect to get reamed in print until the next ice age. And Sarah Palin not only doesn’t kiss the press’s ass, she treats them like dogshit, openly (the 2008 campaign was a pitched battle after the infamous U.N. standoff, in which Palin’s handlers tried to masking-tape the reporters’ mouths by insisting on photo-only coverage of events). Hillary’s campaign had the same problem; particularly after Iowa, her press handlers so openly treated the trail reporters like a swarm of venomous insects that I used to pass the time by daydreaming them ducking back into the press area wearing airtight Ebola-handling spacesuits a la Outbreak or The Hot Zone. Once the politician-reporter relationship reaches that level, that candidacy is going to be in serious trouble.
Obama’s press people, meanwhile, behaved like a team of well-trained Starbuck’s baristas: quiet, accomodating, nonconfrontational. Then again, the reporters mostly all worshipped their boss, so they didn’t have any reason to behave otherwise. That part of the media-conspiracy narrative is definitely true. I remember one particular trip when Obama came back to our part of the plane wearing jeans and a white button-down shirt and there was audible chirping from several female reporters. The Obama plane in the press section was also plastered all over with pictures high-school yearbook style, and getting photographed with Obama and then getting the photo tacked up on the wall of the plane was like a rite of passage for that crew. Needless to say nothing like that went on in the Hillary press corps, or more especially in the McCain plane, where the more likely back-of-the-plane recreation was a reporter musing out loud about the benefits of hanging himself over continuing even one more minute on that assignment.
That said, even back at the very beginning of the campaign, before the signal came down that it was okay to start giving Obama big sloppy blowjobs on the air, when reporters were all slamming the one-term Illinois Senator for being a “lightweight” prone to “rookie mistakes” (those among us whose version of recent history imagines Obama being handed the 2008 election by the campaign press seem always to forget that part, but go back and look — the “Hillary is the presumptive frontrunner” period lasted a solid nine or ten months), Obama’s press handlers observed the prime directive. They did not interfere with the reporters’ civilization. There was a “let the chips fall where they may” attitude that helped out a lot when the Beltway consensus finally shifted and the money started pouring in behind the candidate; there was no bad blood to overcome when the press had to change its mind again and embrace an “Obama is now the presumptive frontrunner/We are now at war with Oceania” posture.
Palin never had anything like that kind of attitude toward the press, although in fairness the bullets were flying at her from the moment she entered the campaign. It doesn’t matter; the point is that she’s getting it from all angles now and that wouldn’t be happening if she still had any friends in high places.
The press corps that is bashing her skull in right now is the same one that hyped that WMD horseshit for like four solid years and pom-pommed America to war with Iraq over the screeching objections of the entire planet. It’s the same press corps that rolled out the red carpet for someone very nearly as abjectly stupid as Sarah Palin to win not one but two terms in the White House. If there was any kind of consensus support for Palin inside the beltway, the criticism of her, bet on it, would be almost totally confined to chortling east coast smartasses like me and Glenn Greenwald and Andrew Sullivan.
What the people who are flipping out about the treatment of Palin should be asking themselves is what it means when it’s not just jerks like us but everybody piling on against Palin. For those of you who can’t connect the dots, I’ll tell you what it means. It means she’s been cut loose. It means that all five of the families have given the okay to this hit job, including even the mainstream Republican leaders. You teabaggers are in the process of being marginalized by your own ostensible party leaders in exactly the same way the anti-war crowd was abandoned by the Democratic party elders in the earlier part of this decade. Like the antiwar left, you have been deemed a threat to your own party’s “winnability.”
And do you know what that means? That means that just as the antiwar crowd spent years being painted by the national press as weepy, unpatriotic pussies whose enthusiastic support is toxic to any serious presidential aspirant, so too will all of you afternoon-radio ignoramuses who seem bent on spending the next three years kicking and screaming your way up the eternal asshole of white resentment now find yourself and your political champions painted as knee-jerk loonies whose rabid irrationality is undeserving of the political center. And yes, that’s me saying that, but I’ve always been saying that, not just about Palin but about George Bush and all your other moron-heroes.
What’s different now is who else is saying it. You had these people eating out of the palms of your hands (remember what it was like in the Dixie Chicks days?). Now they’re all drawing horns and Groucho mustaches on your heroes, and rapidly transitioning you from your previous political kingmaking role in the real world to a new role as a giant captive entertainment demographic that exists solely to be manipulated for ratings and ad revenue. What you should be asking yourself is why this is happening to you. Even I don’t know the answer to that question, but honestly, I don’t really care. All I know is that I find it extremely funny.
Anyway, that’s probably enough on the Palin subject for the next few years, fun as she is to talk about. And since I just got word that Jamie Dimon is being floated to replace Tim Geithner, it seems we’ll all have enough real problems to worry about in the meantime.
Post Your Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment
T/S Members
Log in with your True/Slant account.
I was wondering exactly how to describe my growing apathy. Well, you have done it perfectly. I really don’t care about any of this for the exactly reasons you’ve written. Regrettably I think the people who actually care about the stuff that is going to really fuck us can be counted on two hands.
Good points, and oh how I hope that Palin fades from the media soon, or sooner than later.
The ability of the 4th estate to crown a candidate is a thorn in the side of every election. This serves to remind me that we need changes to our election system, and change is so or done in name only. Maybe if enough people get pissed, we can push for instant run off elections. This election system may not change the outcomes, as least initially – but it will have the effect of reducing the obscene amount of money that goes into campaigning. In the long run, that can pave the way for candidates who don’t have big $ connections.
The other is the push for a viable progressive party. The neo-cons can have their little niche, the moderate Republicans and Democrats can coalesce under one banner, and liberals can establish themselves under a progressive umbrella. Hah – wonder if anything remotely like this will occur in my life time.
I agree that this could put an end to the top-down rule of the party system. Hell, let’s just call it what it is: party dictatorship.
The parties know this and that’s why they will never allow instant run-off. They fight it down to the school board level because they know the power of the idiotic “don’t throw your vote away” mentality.
However, we are very likely heading towards the kind of event that usually means at least one party will meet its demise. Maybe in this vacuum, we could get it passed.
In response to another comment. See in context »[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Alan Bedenko and greychampion, Tweets Tube. Tweets Tube said: Yes, Sarah, There is a Media Conspiracy http://bit.ly/077oV9I [...]
Bravo, Matt. But even the press will go back to coddling and cossetting the Know-Nothings when the atmosphere at court changes. And the royals haven’t put their puppets in mothballs yet; electoral power-shifting in the near future will require the judicious manipulation of the reactionary populists, at least until the desired outcome. Then they will go back to empty-promising them more conscience clauses and prisons.
a huge difference between the antiwar dirty fucking hippie marches and the antiobama wingnut minuteman teabagger hateapaloozas is that there were never congress luminaries heading the antiwar protests, compared to the bachman/boehner/cantor trial-run mock lynching they held earlier this month in DC.
also, “chortling east coast smartasses”? beautiful.
> I’ve decided from now on that I’m just not going to go there with any of this culture-war bullshit.
I’m no right winger, but following anti-bail-out sentiment from the start allowed me to witness the creation of what eventually gelled into “teabaggers.” This replaced the ungraceful phrase “tea party protesters” used until about last month.
It’s my belief that the name and possibly the spirit for this movement originated on Karl Denninger’s “Market Ticker” blog. Like you, Karl is muckraker who calls bullshit on the bail-out regime.
Roughly by February of 2009, this truly grassroots movement began to be heard. They were a mix of right wing, centrists, and even left wingers. I was thrilled when I saw Gresham Barret get booed down by protesters in South Carolina. He hopped out on stage thinking he was talking to his peeps, and look very stunned to be booed off the stage. Look for it on YouTube. His crime? Voting for TARP and additional bail-out measures.
After this, the GOP finally got the picture that they needed to “tap into” this movement. Of course, this is a brief history, but this started to make this movement look contrived.
Eventually, this drove off the centrists and left wingers and gave the media the impression that this was just the angry, fat, pasty white, right wingers. The kind of people that support Palin, for example.
I think the GOP effectively and possibly deliberately killed this movement. This is just one small example of how these parties circumvent change and dampen discontent. Some might say it’s a good process. I say it sucks when both parties have become so openly corrupt.
I’m surprised and disappointed to see you engaged in the use of this teabagger label, especially in the context of giving us insight into the cowardice of “the media.” I love your muckraking and believe this sort of pettiness will ultimately discredit you.
What I wonder is what the media will call the left wing when they start to move away from the political norms, when they realize that they too have been betrayed by their brand of the establishment. How will their efforts be dampened? Will you engage in the defamation of this movement as well?
Even to use the word teabaggers suggests that you are indeed participating in the culture war. If the culture war is just a ruse to hide extreme government corruption, you’re not on the side you claim to be.
Slonob,
I’m not really sure I understand what you’re saying. Are you saying the rage of the Palin supporters is legitimate anti-bailout anger — and that people like me are helping to marginalize that legitimate sentiment by dismissing it as racist loonery?
Two points there. One, Sarah Palin supported TARP. Two, I was just in DC during a massive tea party rally that as going on — they were protesting health care. I was there on an unrelated matter, to cover a markup in the House Financial Services committee of legislation that would formalize the government’s role in future bailouts.
Out of curiosity I went through the teabagger crowd and asked at least a dozen people what their feelings were about the regulatory reform effort. Not one of them even knew what I was talking about. They all went on and on about the socialistic health care plan and immigration, and the stimulus, but I didn’t hear word one about handouts to Wall Street.
And incidentally, when Paul Kanjorski passed an amendment last week, a crucial amendment giving the government the power to break up “too big to fail” companies before they required bailouts, he got blasted by conservatives for creating an intrusive government bureaucracy with too much power to interfere with “private business.” I would say he got blasted by the teabaggers, but even if you look long and hard you won’t find much coverage of financial regulatory reform on the usual teabag sites, and what coverage there is is mostly centered around opposition to new regulatory agencies like the CFPA.
My memory of the “tea party” phenomenon is that it arose following the stimulus — a plan to bail out actual people — not the Wall Street bailouts.
In response to another comment. See in context »Yes. Well, kind of; I went to a few anti-TARP protests on Wall Street as well as the tax day Tea Party near City Hall, and while the anti-TARP crowd was certainly more “left,” there were Ron Paul types at the [often literal] fringes of both events. We are in strange times when chants of “Abolish the Fed!” get more play among lefties; the hardcore libertarians I met at the Tea Party seemed annoyed to the point of bemusement at seeing their ideas twisted into pro-war, pro-Bush nonsense. But they certainly acknowledged the success with which their message had been co-opted.
In response to another comment. See in context »You will not find many Ron Paul supporters at Sarah Palin rallies. Those are two completely different groups of people. Hell, I like Ron Paul.
In response to another comment. See in context »Hey, I know that, and I like Ron Paul (not on everything, but I’m certainly glad he’s around). My point is that the Tea Parties, if they had an organizing principle, seemed to be about bringing would-be Paul supporters back into the GOP fold, before they got too into the idea of real, non-foreign-war-fighting type libertarianism, or thought hard about the inherent flaws of a two-party system. And I did see some of those people at both protests, indicating a certain amount of intellectual consistence at least among a minority.
I doubt Paul supporters showed up to too many Tea Parties after that first one, though. Which may be too bad: now, every jerk who wants to support wingnut GOP “mavericks” without having to apologize for Bush has been taught to do it by describing his/herself as a “libertarian.” And there aren’t any real libertarians left in their midst to call bullshit on them. Thus is another formerly-useful phrase rendered meaningless.
In response to another comment. See in context »What exactly is it about Ron Paul that you like, Matt?
I like Al Sharpton. I like Dennis Kucinich’s policy positions on most, but not all thing. I would never envision either of them, or Ron Paul, as being presidential material. They marginalize themselves, and frankly, their opponents would have to be pretty awful before I could see myself voting for any of them in a presidential race. When given a choice between Ron Paul and Hillary Clinton, Noam Chomsky picked Clinton. No equivocating about it. Howard Dean was and is presidential material. I could easily vote for Howard Dean. Howard Dean marginalized by the media because he posed a credible threat to establishment politics.
As to the other matter, if some persons think that references to “blow jobs” and “cheer leading” are “sexist” they should get their heads out of their asses and read the Rude Pundit more often.
In response to another comment. See in context »Kramer
I don’t think it was necessarily Tea Baggers that were co-opted by the Neo-Cons, it is more the libertarian grass roots movement in GENERAL that is being co-opted. As Matt correctly pointed out, the Tea Party protests were about the Stimulus, not the bailout.
I have a friend who actually was an active campaigner for Ron Paul in our area who got roped into leading the Tea Party rallies. I think someone in the Campaign for Liberty ended up working for the Tea Party movement and brought email lists with them.
My friend eventually resigned from his position when it became clear that the libertarian/populist outrage was being used to fuel the Neocon agenda. I was glad, I told him it was f&%$ed up to protest the Stimulus but not the Bailouts.
Anyways, I am still on the Campaign for Liberty mailing list and from the letters written by this dude John Tate, I can understand WHY people are confusing the two movements. The latest one was going on about New World Order this, and Statist takeover that. Sounded like John Birch Society type shit.
I was happy that Ron Paul distanced himself from the Tea Baggers on a recent Daily Show appearance when Jon Stewart asked what he thought about them, Ron Paul said something to the effect of “They scare the hell out of me.”
In response to another comment. See in context »Let’s see. We can’t let the lefties stand next to the righties on any issue. Let’s drive a wedge between these people. Let’s make this justice movement play as simply partisan. Let’s cover it and interview only the wackiest and most inarticulate people. Let’s play the “all protesters are dumb” card.
No, no, don’t point that camera at the sign that says “the GOP sucks too,” point it at the “Obama is a Kenyan Socialist” sign.
That’s it! Any lefty that dares march next to these people should look nuts. Their friends should start poking fun at them suggesting they are birthers. Heck, is that lefty over there against abortion and pro guns now too?
Now let’s toss in some wacko activist organizers who can push the message so far right that even those who support the GOP will think it strange. I know, let’s make the signs they hold up! That’s really all it takes. It’s kinda the right wing equivalent of sending them a box of Mao’s little red book. Perfect. Too perfect.
Let the political norms live on!
Oh, and never mind the obvious corruption that pervades the political apparatus on all levels. Never mind that the entire government just chose the insolvent banks over the people. Never mind that both parties were just seen in daylight supporting the banks over the rights of the people.
And remember: Don’t throw your vote away, folks! It’s red or blue until this bitch crashes in flames!
In response to another comment. See in context »>My memory of the “tea party” phenomenon is that it arose following the stimulus — a plan to bail out actual people — not the Wall Street bailouts.<
That was the trigger, Matt, absolutely–it went national when Rick Santelli screamed on CNBC about the stimulus plan to help shore up communities and families, and make the banks actually act in good faith with the trillions of taxpayer money they were handed–the monster of millionaire-spite was triggered and THEN everybody freaked out.
In response to another comment. See in context »That was not Santelli’s best moment…..”the Rant heard round the world”
Other than that he seems to be the only one on CNBC who makes any sense. He and Steve Leisman went at it recently when Leisman said “The value of the dollar is irrelevant.” Santelli blasted him to bits.
In response to another comment. See in context »@timhall
> the monster of millionaire-spite was triggered and THEN everybody freaked out.
This seems rather myopic.
Rick Santelli announced that discontent with the bail-out regime had hit mainstream. But he didn’t invent discontent over bail-outs, neither on the left or the right. There was discontent brewing from the introduction of TARP. There was discontent long before TARP as those who knew the breadth of the trouble watched Bernanke and other “experts” lie to the American public about what was happening.
Again, I credit Karl Denninger with starting the “tea party” ideas. Perhaps it was actually the people that hang out on his forums. But I hope it would interest you to know that Denninger went on record as voting for Obama after McCain supported TARP.
There WAS a moment there when it looked like Obama would actually change direction and make those who failed face their failure. At least to some there was a moment.
By the time he took office it was clear that he had no such intention. Of course it was his cabinet picks, Geithner in particular, that made this clear to many.
You can’t see the truth from a partisan perspective. That is one of the most valuable lessons that I learned from the past couple of years.
Again, I’m no right winger and have only once voted for GOP (former Iowa Representative Jim Leach).
Political winds are shifting. Denying that is about as rational as believing we’re in a recovery.
In response to another comment. See in context »> My memory of the “tea party” phenomenon is that it arose following the stimulus — a plan to bail out actual people — not the Wall Street bailouts.
How disappointing that you say this. This is from the familiar partisan playbook.
If you vote GOP, TARP was just the right amount of intervention needed, albeit a less than ideal approach. But boy did Obama go nuts with the spending. Apparently McCain did not have this intention although his mortgage rescue plan, for instance, was basically the same as the Obama plan. When this bitch goes down in flames it will be because those nasty liberals took over at such a critical time and messed it all up.
If you vote DNC, TARP was an apparently necessary scam. Never you mind that Democrats made it happen just as much as Republicans. Once Obama got into office, he brought in people who cared about people. The bail-out is about helping people, as you apparently believe. It’s not about manipulating real estate so that the banks can avoid facing the reality that their holdings are worth pennies on the dollar. It’s not about making obvious fraud less fraudy for the banks who are tallying their holdings at 100%. According to Krugman, when this bitch goes down in flames it will be because jittery wing nuts were scaring the administration from spending much more.
Here’s what I think. I think both parties sold us out. I think no matter how you slice this, it’s a coup that has left the banks in control of our federal government. I think this nicey nice bullshit about Obama’s bail-out is playing the left for chumps.
If my neighbor has a loan he can’t handle, he can default and be back on his feet in 5 years. If you hand him money from all the healthy mortgage holders in the neighborhood, you risk taking the whole neighborhood down.
But the right are being played for chumps too. They seem to also support saving the banks. Just don’t tell them it’s for the greater good and they’ll be on board. Maybe even tell them about how irritating the approach will be to lefties. They’ll but it.
The day Obama announces that he is dismantling each and every zombie bank and also that he will be clawing back ill-gotten gains from Goldman Sachs and other criminal syndicates is the day I start supporting him again.
That day won’t come.
Why? Because people like you and most of his supporters are making excuses for him and refusing the criticize him.
We’ve all been played for chumps. The sooner we acknowledge that and start demanding change the better.
I will now read your work in a new light. You’re not a muckraker on the side of justice. You’re a muckraker on the side of Democrats.
In response to another comment. See in context »So, now I see that this is a pretty old post, but hey, I just went through the rigmarole of making an account so: It’s my understanding that the Tea Party movement was, originally, a grass roots movement with actual character and even some sort of sensical thought. This movement was then seen to be a nice vehicle for the GOP to drive a candidate into office with so they knocked the leader off, swept all of the grass off of the wagon and rode into town… according to my spell check “sensical” is not a word, it seems like it should be.
In response to another comment. See in context »Is this a reference to something in this thread? If so, I don’t see it.
In response to another comment. See in context »slonob
The original ‘teabagger’ term was picked up and used by the tea party protesters. I remember mildly chuckling about it when I first heard it, and even observing a local protest with people calling themselves that. Only once Maddow and others began the public mocking of the name did it somehow become a pejorative slur.
In response to another comment. See in context »@sibhod
Prove it with a link. I’m interested.
In response to another comment. See in context »Who you calling fat, boy!
In response to another comment. See in context »Unless Dimon shows up with a glowing orb in his chest because Wall Street tried to blow him up and the orb keeps the shrapnel from entering his heart, I won’t believe a fucking thing he says about fixing finance capitalism.
Matt,
Since you linked to Andrew Sullivan’s blog, please include link to Glenn Greenwald’s as well. Everyone should read his blog, and even if only a few hundred people click that link, that’s a few hundred more people who might (if they read it) walk away with a much better understanding of the world.
shit I forgot to include the effing link
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/
In response to another comment. See in context »Matt…
I am looking foward to your follow-up of Bubble #6: Global Warming.
The Taibbi rules
Chortling east coast smartass
The anti-Friedman
[...] Taibbi talking to folks who think political journalists have been vicious and unfair to Sarah Palin. The message to Sarah’s Tea Partyin’ constituency: you’re right, but that’s [...]
Matt, the road to the white house for Sara Palin is being paved now by Obama with the jobs of middle class america….
Obama has nothing to offer middle class americans ,but unemployment,fear,forced health care, war…unemployment is the greatest fear of all.
“forced health care” is the funniest thing I’ve read in a week. Thanks for that.
The odd thing about politics and journalism is that despite how horrible it all is, it demands that we pay attention to it… even though it’s chock full of the insanity described so well on this blog. That something so foul and corrupt can be so addictive is disturbing to me.
In response to another comment. See in context »Palin appeals to the white loser sort of beefy(in many cases,fat and physically repulsive),Confederate Flag-
carrying,white Bubba whiner men who attend so-called
“tea party” rallies and scream “We want our country back”
(yeah,folks,back to the fifties when black lads such as myself who dared LOOK at,let alone date a white chick
risked lynching,and women were in the kitchen and bedroom only.
Since Obama is creating poor white folk by the bushel loads….around 2012, there should be plenty to put palin in office…..
In response to another comment. See in context »The same ex-rich white folks who could only measure their wealth on paper? Who felt the need to leverage against equity in their homes in order to buy the newest BMW? Who were buying 2, 3, 4 houses a year, trying to turn them and “get rich quick?” The same ex-rich white folks who listened to the crazy people on wall street, like Jim Craemer, and ended up losing it all (or most of it) due to this insane idea that there is infact ways to “get rich quick?”
Oh, you mean the ex-not-so-rich white folks who have absolutely no clue about managing their finances, never understood that money on paper is, well, just that, and allow those same people they rail against the machine to protect, to take them for a ride all the while spooning w’em in bed while quietly whispering “It’s all Obama’s fault,” in their ears.
You laying in bed right now, AndyLevinson?
In response to another comment. See in context »…no doubt you believe unemployed blacks will be
lining up in the millions at the voting booths to thank Obama for the “change” he brought into their lives….
…and Obama finally brings absolute equality to america as: an unemployed black person has the same income as an unemployed white person
In response to another comment. See in context »You know, every post I see from you on this blog bemoans Obama as if he dialed up to God on the bat phone and created unemployment. “God, I need this new thing called unemployment, ASAP!” “Ok O, I’ll see what I can do.”
Obama didn’t create the mess we are in. Likewise, he’s not going to just fix it overnight.
You’re anger is completely misplaced. For the past 10-20 years, business’s having been running lean, showing false profits thanks to wonderfully inaccurate (by design) accounting principals.
What did you think was gonna happen? Somehow this econiomic Disneyworld we’ve been living in was going to somehow sustain itself? Just read any of the posts from Taibi over the past few months and he gives some pretty good examples of how, those you aim to protect with outdated political views, are the ones who have pulled the rug out from under you.
Big business created this mess. And big business, hopefully, will be the ones to fix some of it. But it needs a guiding hand.
I’m no Obama fanboi. I don’t own Obama tshirts or commemorative coins. But I will give the man the benefit of the doubt in that you can’t just reverse 10-20 years of greed and profit taking in the private sector, in 9 months.
Reagan said Greed was good. Newsflash, emotions are never good in business enviorenments. They lead to what we have now, irrational behavior predicated on people making the most for themselves, despite how many it hurts in the process.
When are you going to stop being part of the problem and start being part of the solution?
In response to another comment. See in context »Not to mention that African-Americans in the “We Want Our
Country Back” era these white loser racist loser “Palin
pals” pine for suffered overt housing and job discrimi-
natio,even in the North,and police brutality was rampant,
unchecked and,sadly considered an every day part of black life.
Wives were prohibited from getting credit cards,making
major purchases and even seeking some medical treatment without her husband’s assent,and women were abused with
impunity by their spouses,and expected to accept such
domestic terrorism submissively as part of her wifely
obligations.
Good stuff Matt, I love the part about about ‘a giant captive entertainment demographic that exists solely to be manipulated for ratings and ad revenue.’
That is very true, and I wish writers and media persons would call out our citizenry more often. A significant portion of the country falls into this captive entertainment graphic. It’s a by-product of the culture of convenience found only in rich nations like the US. After all, the general apathy that has been displayed by this nation since at least as far back as Vietnam is as guilty of putting us in this mother of all messes as any cadre of corporate and elected officials.
must visit link for everyone
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/23/palin-supporters-struggle_n_367800.html
hilarious but painful to watch
I love Palin supporters. They are easily recognizable due to their inability to write a complete sentence without a grammatical error. Their lack of education becomes ironic when you realize that they are actually arguing that a president does not need to be intelligent if he/she is able to utilize a strong values to make the tough decision. Who wouldn’t want an uneducated president that will decide our nation’s national defense policy based on last Sunday’s sermon???
I apologize for the grammatical errors found in my post. I am particularly embarrassed consider its topic.
In response to another comment. See in context »[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Adam J Goldberg, Justin Salenik. Justin Salenik said: matt taibbi- "Yes, Sarah, There is a Media Conspiracy": http://tinyurl.com/ycfbd62 [...]
[...] November 23, 2009 This Sounds About Right Posted by John O under Political | Tags: corporate journalism, Matt Taibbi | Leave a Comment At least it fits my own view of how Corporate journalism works. [...]
Hang in there Matt! You give me hope.
Yes, there’s nothing more depressing than realizing, as you watch the mob shout down and run out of town some villain or clown you really think deserves it, that they’d turn on someone who didn’t deserve it, or anyone, or you, on a moment’s notice, if that’s the way the mob mentality went.
It’s interesting when you think about this combination of groupthink and economic interest, that is, the editors and publishers and so on who are all acting in their own commercial interests, but who do so en masse, all at once like birds swarming as they make one of those amazing sudden shifts, veering and barreling off in a new direction.
It’s some weird combination of “we only follow the money” and “we all decide that the money is in the same direction”, both at once. I mean it’s not as simple as saying “well of course they’ll all decide the same thing because it makes them the most money”, it’s the FACT that it’s the same thing that makes them the money. It’s a giant grown-up version of the game of being the cool kids, and woe to anyone who misses a turn, and ends up flying off in some screwball direction.
As a proud west coast smartass, I enjoyed how you laid out how the political media is in cahoots the with economic powers that be. Totally political party agnostic as long as they get pro-status quo guys in the highest levels of government.
It’s been painful to watch to co-option of Barack Obama over the past year or so. I’m trying to figure out for myself if Obama’s been an undercover, “let’s make sure big business gets theirs” guy all along. Or was the starry eyed, “we can change the world”, community organizer a put on to sucker us liberals and lefties?
I suppose if President Obama makes a move that riles up the political media, we’ll have our answer. Right now, the President seems to be content to be a corporate lapdog.
The sad thing is that despite his pro big guy tendencies, Obama’s still the highest ranking, best champion for the little guy we’ve got.
[...] Matt Tabbi: Yes, Sarah, There is a Media Conspiracy [...]
I was going to type on my Facebook status, “Hey Mainstream Media, Sarah Palin’s Book tour is NOT news!” But I read this post and “Sarah Palin, WWE Star” first. The latter post correctly isolates the key issue, that is, there are no issues at all. This post really clears thing up for me though. I believe you. She is easy target practice and no one gets hurt. And all along I thought the media was focusing on her because she is Putin’s next door neighbor Hockey mom who believes in the Department of Law.
You’re right on the Jamie Dimon thing. As fascinating as the train wreck of Sarah Palin is, it’s time to return to the grown-ups table and talk about the shit that’s really killing us.
“..when a politician doesn’t kiss the press’s ass all day long, he or she can expect to get reamed in print until the next ice age…
We should EXPECT this? Oh, this is great. You can explode if the SEC refuses to do its job (stop the ‘vampire squid’), yet yawn when the journalistic world refuses to do its (report the truth). And if we complain, you’re the last person to give us any sympathy.
Geesh, Matt – how many Starbucks lattes did you have to slurp before your little fingers got the energy to dance over the keyboards spewing out the love notes below?
“afternoon-radio ignoramuses who seem bent on spending the next three years kicking and screaming your way up the eternal asshole of white resentment….knee-jerk loonies…rabid irrationality…”
“If you prick us, do we not bleed?” Well, according to you and your fellow journalists, we don’t. We’re just morons who follow a gun-toting bimbo from Wasilla so stupid she lets her Downs Syndrome baby live – instead of showing her intelligence by wasting the little shit during third trimester. (And if it’s still breathing afterwards, she’ll show her Harvard smarts by denying it medical aid four times in a row.)
You know, it’s amazing how you can grasp the damage that comes if we dislike the press, yet NOT grasp the damage done if the press dislikes us. My God, Matt – look at how we’ve reacted to the press contempt. How can you not see it? The Times is bleeding red ink and in hock to a sleazy Mexican, Couric’s ratings are in the toilet, Newsweek is hemmorhaging readers and the LA Times is slashing staff so badly that soon the janitor will be the only one left to type the Op Ed. We’ve done all that – and we’re set to do more damage.
Amazing what a bunch of morons can do when they united for a cause, huh?
Uh, Carolyn, he’s just saying that’s how the media work right now. He’s not saying it’s a good thing. Quite the opposite.
In response to another comment. See in context »Things never to stand between:
1) Mother bear and her cub.
2) Teabagger and his or her indignant outrage.
In response to another comment. See in context »So what is it exactly that you want from the media? First you say that it’s the press’s job to report the truth. Then you complain that it’s not sympathetic to your feelings?
The media did report the truth, and that truth hurts your feelings.
It very much hurts your feelings to see it reported that Palin is an idiot NOT because she didn’t have an abortion but because she can’t answer simple policy questions. Or how she mismanaged her office and her state and left in debt. Or how geographic proximity to Russia counts as foreign policy experience. Or how cutting taxes is supposed to help pay for the wars in which her own son is fighting.
And by the way:
(1) the Special Olympics was founded by Eunice Shriver of the Kennedy family. Name one Republican that has done anything for people with disabilities.
(2) The Economist doesn’t seem to have trouble maintaining and growing its readership.
Lastly, to the admin person at TrueSlant: Can the “call out” button be modified to include the option of calling out people’s idiocy or highlight insightful comments instead?
In response to another comment. See in context »Carolyn, being the intelligent woman you are, I’m sure you realize that print media is suffering, regardless of political bent. Perhaps there is some voting power in your corner, but I’m not convinced you and your people are bringing down newspapers and magazines that are dated in any case. That’s just silly.
And yes, you’re right. All liberals want to kill retarded babies. I just ate one for dinner tonight. Kinda gamey.
In response to another comment. See in context »You gotta soak ‘em in buttermilk to get rid of that. Old liberal hunter tip.
In response to another comment. See in context »i fucking love this forum sometimes…
In response to another comment. See in context »“my jaw muscles don’t work like normal people’s do, ma’am
FREE LYNNDIE ENGLAND”
In response to another comment. See in context »[...] } Matt Taibbi tells Sarah Palin that, yes, the media really are out to get her. But it ain’t just the media. And it ain’t for the reasons she probably thinks. And it [...]
Matt,
It’s time to start exposing the rampant Ibogaine addiction in DC. Call yourself Raoul Duke, get Steadman to draw the pictures, and fear and loathe the hell out of the greedheads.
And I mean that as the highest praise a journalist could get.
Okay, but how about watching the language? Insulting men by comparing them to women–talking about them shaking pom-poms and giving sloppy blowjobs–that woman-hating bullshit is what got Bush elected (because Gore was not an “alpha male”) and got us into Iraq (because anyone who opposed the war was a weak woman) in the first place. You want to be different from the nutcases who owned this country for 8 years, you start by respecting women.
Can I get a ruling from other readers on whether references to “blowjobs” and “cheerleading” are inherently sexist?
It seems to me that these are both activities common to men and women (even George Bush carried pom-poms!). In fact I would even say that there’s something a little weird about being inspired to offense on behalf of women upon hearing the word “blowjob.” Am I missing something?
In response to another comment. See in context »Speaking as a woman but not as a female weathervane, I’m fine with the use of anatomical references. I especially like the judicious use of “twat” when aimed at either sex.
In response to another comment. See in context »Have you ever noticed how men react when their manhood, or even masculinity itself is subjected to slurs and contempt? Let’s just say they don’t usually roll over and present their soft underbellies.
I tend to think of women who go along with sexist, misogynist language as female versions of people like Clarence Thomas, Condaleeza Rice, Michael Steele and Ron Christy. In the black community, I believe they’re sometimes referred to as “house niggers.” It’s kinda sad and embarrassing, especially since I used to go along with it, too–out of a pre-conscious, culturally imbedded need for the approval of my “superiors.”
It’s kind of like those journos who absorb the du jour bias of their bosses. They heedlessly toss their personal and professional integrity and self-respect out of the window, without seeing the long-term trade-off. Open up and swallow, Riggsveda. Enjoy pretending you’re one of the boys while you can. One of these days you’ll start noticing the pungent aftertaste of “the joke’s on you.”
In response to another comment. See in context »And male genitalia is so exalted that calling someone a prick is a compliment.
In response to another comment. See in context »We’re also talking about calling people “pussies”. Between the pussy talk, the blowjob talk, and the cheerleader talk, there’s a lot of woman-bashing in here. I know that at this point sexism has pretty much infected the political discourse so that the best way to win an argument is to compare the other side to weak women…but it’s something that has to stop.
In response to another comment. See in context »What are “conversations you’ll never have with The English” for £1,000 Alex, you cunt?
In response to another comment. See in context »expat, I’m responding to your comment about the horrible insult of being called a ‘dick” vs. being called a “pussy.” If you actually need it spelled out for you, “dick” is an insult that implies dominance, control and aggression. Pussy is an insult that implies passivity, weakness and receptivity. Which insult would incite you to thoughts, if not actions, of violence and revenge? Which insult would be more terrifying?
In response to another comment. See in context »Thanks, ryang. I’m right here with you, shoulder to shoulder.
In response to another comment. See in context »I think that both sexes perform blowjobs – not that it matters I think that “giving a blowjob” has a slight implication of sexual servitude. note Im not a sociologist.
Anyway we are taking it up the ass from banks that’s what is important – not the blowjobs….
In response to another comment. See in context »Jesus christ, you have to warn a man before you type something like that. I almost spit Coke all over my laptop.
In response to another comment. See in context »Coke is the drink of the death squads.
In response to another comment. See in context »hugely, you’re absolutely right. Sexism and misogyny are always relegated to the bottom of the priority list of “important” issues. I would re-frame that as “impotent” issues.
In response to another comment. See in context »Slight implication of sexual servitude? C’mon, admit it. If you suggested to any insecure male that he should “suck my dick,” you’d be inviting physical violence. Insecure males do not take kindly to the implications of such notions.
In response to another comment. See in context »You’ve been back in the country just long enough to let the American hypersensitivity to all ethnic and gender variations start to worry you, Matt. Channel your time back in places where they real problems to worry about.
By the way, Erica Jong called and she wants you to stop sending her naked pictures of your mother.
In response to another comment. See in context »bj’s and cheerleading are gender-free enthusiasms,bless them.
In response to another comment. See in context »billymac, you seem to be suggesting that administering blow jobs and shaking your pom poms are activities for self-respecting heterosexual alpha males. I’m fascinated, and you have my absolute attention. Have things changed this much since I last bothered to notice?
In response to another comment. See in context »Taibbi, don’t let ‘em make you second guess yourself. The day you become sexist i’ll report you to GloriaSteinem.org myself.
Besides, if the Bush admin disrespected anything it wasn’t women, it was the frigging US Constitution.
In response to another comment. See in context »Good for you, andygeiger, never second guess yourself. Always assume you are absolutely right. You go, girl.
In response to another comment. See in context »What I like about you, Matt, is that you are universally snarky to men and women alike. So, as one of your female readers, I don’t think the BJ and pom-pom references were particularly sexist. What’s sexist is when women are not given their due and addressed respectfully: how often have we seen our Secretary of State (and former presidential candidate) addressed as Hillary, and not as Ms. Clinton or just Clinton? It’s true of women athletes, too, as though their toughness on the playing field (or in public office) has to be toned down with a personal reference. Heaven forbid we should have strong women in positions of power or demonstrable competence.
In response to another comment. See in context »No, Matt – you’re not missing anything. Take it from me, if a female is going to get her panties in a twist over the word ‘cheerleading’, screw her (uh, I mean that in the metaphorical sense, you understand). A woman that thin-skinned is beyond redemption. She’s nothing but a chip on the shoulder looking for someone to hammer. You’ll never win so don’t waste your precious time trying. Just get on with your eloquence and let her deal with it.
As for blowjob? Yes, frankly, it IS ‘weird’ if someone objects to the single most accurate way to describe what Congress just did to Wall Street (and what the press is still doing to Obama). I’ve thumbed through Websters and I can’t find a better one. Go with it.
In response to another comment. See in context »In searching for a way to agree with you, I found one thing. It’s very true that being a woman requires a very thick skin. The problem is, men like us soft and vulnerable. Oh, the contradictions and trade-offs.
In response to another comment. See in context »I’m a woman and I was not offended. I actually laughed my ass off. People, grow a sense of humor already.
In response to another comment. See in context »Very entertaining, all this shuck’n’ ‘n’ jivin’. Someday you’ll probably be embarrassed that you went along with it. Until then, try to stay awake.
In response to another comment. See in context »I rule no.
In response to another comment. See in context »Can’t say that references like “blow job” and “cheerleading” are sexist. As bad as “pussy” was when it became an epithet, it’s continued use has taken it away from a sexist epithet. That’s a tough one as some people get offended by things like that (ex: “chick” for a woman).
I don’t mind colorful language, although I admit references to violence against another party – male or female – do chap my butt. I don’t like reading or hearing rhetoric that suggests someone should kill themselves or rape someone (ex: “skull fucking” – fortunately not seen here, but heard other places; a comment by a poster I said “wtf” to over a month ago).
In response to another comment. See in context »gypsysister, I do admire your heroic attempts at remaining flexible. Very feminine of you. That’s a compliment.
In response to another comment. See in context »AND Journos are Pussies! Yes, you are definitely sexist boyo.If you use exactly the same degrading (degraded) language that the rest of the population routinely uses you must be sexist. I think your writing style is fine. I think your analysis is intelligent. I think your language choice could sometimes be better, but the only reader of you that I know is myself.
In response to another comment. See in context »I’m a woman and I don’t find those terms sexist or anything. A guy could just as easily be or do either one of those things.
In response to another comment. See in context »So, in your world, administering an anonymous blow job to an anonymous dick would be just fine with you? It would not affect your humanity, self-respect, dignity in any way? That’s OK, I’m just curious and trying to learn the ways of the 21st century world.
In response to another comment. See in context »…and men who shake pompoms and give blowjobs are accorded such respect in this society. Or…maybe not. And maybe the reason they’re not is that those activities are viewed as something women do.
In response to another comment. See in context »As a woman, I can say there is no offense to a blowjob comment.
In response to another comment. See in context »First, let me say I think you are awesome on Bill Maher, I love articles from Rolling Stone that I’ve read from you. I didn’t know about this blog, but I’m glad I saw it on Huffpo. In terms of the media and Sarah. I agree with you to a point, but don’t you think that part of it could be that Obama is smart, and he knows things, and she doesn’t?? Everytime something comes out of her mouth it is either a lie and she knows it, or she just really doesn’t know shit. I’m not sure what it is. I think the media does have to fact check her, especially since her followers think the Earth is flat, and WMD’s were found in Iraq. I think letting her lies get out of hand could be very dangerous to Obama and his family, because Sarah is not only stupid, she is dangerous…and she is packing heat. (not that she would do the actual dirty work those morons pray for) but you get what I’m saying.
proudlib, I won’t judge the life experience that made you decide that Matt’s language is not sexist, even though I disagree. Aside from your first sentence, I agree with everything you said about Sarah.
In response to another comment. See in context »Matt:
Unfortunately I do think you are missing something, along with a lot of other commenters. It isn’t the blow jobs and chearleading it is the context of the insults. The entire article is laced with pussy, you call out the female reporters for swooning, but nothing about the male reporters. It is the overall tone of the article.
Perhaps there is some sensitivity on the reader’s part, but think about this: Every time a woman goes to a sporting event from pee wee football to professional basketball she has to listen to men hurl insults based on feminine or female attributes. At work in, the media, on television, and even at home for girls with brothers this is a constant: if men (and many women) want to convey weakness they use some sort of comparison to women – from “V” last episode something like “You always let your girlfriend do your fighting?” to a guy that didn’t want to fight and his male friend stepped in. That is just off the top of my head.
So yeah, when an article uses slang for female body parts to communicate weakness, and sexual acts that are inherently submissive and usually performed by a woman to imply weakness it is insulting to women.
In response to another comment. See in context »Both terms are not only omni-sexual, they’re ambidestrous. However, when modified by “sloppy,” “blowjob” might indicate a particular gender reference, determined, of course, by the reader’s experience.
In response to another comment. See in context »Looks like everyone decided to circle the wagons on this one and get hyperliteral re: blowjobs and “shaking pom-poms”. I don’t think I should have to actually explain, but the fact that a guy can administer a blowjob or shake pom-poms doesn’t make the language any less sexist. Both are seen as womanly pursuits that diminish a guy when a guy does them. Because the guy is acting like a woman.
Look what’s in this column–Matt’s calling people pussies, he’s talking about women in the press corps “chirping” like high school girls when Obama comes back to talk to them, he’s talking about the media “shaking pom-poms,” which is much more evocative than “cheerleading,” which I never said was sexist, and he’s talking about the media giving big, sloppy blowjobs. He’s insulting the media by comparing the behavior of the media to a woman’s behavior.
And if you don’t see how this playground bullshit is damaging, you must not be familiar with the phrases “wimp factor” (as applied to Bush Sr.), “alpha male” (as applied to Al Gore), “Breck girl” (as applied to John Edwards), “Suck. On. This.” (as applied to the entire citizenry of Iraq), and “Obambi” (as applied to Obama), to name just a few. The prime motivating factor behind most contemporary politicians’ actions is to prove with their every declaration and vote that they are not a woman. And that usually translates into more war, less assistance for those who need it, and more Stupak amendments.
So if you buy into the “women are bad” thing, you’re buying into plank #1 of the republican platform, from which the rest of the evil springs.
And if you think by pointing this out I’m being overly sensitive (code for “womanly”)…I’ve got no problem with that.
In response to another comment. See in context »I think this discussion reveals that everyone has limits and the limits vary.
Some men can have conversations with me that reek of sexist language and I’ll joke along, whereas others can step into that arena and I’ll take offense. Certain words (cunt) always trigger an offense from me (well, almost always). One old fart I worked with referred to me as baby and the “ew!” factor of his mild flirtation resulted in an “I’m not your baby” from me. Had the same thing come from a friend of mine, I might have flirted back or come up with a sarcastic response leading us down the road to doing the dozens.
Even as I eschew violent references toward others, something more vague and decidedly satirical – a la Swift’s “A Modest Proposal” – makes me laugh. Taylor and expat’s exchange above was funny to me, and I was a little bummed that they beat me to the mark.
So again, every one has a threshold. It could depend on your area of expertise, your life experiences, and/or where you live. I dare say that living in an overpopulated metropolitan area tends to amp up your rhetoric, and Matt’s in the Manhattan area. jdinsmore’s comment below pretty much sums it up.
In response to another comment. See in context »Bambi is a boy.
In response to another comment. See in context »I mean Bambi is a male deer, of course.
In response to another comment. See in context »What’s your point? Answer this question. At what age would Bambi have been subjected to ridicule, bullying and hazing for not being sufficiently “masculine”? Three months? Six months? One year?
In response to another comment. See in context »No, I think you’re exactly right.
Since learning that George was a cheerleader all those horrific years ago, I cannot hear that word without seeing him in my mind’s eye, skirt all flying up perky and all, “R-O-W-D-I-E, that’s the way we spell row-die! Row-die, Let’s get Rowdie!”
I don’t actually think that that IS the way we spell rowdy, but it must be the way We do.
Sloppy blow-jobs are only done by non-women. Women are tidy. Hello?
Taibbi, you are my favorite. Give ‘em hell!
In response to another comment. See in context »No Matt,
There was nothing sexist about your language. Most scholars who study linguistics would probably say that such terms and not “identity terms” in regards to gender or sex.
Second, isn’t it funny when people can’t refute “what” you said, they always resort to refuting “how” you said it?
Anyone in academia who studies media, such as myself, can tell you that your analysis fits in nicely with political economy and cultural studies of media institutions.
Nicely done!
In response to another comment. See in context »So your study of media scratched the surface. Good for you. Now go back and start actually thinking of the deeper systemic implications.
In response to another comment. See in context »Of course those things aren’t sexist. They are blunt instruments that are intended to get across a certain image that is fully necessary.
In response to another comment. See in context »Yup. Put her in her place. Right, Otto?
In response to another comment. See in context »Depends on generation and political leaning.
In response to another comment. See in context »Now, I’m a woman and I don’t think it’s sexist to use the term blowjob to indicate sucking up, pardon the pun. Men can also give blowjobs. In fact, could these people crying sexism be homophobic?
In response to another comment. See in context »Here’s the thing jnurbanski, NO. People who abhor sexism and misogyny are usually stalwart supporters of LGBT issues. We understand that homophobes are terrified, and therefore hate, anything that allows the exalted white, heterosexual male to be diluted in any way. Except, of course, their sad, secret, anonymous affairs in airport lavatories or Catholic sanctuaries. Always remember, “I love my wife, I am not gay!” Pathetic. They don’t get the concept of “born free.”
Please try again.
In response to another comment. See in context »Blowjobs: not sexist, but wonderful
In response to another comment. See in context »Cheerleading: festive and inspiring
I don’t think it’s sexist – especially in context: not some lady giving metaphorical blowjobs, but the press corps giving them to Obama.
Sexism, in my view, is more along the lines of calling someone a ‘gossip queen’ or a ’she devil’ or a ‘media diva’. A subtle racist equivalent might be praising your audience as ‘hard working white Americans’.
To be sexist, it really has to conjure up (whether implicitly or explicitly) stereotypes that lump together an oppressed group with some terrible label, which neither cheerleading nor blowjobs does on its own. Just my 2 cents.
In response to another comment. See in context »Re ‘blowjobs’ and ‘cheerleading’= sexist.
In response to another comment. See in context »I think you are on safe ground. Since three of the four orientations enjoy the former, and four of four can engage in the latter. I think your reference can be considered as gender non specific. That is how I read it, without a second thought till I read your request for a ruling. Also Rolling Stone came in the mail today, I’ve read your piece once, and will read it again tomorrow.
In short, though I get the feeling we have been punked. I never would have thought my hope for this president would have atrofied in 10 months.
If you need to ask, then the answer isn’t going to do you any good.
In response to another comment. See in context »angie, Although I share your impulse to make that assumption, I insist on giving Matt credit for asking. We must take what we can get. The usual knee-jerk response is to attack, and engage the mob mentality.
In response to another comment. See in context »Matt,
Far as I know both activities have been unisex for a long time. I took two years of Cultural Anthropology, so I think that qualifies me as an expert on blow jobs. Its no more sexist than ass sex. Keep up the good work, and maintain your voice despite the philistines.
In response to another comment. See in context »It’s a great analogy! That was one of my favorite lines in the post. (The other one was “It means that all five of the families have given the okay to this hit job”). Don’t give up the colorful stuff because some Victorian American prudes can’t handle hard language (by the way, it was a sloppy blowjob “on the air”, not a sloppy blowjob.) . Let the prudes read Newsweek. We read your stuff because we are sick of that shit.
In response to another comment. See in context »So decrying sexism demonstrates a Victorian sensibility? Think you’ve got that one backwards.
In response to another comment. See in context »Coming from you, it’s a non-issue. In fact, that’s the kind of open, direct, and robust communication I expect from you – hence, I am subscribing to T/S. Let’s not over-react to it.
In response to another comment. See in context »Speaking as a woman, I don’t think you’re out of line. I have used, and continue to use, those exact phrases, and some others which aren’t so polite.
Pearl-clutching is dull and beside the point.
In response to another comment. See in context »That means reinforcing centuries-old gender stereotypes must be fresh and exciting!
In response to another comment. See in context »Yea Matt, please keep talking about sloppy blowjobs and pom-poms. I’m not offended in the least! I’m a woman and have no problem with it!
In response to another comment. See in context »I don’t think cheerleader or blow job is sexist. But what I do think is funny is how everyone, I mean everyone, uses the word pussy to represent something weak. To be anatomically correct the balls are much weaker and more sensitive and thus should be the sex organ called out for being something soft. The entire reproductive female system, including the pussy, is made for endurance and making, incubating and deliving human beings into this world. Pretty powerful stuff to me!!
In response to another comment. See in context »Well said, evamarie. I appreciate your comments because I’m fed up with the absurdity of sexist language. If all things masculine were so inherently superior, the world wouldn’t be the mess it is today.
In response to another comment. See in context »“Can I get a ruling from other readers on whether references to “blowjobs” and “cheerleading” are inherently sexist?
It seems to me that these are both activities common to men and women (even George Bush carried pom-poms!). In fact I would even say that there’s something a little weird about being inspired to offense on behalf of women upon hearing the word “blowjob.” Am I missing something?”
My take on this, as someone who notices usage to–said to provide context, is that many men and women, and boys and girls,cheerlead and blow. I even give “pussies” a pass, because the history of it is “pussycat”–rather like the anatomy it references.
Above all, I really hate contrived language as much as I hate sexist language. I mean, most of us use “fuck” to curse the worst, but we all still love to do it–right?
In response to another comment. See in context »This is interesting. I’d like to know how you juggle the cognitive dissonance of “fucK” simultaneously expressing the worst and the best. Also, would you please provide peer reviewed documentation of your point about the benign nature of sexist language? I’m a life-long learner.
In response to another comment. See in context »Matt, I feel qualified* to give you an authoritative ruling on whether your references to “cheerleading” and “blowjobs” were sexist. Although I am a die-hard feminist, I read this post without offence. You are correct, plenty of metaphorical blowjobs were given to then candidate Obama by MSM members and pundits of both sexes. Blowjobs, in general, are hardly the province solely of women. As if men don’t give men plenty of actual blowjobs!
As for the cheerleading, growing up in Texas most of our cheerleaders were female. However, when I went back to my old high school recently I was surprised to see that the student council booth was “manned” exclusively by cheerleaders (of the female variety). This never would have been the case twenty years ago. In another twenty years the government may well be run by smart, fierce, perky females.
I’ve been reading your exposes of Goldman Sachs avidly and linked to this post on Sarah Palin interested to see if you could handle the subject fairly. Your take on her marginalization by her own party reveals a suppleness of mind I should have expected based on your RS work but somehow missed because I assumed you were some kind of “wunderkind”/asshole ala Andrew Sullivan or speechwriter Jon Favreau. (I was btw laughing my ass off earlier at a huffpo blurb expressing surprise that Favreau went to the State dinner dateless. Shocking! HaHaHa. ) Please don’t mention yourself in the same breath with Andrew Sullivan. He is a rabid mysoginist posing as a journalist and you are a rational thinker and a fearless, albeit slightly partisan, muckraker.
Kudos,
Lore
*(Full Disclosure : I am a recovering life long Democrat, Full on Feminist, Mostly Expat, Formerly Catholic school girl, with a major in Economics and minor in Blow Jobs).
In response to another comment. See in context »“Cheerleading” and “Blowjobs” are not sexist unless you ignore the fact that Bush was a cheerleader at Yale and believe that men can’t give other men blowjobs.
In response to another comment. See in context »“Can I get a ruling from other readers on whether references to “blowjobs” and “cheerleading” are inherently sexist?”
I am female and I don’t think it is. It’s appropriate to the situation. Your style makes things much more interesting than some aimless wandering PC piece that might eventually make the same point. When it comes to the MSM, “blowjobs” and “cheerleading” are relatively mild.
“…rapidly transitioning you from your previous political kingmaking role in the real world to a new role as a giant captive entertainment demographic that exists solely to be manipulated for ratings and ad revenue.”
Yep,that’s the way of it.
BCB
In response to another comment. See in context »I see your point. There’s absolutely no way Matt could have written an interesting piece without insulting women. Wait, uh…maybe I don’t see your point.
In response to another comment. See in context »Yup.
In response to another comment. See in context »I dunno about blowjobs and cheerleading being sexists unless you don’t have any gay readers….or George W. Bush, former Yalie Cheerleader on board.
In response to another comment. See in context »Matt,
Enjoy you on Imus, but you’re too easy on GOP hacks. The hypocrisy of the Tim LeHaye-Rapture wing of the Republican Party should bring out spewings like Hunter T. used to make about Poppy Bush:
“It is diffcult for the ordinary voter to come to grips with the notion that a truly evil man, a truthless monster with the brains of a king rat and the soul of a cockroach is about to be sworn in..”
OK you come close, but you realllllly have to get mad-these people are destroying everything the Founding Fathers stood for.
Of course we love Obama but now he is enabling them.
Stop your polyanna whining and really attack the bastards before Palin rules the planet.
If you need help with your anger let me know. I’ve been fighting those creeps since Bobby and Martin died.
Lee
P.S. As an actuary I was impressed with your expose’ on mortgage backed securities.
In response to another comment. See in context »Context is everything, Matt. Your use of these terms is fine in this context.
In response to another comment. See in context »I don’t find your language sexist in the least. As a matter of fact, part of the reason I enjoy your work is your no holds barred, balls-out writing. Your words paint the picture in my head (dirty as it may be, I get the idea).
What I do find sexist is the idea that pom poms, cheerleading and sloppy blowjobs refers only to women. It is “Insulting men by comparing them to women…”? Guess what. Women have been compared to men for eons. Strong women are constantly barraged with jokes about the size of their “balls”. While Palin may be a bulldog in lipstick, you can bet your ass that she was compared to all the swinging dicks on Capitol Hill. Yet women are supposed to take that as a compliment while men whimper in fear at the thought of a sloppy blowjob from another man (with your eyes closed, how would you know??).
THIS is what pisses me off about American readers – the finger pointing over innocuous verbiage that really has nothing to do with the bigger picture.
In response to another comment. See in context »Matt – You rock, and your salty language is just fine. Don’t back off, bro. Keep on laying it down exactly like you feel it. You’re one of the best we got.
And anyone who doesn’t like cheerleaders and blowjobs is just downright un-American. So there.
In response to another comment. See in context »As a happily-married male with two college-aged children I am totally in favor of the blowjob.
Thank you for your attention
In response to another comment. See in context »Um, I don’t find the terms “blow job” or “cheer leading” inherently sexist at all. Like you wrote, both genders participate in both activities…I think the commenter is more sexist in the interpretation. My 2 cents.
http://www.thehamandlegsshow.com
In response to another comment. See in context »Ryang, I appreciate your sensitivities, but asking Taibbi be more genteel is like asking Britney Spears to sing an aria on her next album–it’s not who they are or what they do. Though, in both cases, there are a gazillion other people who do provide the product you seek.
In response to another comment. See in context »I’m not asking him to be more genteel, I’m asking him to be less sexist. If you’re going to make excuses for his sexism, be intellectually honest with yourself and call it sexism. I could give two craps if he says shit or fuck or uses hilariously outlandish metaphors to tackle seemingly dry subjects or any of that other “as a writer and a liberal I’m insecure about my masculinity so I write like Hunter S. Thompson” stuff.
In response to another comment. See in context »ryang — are you kidding me? Women hating is what got us Obama too.
In response to another comment. See in context »I think that many of the readers are pretty limited in their scope. They seem to attribute all blow jobs to women. And well. I am sure that there are many men who give great blow jobs. As a matter of fact I remember Chris Matthews giving then candidate Obama a sloppy blow job by saying “A thrill went up my leg” after an Obama speech. So I didn’t attribute blowjobs to women at all. Matt I’m sure you like blowjobs, but I’m guessing not sloppy ones huh? LOL
The imagery of pom-poms reminds me that George W. Bush was a cheerleader. I think we need to climb out of our little boxes and stop taking everything that people say as sexist. As a woman, I know many women who hate this word, but my favorite word when referring to Sarah Palin is…… cunt!
In response to another comment. See in context »Matt,
How’s about you tell us what’s wrong with having people in the media vet candidates? Most of us who are not in the position to “ride the plane” with the candidates themselves have to depend on someone to do it, why not the “media”? It used to be the editorial board of the local paper.
You’ve got a better way for us to vet national candidates, I’d like to hear it.
The thing is, thanks to technology the media is getting closer to us all the time. Look at me, I’m actually asking one a question!
Matt, I don’t disagree with anything you wrote, but I think there is more to the story. The intense party identification by most Americans is a huge problem. Americans approach our system of governance as if it were the Alabama-Auburn football game, or Ohio State-Michigan. They wear the psychic equivalent of team sweatshirts and car flags and license plates. They care only about winning the game against their bitter rival; already we hear about the 2010 and 2012 elections. All of this gives them a very strong sense of belonging.
If the NCAA followed the poltical model, this year’s national championship game would be Army vs. Notre Dame, and the alumni of both schools would write the game rules and officiate all games played every season.
I voted for Obama and am thus far very disappointed in his performance (hiring tax cheats and lobbyists when he campaigned on changing the way Washington worked, reneged on his campaign promise not to force citizens to buy health insurance, has done nothing to address the “carried interest” tax loophole on hedge funds). When I voice my discontent, Obama supporters get angry at *me*. It’s as if by criticizing Obama, I am praising Republicans. It’s twisted, but it’s also something that, I’m convinced, is never going to change.
I am still hopeful progress can be made to ride our financial system of some of the corruption. Republican and Democratic voters both can agree that theft is wrong. (Regarding Jamie Dimon, the big sloppy love he gets from CNBC and Charlie Gasparino’s new book is deserving of an X-rating.)
Maybe you can take comfort in the fact that desperate situations require desperate measures, being president is the most complex job with more numerous shades of gray than any other job in the world, and…it takes a thief to catch a thief?
In response to another comment. See in context »(See: FDR, Joseph P. Kennedy and SEC.)
cruss
In response to another comment. See in context »It took you a little longer to say it but you touched on what I consider the big problem in America today- we have too many “fans”- “fans” are terrible people- they never use their brain and their team is always right- it’s the officials or the other team is cheating but their team (in this case- republicans) is always right- even when the proof that THEY AREN’T IS ON TAPE. So many of these “fans” joined the Republican team shortly after the Civil Rights Bills were passed so for over 40+ years they have been voting against their own best interests and blaming the Democrats for their problems. In their bizarro world the bell curve has a huge hump to the left of what should be the center line. I don’t see any solution to this problem since blacks and Hispanics are not going to be decreasing in numbers(the main issue for the “fans”)- one solution might be to sterilize these “fans” but it will be another 40+ years before there % of the gene pool is on a par with American Indians. Then things will be nice again.
This reminds me of a picture of a tea-partier I found, where, on top of his “Don’t tread on me” flag he had a conflicting Confederate flag. And on top of that, a Georgia bulldog’s flag. I saved it to my hard drive as “America.jpg”.
In response to another comment. See in context »[...] Funny and insightful. Posted by Merwin Filed in Uncategorized Leave a Comment » [...]
[...] PDRTJS_settings_709279_post_1242 = { "id" : "709279", "unique_id" : "wp-post-1242", "title" : "C-o-n…Spiracy", "item_id" : "_post_1242", "permalink" : "http%3A%2F%2Fibwblog.wordpress.com%2F2009%2F11%2F24%2Fc-o-n-spiracy%2F" } Matt Taibbi really is today’s must read. [...]
[...] I think Matt Taibbi is wrong about how the press treated Hillary about her Iraq vote (I think they went easy on her), but there’s a lot of win in this piece: [...]
First time reading you’re blog Matt, really enjoyed it. The use of profanity really throws some humor in to political discussion.
As the saying goes you catch more bees with honey than vinegar. She continues to attack the media and is surprised when they treat her like shit back. Stop whining and own up to the problems you created. It just dumbfounds me to think that people ACTUALLY think this woman could be ANY kind of competent.
I also find it funny that her new book is called “Going Rogue.” Because, you know your “Going Rogue” when your social and religious beliefs match those that existed in pre-20th century America. It should actually be called “Going Old” to match her warped, dangerous mindset. Sadly, only the Taliban now share her fervor in trying to return us to the stone age.
[...] find Matt Taibbi to be one of the most insightful writers around. He hits the nail on the head here about where political discourse is in our country today, and at the same time pounds Sarah Palin into the [...]
Excellent, Matt, thank you for this. You had me until you included Sullivan in the rational/smart aleck group with you and Greenwald. Crazy Andy is in fact the very model of the flip-flopping, power-worshiping, which-way-is-the-wind-blowing-today bootlicker you otherwise so righteously skewer.
He gotcha there, Matt: Andrew Sullivan, expeditor for Betsy McCaughey’s redrum dance on the corpse of Hillarycare, best boy for Marty “Likud Liberal” Peretz. Not fit company for you or Greenwald.
In response to another comment. See in context »Matt, the picture you describe is all too plausible and even familiar to anyone keeping up with Media, but I must disagree with you on one thing: the treatment of Palin DURING the election.
I agree that Palin is NOW being virtually lampooned by everyone except FOX, where the criticism is merely insinuated, if at all. (Nonetheless, I was amazed to see a faint, very faint, glimmer of disgust cross Bill O’Reilly’s face as he listened to her screed against the “Gotcha Media” in his recent interview of her.)
However, during the election the MSM was literally fawning all over the hot candidate, who was even crowned the “energy expert” ..ostensibly because she was from Alaska, where there is an oil pipeline… and a bird’s eye view of Russia?? She was spoken of in almost reverent tones across the dial. Instead of harboring such an obsessive hatred of Katie Couric (who apparently IS the center of Palin’s universe), Palin should be grateful she was asked only softball questions. Who can’t describe what they read that forms their opionion? Apparaently only Sarah Palin. Even Gwen Ifill let her get away with the most arrogant display of willfullness during a VP debate. I know the bar was low, but it was still a major election. The fact that there were a few unpleasant, but factually true, issues discussed by the media, isn’t the same thing as having been targeted by the media.
If not for the “pajama-wearing, basement-dwelling” bloggers, we would not have known ANYTHING about this woman. And, truthfully, the less than savoury details of the Palin family drama were only discussed on these blogs. I should know. I’m a news junkie and I only read those details on the Alaska blogs.
We’ve already got the Ex-Gov rewriting history in her “autobiography,” don’t accomodate her self-victimizing memory by pretending she’s been ridden hard since she came out of the gate. It simply isn’t true.
Matt, I could not agree with you more!
I find that it’s a personal issue and price to pay for being on any blog. One must grow another layer of skin because even “sweet nothings” fail to flatter everyone. LOL!
There are seriously dangerous and disgustingly offensive language use in blogs of those on deflated right-wing-sites coupled with the Rush and Beck’s…
Your point and sentiments in this piece were a fluid and fluent use of “YOUR” First Amendment Right!
You nail it every time, Matt!
Just found this site. I loved your article. Can’t wait to read more.
[...] I was reading a really interesting article by Matt Taibbi on a completely unrelated topic. It is talking about Sarah Palin and her relationship to the media. ( If you find non fat politics [...]
[...] Sarah, there is a media conspiracy Posted on November 24, 2009 by myiq2xu Matt Taibbi Matt Taibbi mostly talks about the media conspiracy against Sarah Palin, but I want to focus on another part of [...]
[...] between the press and Palin, and Matt Taibbi — no fan of Palin himself — has another take on the relationship, arguing that there is a media [...]
My only quibble is with the the apparent assumption that Palin is out for good.
A decade ago, I would have thought that at least the Chamber of Commerce wing of their party would veto anyone like Sarah as their candidate, and that that element of their coalition, at least, would keep them all on enough of a reality track that her current discredited status could not later be repudiated. But I think that Dubyanomics and the events of the 2008 financial crisis have pretty much demonstrated that even the big business wing of their party is drunk on the wine of fundamentalist religion — free market fundamentalism in their case, rather than Christian fundamentalism. I wouldn’t count on them keeping anyone sane and sober any more. Their Congressional leadership, after all, officiated at that teabagging “press conference” a few weeks ago.
And for her particular schtick, the present universal scorn is not at all a refutation that would in any way hinder a comeback when needed, in 2012. It’s a martyrdom at the hands of the elites, and yes, the elites of the Republican Party are as handy a target for this sort of demagoguery as any other, and no, the utter shamelessness of those Republican Party elites using that demagoguery directed at themselves, to win another election, will not be at all a hindrance to its deployment in 2012.
I’m not saying that she’s going to be their nominee. I’m saying that her current status as a laughingstock (a status once shared by that B movie actor whose most famous gig was shilling for 20 Mule Team Borax) faux populist media event will not be a hindrance to her selection if faux populism is what the Party feels will best serve it in 2012. If the economy is still doing really badly, they’ll probably play it more safe, go with someone who won’t frighten the conventional undecideds too much, and count on the bad economy to give them enough of these midde of the road voters to win. But if it isn’t so bad, and Obama will be able to claim enough success that the middle of the roaders won’t desert him in sufficient numbers, then I would expect them to be more adventurous and desperate, and roll the dice on a potential game changer, someone able to get victims of the economy, natural Dem voters, to vote instead for faux populism and trumped up, hysterical, economic doomsmanship. If that’s to be their play, if they go for a base-stealing (remember those Reagan Democrats?) rather than a swing voter strategy, they can’t make the message subtle and conventional, and Palin’s present pariah status would be perfect as the way to convey that message. Sure, they might be able to dig up a better pariah by then — a lot can happen in 3 years — but right now, a Palin/Beck or Palin/Dobbs ticket would arguably be their best implementation of that strategy.
what, no Palin/Bachman???
;~)
In response to another comment. See in context »Bachmann’s too elite, too inside-the-beltway. Besides, we guys need at least a token male on the ticket, or our testosterone levels will drop too far, and God knows where that will lead.
In response to another comment. See in context »>”Bachmann’s too elite”
OMG – there’s a sad statement right there! That this crazed politician is too elite for Palin, while probably true, is telling and disturbing.
In response to another comment. See in context »Hey Matt, for whatever its worth, with this post you earned a reader for life.
[...] I’d be doing you a disservice if I didn’t remind you that the best thing to do is go read the whole thing – Taibbi’s mastery of language is wonderful to read – but I just had to pull out [...]
Matt,
I don’t think references to bj’s and pom-poms are inherently sexist and neither really was the usage of them. I’m a woman and honestly…I laughed out loud when I read both lines because they were…funny…and appropriately described the fawning over Obama and the mindless approach reporting took on the build up to the Iraq war.
Matt, you are beyond a breath of fresh air in the cluttered and biased world of media reportage. Keep it up with the unique analogies. Gees, am I starting to sound like a sloppy blowjob???
[...] UPDATE: Any person, such as Matt Taibbi, who begins an ostensible “concern-trolling” article with Just to get this out of the [...]
[...] Media…Always Picking On Our Sweet Sarah: Matt Taibbi takes an excellent look at the claims that Sarah Palin is the victim of some “media conspiracy,” or that the [...]
[...] then yesterday came a response post, Yes Sarah, There is a Media Conspiracy: The political media has always taken it upon itself to make decisions about who is and who is not [...]
[...] could be better than Matt Taibbi who has a fairly good grasp of the lexicon of political hate. The whole story is worth reading, but have a taste of some of its juicier [...]
I enjoy your appearances on Bill Maher and just discovered your blog via Huffpost. Great article and I look forward to reading more.
RE: “blowjobs” and pom-poms” and cheerleaders –
Blowjob is not sexist. Both genders perform them and as far as “sloppy” is concerned…well, suffice it to say it is or can be sloppy for both parties.
Pom-poms – cheerleaders – although many high schools and colleges added male cheerleaders to their female squads, the terms still refer more to women than men. However, neither word is gender specific in the nomenclature such as the words “chairman” or “chairwoman” are so stricly speaking, an argument could be made either way. Having said that, anyone who reads those words instantly understands the message they convey. They are descriptively derogatory so an argument can also be made saying these terms necessarily refer to women specifically, but the usage has become so commonplace most people do not object. Afterall, we call lame men “weak dicks” and more so why get bent over these terms?
Yes, please stop with the potty mouth. You may be able to get a job someday as a writer if you can write as clearly and interestingly as the Smith section of the phone book. Now excuse me while I get a tissue…
Nobody had to crawl up anything re: Palin. She’s the one who pushed the button of the express elevator to the top. It wasn’t the press that made any of her disjointed noise fly out of her mouth.
When all the nonsense is put aside, Americans have this deep-seated sense of fairness and merit. VP, despite the knuckleheads who may have held the office, or its exchange rate in warm spit, is a pretty serious job these days. All anyone had to do was listen and come to the conclusion, even if you had to hypnotize them for an honest answer,
that no way did Ms. Palin even come close to being up to the job. Then John McCain and the GOP and the deluded Sarah herself tried to get us and the media to say ‘way’.
Bush 2 rode in on a lot of good will engendered by Bush 1 and his network. Unlike 2000, Clinton left us a tad better off,we weren’t in calamity, so what the heck.
But W imploded and why wouldn’t the press turn on him-isn’t that just reporting it like it is?
Trouble is, we once had margin. Lots of it.
It’s dwindling if not gone entirely. We have
serious issues that require serious solutions.
We’ve got a lot of bowing to do-thanks to Cheney and co. leaving us in a permanent bow preceded by the swagger. And we’re broke.
We’re running out of margin=we can’t afford the Palins or the spin or the silliness. (The printed newspapers we read used to have a lot bigger margins too!)
We just can’t afford stupid anymore.
Errata:
In response to another comment. See in context »I meant ‘2008′ not ‘2000′.
The right’s hatred of the media is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Conservatives call the media liberal and evil, the media responds by covering them negatively and the conservatives use the response as proof of their thesis. This is exactly what happened with Palin, except she was actually given a chance to prove she had a brain by Gibson and Couric and she failed miserably.
As for her coverage, when emails start circulating about Palin being a secret Muslim terrorist who wants to teach kindergartners about sex, maybe her supporters will have a leg to stand on as far as her criticism being unprecedented.
[...] Okay? What the people who are flipping out about the treatment of Palin should be asking themselves is what it means when it’s not just jerks like us but everybody piling on against Palin. For those of you who can’t connect the dots, I’ll tell you what it means. It means she’s been cut loose. It means that all five of the families have given the okay to this hit job, including even the mainstream Republican leaders. You teabaggers are in the process of being marginalized by your own ostensible party leaders in exactly the same way the anti-war crowd was abandoned by the Democratic party elders in the earlier part of this decade. Like the antiwar left, you have been deemed a threat to your own party’s “winnability.” [...]
Hi Matt,
I’m a 52-year-old mother of three sons, Sunday School teacher, proud feminist,the whole bit and no, I don’t think using the the phrase “blow job” is sexist. I don’t really have a problem with the use of the word “pussy” as long as you also call people dicks as an occasional counterweight for equality’s sake.
The “C” word, however, is very bad, so don’t ever try that one in print or the moms will come and kick your ass. Big-time.
By the way, I spent years as a reporter for a big media company and your description of the political press as “spineless dweebs who went to all the best schools and made it to that privileged seat inside the campaign-trail ropeline by being keenly sensitive to the editorial wishes of their social and professional superiors.” is dead-on.
And of course, I loved the haiku.
Keep up the great work!
Three sons. Are you teaching them to think it’s OK to use language designed to insult and dehumanize women and their bodies in order to score points when they want to insult someone? That wouldn’t be surprising, and you’re not alone. Women are socialized to be the enforcers of the culture. It seems you’ve internalized the the belief that protecting traditional concepts about masculinity is higher in your values hierarchy than your claim to feminism. I guess we all make choices.
In response to another comment. See in context »“Court in session. Prosecutors claim that Taibbi’s nomenclature is sexist. Taibbi claims that this is ridiculous.”
One extremely boring and pedantic case later (with plenty of references to the prosecution’s English literature notes)
“The court has decided that there are more important issues than whether the word ‘blowjob’ is sexist. The court has also decided that anyone talking such crap must be completely disconnnected from any real social and economic issues. The court hands down the sentence of 5 years socio-economic study with no provisions”.
phil87,
That was a pretty big assumption you made. and I’d like to ask you to reconsider.
I have a degree in Community Leadership and Development, a major I chose because of my concern about socio-economic issues. Over the course of my studies, it became clear to me that an underlying reason for the inferior decision-making that created the mess we’re in, is misogyny. This imbedded fear and contempt for women has required our leaders to avoid, at all cost, being called pussies, socialists, bleeding heart liberals, advocates for a nanny state, wimps, girly-men, etc., out of fear of being aligned with anything stinking of “female.” That’s what made it so easy to rape nature (including women), enforce child-bearing while refusing to create systems that would feed, clothe, house, and educate every mother’s child regardless of the father’s social status, wage war for money and resources, engage in genocide, and on, and on, and on, all the way back to blaming Eve for all the woes of mankind, and back further still.
I choose not to believe that Matt, who happens to be someone I admire and appreciate, is a sexist or a misogynist. But too many of his followers seem unwilling to try a little introspection before engaging in a knee-jerk response to defend a questionable strategy. If Matt decided to take a different approach to his writing style, many of his most “loyal” followers would probably abandon him for not standing up to the pc police. He’d be just one more traitor to the cause of manhood as we’ve had it shoved down our throats, along with patriarchal religions, for ages.
I hope you are capable of getting a sliver of a glimmer of why your comment seems so absurd to me.
In response to another comment. See in context »Sarah Palin doesn’t interest me, however, I am admittedly fascinated by the people who believe she is qualified to do anything more than work at a low budget tv news station. How she moved from that job to having a political standing screams volumes about the intelligence of the majority voters in the Alaskan community. Her average follower appears to have been pulled straight from Deliverance.
[...] has two commentaries on the state of media viewed through the prism of the Palin Phenomenon: (1) Yes, Sarah, There is a Media Conspiracy and and (2) “Sarah Palin, WWE Star.” Below is my take on the state of media [...]
“Chortling east coast smartasses?” Is that what they are calling full-blow in-your-face misogyny now days?
Look, I don’t agree with most of Sarah Palin’s policy positions, but the sexism that eminated from the msm against Hillary & Sarah (and from alleged progressives!) last year was shocking. Anyone who can deny that it happened is lying or delusional.
If you are not a feminst, you are not a progressive. And if you have ever called a woman a c*nt, you are not a feminst.
Matt, I am happy that you are confirming what I, at least, already knew. The “elites” decide what is best for the rest of us little people. (And journalists like to pretend they are one of the elites, when really they are lapdogs for them). What I want to know is why they even pretend to have the elections in the first place.
Straight to the point…this is one of the most in-your-face, truthful and entertaining articles I’ve read in ages. Loved it.
Gotta love a completely hijacked topic. I did discover something though. I discovered that, in the grand scheme of things, the use of the words “pussy” and “blowjob” rank low on my list of social concerns.
Everyone wants to change the world, but come on! Its called priorities people. Tell you what. Let’s figure out health care, global warming, poverty, and education. Once we get those taken care of, I’ll personally see to it that Matt never calls anyone a pussy, a cheerleader, or references sloppy blow jobs ever again. Happy now? You’ve effectively killed his love life with your political correctness. Congratulations.
[...] are before the race has even begun, and it always seems to be about who can raise money. At his blog, Matt Tabbi writes thoughtfully about this issue of the way the media caricatures politicians: The political media has always taken [...]
[...] Taibbi is always good for a nice cathartic tirade, and this is a good one, but I really just wanted to post this [...]
Who cares? Why give her publicity, even if it’s negative? In an ideal world, we’d shrug, press mute, and go for a walk. But it’s not an ideal world, and Sarah Palin is the tip of the melting iceberg. As Andrew Sullivan wrote, “I’m in this till it’s over and I get some answers – not because of Palin, but because of what Palin has revealed about the sick state of the American media and political elite.” Sullivan has documented thirty-some odd weird and blatant lies that Sarah has spewed, with more sure to come. Because we Americans flock to what is sensationalist instead of what leads us toward a better realization of our ideals. Our future is being written by the popular jocks instead of the science nerds. As my friend Michael, a highly educated gay man, said, “I can think of dozens of highly talented women that I would trust to lead our country. Sarah Palin? I wouldn’t trust to manage a beauty pageant.”
Since we seem to be stuck with her, all that consoles me is that it will be interesting to see what happens as time unfolds. We can try to look the other way like my friend Heather, a Chicana pursuing her PhD in Mathematics, who tries “not to pay too much attention to politics since there seems to be a positive correlation between how much I know and how high a dosage of Zoloft I need.” Or, we can wonder. Will Palin self-destruct? Will she run in 2012? Will she become a talk show host? Will Sarah, Todd, Bristol, Tripp, Trig, Tangent and Cosine star in the most-watched reality TV series of our time? Stay tuned. Or if you want, tune out. Way, way out.
“As Andrew Sullivan wrote, “I’m in this till it’s over and I get some answers – not because of Palin, but because of what Palin has revealed about the sick state of the American media and political elite.”
That’s classic Sullivan, right there–shifting the blame for his own ever-changing psychotic obsessions onto somebody or something else (”the sick state of the American media”), taking the credit for the actual investigative work and reporting that others are doing on the issue (”until I get some answers”) and then casting himself as the hero for doing it (”I’m in this till it’s over…”). He’s so good at this continuous monodrama of narcissistic triangulation: appropriation, projection, and self-congratulation/victimization that it’s easy to forget he’s a psychopath.
In response to another comment. See in context »Thanks for this, Matt: outstanding, as usual.
And it reminded me of this post from the blog “A Tiny Revolution” back in 2005, making very similar points — and telling the story about how WaPo columnist Richard Cohen confided to a group of Yale undergrads (including the author) that the DC Press Corps quite deliberately made an issue of Gary Hart’s extramarital canoodling, thereby torpedoing his candidacy, because they had decided he was too “weird” and “flaky” to be president:
http://www.tinyrevolution.com/mt/archives/000596.html
Thanks for asking about the misogyny thing, Matt. I completely agree with the comments of ryang.
Just before reading your post about Palin and the media, we were watching you on Dylan Ratigan’s show, and talking about how much we like you and value your perspective. Then I read your Palin thing and cringed my way through it because of the extreme misogyny in your choice of words.
Even though I agreed with your take on the media and the teabaggers, it was really difficult to overlook the way you chose sexist language to berate and ridicule. “Journos are pussies”, “…weepy, unpatriotic pussies…” ? That’s about as unambiguously sexist as it gets. You’re smart enough to understand that you are equating a vulgar term for women’s genitalia with people for whom you feel utter contempt. That hurts, and I’m sad about how this knowledge of the way you think will influence the way I listen to you in the future. Try replacing “pussy” with “nigger,” and I think you’ll get what you’re missing.
It’s ridiculous to suggest that “pussy” and “nigger” are equivalent, given the history of the latter word.
In response to another comment. See in context »Plus, both pussy and dick are words that have entered the vernacular with meanings that are independent of their use in a sexual context. My calling someone a dick (asshole) or pussy (lightweight) is completely different than my asking them to suck my dick or if I may eat their pussy.
I commend you for being sensitive to the history of the word “nigger,” and the role it played in the oppression of black people. By your own standard, please reconsider your conclusion that it is ridiculous to compare a racist word with a sexist word. Until fairly recently, women were considered property, and black men were enfranchised earlier. To this day, women are referred to as body parts, our body parts are used to insult and humiliate both men and women, and we have to deal with the terrorism of rape. Whether you understand it or not, it’s a fair comparison.
In response to another comment. See in context »It’s like living out Twain’s ‘The Diary of Adam and Eve’ in the comments section of a blog.
heh heh: (http://classiclit.about.com/library/bl-etexts/mtwain/bl-mtwain-exadam-1.htm)
that’s some good readin’.
In response to another comment. See in context »If Sarah gives Todd a BJ is that a sexist act? She’s the bread-winning pants-wearer.
The arguement could be made that characterizing “cheerleading” and “blowjobs” as inherently sexist is in fact sexist. Are there not male cheerleaders? Is the concept of the blowjob relegated to heterosexuality?
It’s like the thing where if you’re racially challenged, you just call other people racist. Beck on Bam Bam? Sotomayor confirmation hearings anyone?
Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, the committee’s top Republican: “During a speech 15 years ago, Judge Sotomayor said, ‘I willingly accept we who judge must not deny the difference resulting from experience and heritage, but attempt continuously to judge when those opinions, sympathies and prejudices are appropriate.” And in that same speech she said, ‘My experiences will affect the facts I choose to see.’
“Having tried a lot of cases, that particular phrase bothers me.”
This from the guy that used to be a KKK booster.
from:
http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/closed-sessions?id=8dd230f6-355f-4362-89cc-2c756b9d8102
…It got worse. Another damaging witness–a black former assistant U.S. Attorney in Alabama named Thomas Figures–testified that, during a 1981 murder investigation involving the Ku Klux Klan, Sessions was heard by several colleagues commenting that he “used to think they [the Klan] were OK” until he found out some of them were “pot smokers.” Sessions claimed the comment was clearly said in jest.
It’s always heartwarming to see a prejudice (racism) defeated by an even deeper prejudice
(hatred of hippies)
Kurt out: Got to get the stuffing started.
Right now the Republican establishment has generally held their tongues about Sarah Palin. If she chooses to run for president in 2012, I assure you, the other Republican candidates won’t stop talking about how incompetent, ignorant, and how much of a quitter she is. Right now, they’re letting everyone else say what they’re think about her in the hope that she’ll dig her own grave.
Engaging in any sexual act is not inherently sexist. In fact many sexual acts are wonderfully fun and gratifying. If your question is not rhetorical, just analyze the context for a moment. It probably won’t tax your brain too much. Here’s a little hint. If you’re using the act or the word to degrade or humiliate another person, it might just be sexist and/or misogynist. Hope that helps.
That’s great news that not all sexual acts are inherently degrading and that some are gratifying and fun even! This is going to be the best Thanksgiving ever!
In response to another comment. See in context »now that i’ve just finished laughing my ass off:
have a happy thanksgiving, indeed, sir.
love your work by the way. wonderfully entertaining prose.
i’ve been a huge fan since the “road rage” days back in 2005.
if you feel like answering it:
In response to another comment. See in context »who was the coolest politician you’ve ever had a conversation with?
let me guess: bernie sanders?
In response to another comment. See in context »Matt, I follow your work closely. I will bow to your greater wisdom and agree that when the press decides to eviscerate someone, they are a ruthless, mindless mob. However, Sarah Palin has benefited much more from Press attention than she has suffered hurt.
She is followed and glamorized incessantly. What LOSER of a big election has ever had the half-life she has achieved? In fact, her story only gets bigger. And not because she deserved it or played her hand skilfully or upped her game or learned the ropes better. It is the tabloid/Reality TV/obsessed with a pretty face Soap Opera media has found a new intriguing poor soul to latch onto.
Even if the underlying facts prove she is a worthless husk of a political animal, she is piling up popularity and exposure and fame points by the bucket.
I decided to go back and read this entire thread. It seemed that a majority was giving Matt the old locker room slap on the back until I got to this comment by ryang. Once again, her insight and analysis gave me hope. I agree with her completely.
Matt,
I sure hope you were asking that rhetorically without giving a good hairy shit what the answer is.
I’m sure you’ve got a hypothetical reader in your head you consult from time to time. Let them be your guide and then let it rip. Otherwise, you’re gonna water down your stuff to the lowest common p.c. denominator.
Better to call ‘em like you see ‘em and, heaven forfend, let someone be offended once in a while then turn into some milquetoast drone who does nobody any good.
[...] to Palintards: STFU In politics on November 25, 2009 at 7:03 PM Matt Taibbi, on journalists, journalism, and Sarah Palin: When their bosses were for the war, they were for the war, and they battered any candidate who was [...]
It appears that anyone objecting to Matt’s sexist/misogynist language is considered a fan of Sarah Palin, the tea-baggers, the radical right, and maybe even Fox News and the rest of the pathetic corporate media. If that’s your assumption, then you are hopelessly wrong, prone to uninformed assumptions, and dismally lazy. I’m tempted to throw in charges of sexism, misogyny, and (if you happen to be female) self-loathing and an over-identification with the master narrative (think Stockholm Syndrome), but I won’t.
If you want to moan and complain about the awful burden of political correctness, go ahead. It does nothing to convince me that you are capable of intellectual rigor or honesty. You’re only fooling yourselves.
And no, those of us who object to Matt’s adolescent way of making his otherwise brilliant argument, are not homophobic. Speaking only for myself, I also tend to believe that sexists and misogynists are also homophobes. Think about it darlings.
In response to another comment. See in context »To everyone who just can’t fathom why a few of us see Matt’s language as sexist/misogynist, listen up. The creepy tea-baggers, birthers and assorted know-nothings who pay for ugly billboards of Obama wearing a turban, or flaunt hideous posters at health care rallies, or spew incitement to violence on their talk shows also rebel against political correctness. They refuse to be labeled as what they obviously are. Racists. Who? Me? No! I am absolutely NOT a racist, they insist. It’s plain for anyone who struggles against racism to see otherwise.
I don’t know which is worse. Ignorant, uninformed, uneducated people who don’t have the sense to hide their fear and loathing of “the other”, or educated, intelligent people who ought to know better, assuming they’re inherently too superior to be guilty of another form of fear and loathing.
erinzmum,
In response to another comment. See in context »I follow the Roger Rabbit rule for judging political correctness:
“It’s only correct when it’s funny.”
You may not be amused by Matt Taibbi, George Carlin or Hunter Thompson, but I am. So they get a pass from me.
Now, if it isn’t funny, I’m with you all the way.
i have the capacity to revere Hunter Thompson, George Carlin, Bill Maher and Matt Taibbi, while simultaneously abhorring their ignorant, juvenile, sexist, misogynist language. It’s complex. Sorry you don’t have the capacity to understand. Perhaps you’ll have the privilege of being reborn in a female body. In the meantime, practice your tolerance for ambiguity.
In response to another comment. See in context »Given the last comment was about degrading sexual acts (albeit with a Miles Standish flair), please forgive me if I haven’t read all the other comments, so I may be echoing something that’s already been stated.
With that caveat, I’m finding the same kind of ‘media-turn’ taking place in the MSM with respect to Obama.
It seems like the man got more-or-less a free ride, for whatever reason(s), from the major networks, the intelligentsia, wonks, and pretty much every other media outlet for the majority of his first year.
However, it also appears like, once the one (1) year mark was hit, it became open season — Maureen Dowd and Liz Drew most recently in the IHT and Politico, respectively, discussing the Greg Craig affair; Ariana Huffington’s unfortunate ‘Katrina’ reference; as well as your own ‘bait and switch’ comment.
I neither agree nor disagree. As am American living abroad, I really don’t care all that much about the States (except for how their imports effect the Asian economy). I just find the change in tone noticeable, and interesting.
So, based on your insider knowledge, I’m wondering if someone/some people didn’t ‘pull the plug’ and say it was alright to start dropping horse heads into the President’s bed.
Thoughts?
It is ridiculous to compare THE racist word with a slang term for vagina, both in a historical context and for it’s present day emotional content.
Of course sexism was and is a problem, but you make a poor choice to illustrate your point. I’m sure you’ll continue your crusade to take a word that’s been essentially divorced from any sexual content to become a lukewarm insult (considerably cooler than the asshole synonym “dick”) and strike it from the vernacular, but you should be prepared for the rolling eyes that you encounter.
Lukewarm insult? According to whose rules? Yours? Not mine.
I suppose you also disagree with the established legal concept that sexual harassment is defined by the one who is subjected to it, and voices an objection.
In response to another comment. See in context »The dragons thank you for your tilting at windmills.
In response to another comment. See in context »You’re really very good at righteous anger.
If your comment was directed at me, I’ve decided to take it as a compliment.
In response to another comment. See in context »Matt–
I would say this is brilliant (and of course you are, personally, sluuurp), but really it’s exactly what a good journalist knows (I was one, and sort of am still). You really have nailed the mundane, and yet inexplicably unknown, truth–that if the people who cut the checks and the politicians they own wanted it otherwise, it would be that way. She’s the expendable crazy assault Marine, and really, this goes along with what looks to me like a general strategy of Republicans to play a kind of complex version of good-cop-bad-cop, where you get to pick what you think being a “conservative” or a “Republican” is. You want Palin, we got Palin, although the damn liberal media destroyed her, of course, and that’s why she’s not our nominee for the presidency. You want Meghan McCain, we got her. Cheney, if you’re a throwback. Charlie Crist, maybe. Everybody from Glenn Beck to Susan Collins. Take your pick.
This way, of course, the ones in the “middle” get to downplay or shrug off comments from the extremes. “No, I wouldn’t put it the way Glenn Beck did, I’d use other words, but Chris, you know, there’s a lot of anger out there these days against liberal spending, blah blah blah.”
In this environment, Palin is as good as a Fourth of July sparkler, and about as significant. So far, she’s been second banana on a presidential ticket that got its clock cleaned, despite all the fawning over what a “sensation” she was; she’s quit the office to which she was elected; and she had so much clout in the NY congressional race that that district went non-Republican for the first time in well over a hundred years. That is some significant insignificance.
Incidentally, it’s not hard to see that the MSM has been easy on Obama since he became the frontrunner in ‘08, as you say–a time when I was screaming (in some material for publication, blogstuff, incessant comments on lists like this, etc.) that nobody was paying attention to how corporate-friendly the guy really was, and how his military policy (as distinct from real improvements, I think, in foreign policy generally) sounded about like any other militarist’s. I knew we were in trouble when he and Hillary stood there in an ‘08 debate trying to out-tough each other about how they were going to “go into Pakistan” and do this or that, and some other such talk, as if the concepts of borders and national sovereignty and of not using war as a tool of foreign policy were about as unknown to them as they were to Bush, Cheney, Reagan, or about anyone else you could name. I recall almost _no_ noise about that in the press whatsoever.
And, it should be said, I’m pretty tickled to see journalists holding Obama’s feet to the fire now over Wall Street access, public option reneging, overpatience on unemployment, etc.
Anyhow…good piece. Of course.
[...] Matt Taibbi is my hero. [Taibblog] [...]
[...] ‘Palinization’ of Palin.” There’s also a link to this Palin-related blog post, which points out a fact long obvious to many, that mainstream political reporting in general is [...]
hah! omg, so apparently mentioning blowjobs is sexist now, even when you’re referring to the white male aristocracy doing it to eachother. If anything, i feel that erinzmom is being discriminatory against homosexuals by assuming that only women give blowjobs. Please take your bigoted point of view elsewhere. I’m not gay but my gay friends claim they give better blowjobs than any chick out there.
would you have been offended if he had called the reporters lilly-livered because flowers have the connotation of being something women enjoy?
also, to hear that you have listened to matt on TV and clearly understand the side he is coming from and the people he would represent and give respect to, yet not conceive the fact that he isn’t sexist in the least really boggles the mind. it’s like this erinzmom person is trying to make up disputes where there really aren’t any. oh wait, it’s not like that. it is that.
Poor Russ. Where to begin? I’m dredging up the energy to address your comments, but it doesn’t seem worth the bother. Oh, alright, I’ll give it a go.
In 1969 I had the privilege of playing Grace to a dear friend’s Will. It was the most natural thing in the world for me to love and support my first of many dear friends in the LGBT community, and I’ve never wavered for a moment since then.
Everything else you said was so silly, and I’m too tired to bother with you anymore. Go acquire some life experience, then maybe we can talk.
In response to another comment. See in context »“What you should be asking yourself is why this is happening to you. Even I don’t know the answer to that question, but honestly, I don’t really care. All I know is that I find it extremely funny.”
My guess is that this is the Jeb-Bush-for-president campaign taking out the competitors so that the lunatic base has nowhere to go.
Reading through the harsh responses to ryang and erinzmum makes me think you all secretly want to buttress their point.
I disagree based more on evolution of the vocabulary and context. Think about the epithet “Fuck you!” It was considered pretty harsh years ago, and it’s not something you to say to someone you really want to fuck. Now, “fuck, fucking” and the like have slipped in insult standing to almost a replacement for “um.” Spare use of this word or phrases associated with it give it more emphasis.
I disagree that calling members of the press “pussies” equates with calling them “niggers” because the latter is assigned to a person or persons due to circumstances beyond their control: their race. Using “pussy” as an insult is directed toward people’s actions. Replace the word with “dick” and you have a fair comparison. So, if you don’t like sexists references in general, both are wrong.
In general I just disagree that blow job and cheer leading/pom pom references are sexist at all. The latter can be used as a compliment – as for someone who really encourages someone in a challenging situation, and I don’t think that is sexist, so I’m not going to backtrack and determine that the insult is sexist if I feel the compliment is not. As for blow jobs, literal and figurative, anyone of any sex can engage in this action. Associating this with anti-female sentiment seems very out of date to me. Or, maybe you live in a place where the GBLT community is sorely ostracized.
You can argue that woman using these terms is them co-opting the language of their oppressors, but I think that is out-dated as well. As the world gets smaller, as coarse language of yesterday becomes more commonplace, the associations of sexism become more tenuous. While I don’t think those that dislike the use have no sense of context or nuance, I sense that you all have drawn your line in the sand in this subject, and anyone who crosses the line is now on the side of sexism. As a woman, I am familiar with this line of thinking. I have to say my life experiences have led me to consider the situation, and in the above context I see no problem.
Thats the best run down on the Palin/Media phenomena I have read. She deserves a good kick in the head on a regular basis. She is grooming herself to be a professional yap dog along the lines of Jesse Jackson, she just doesn’t know it.
Your assessment of the tragic assassination of Howard Deans presidential bid is nothing short of brilliant. I appreciate your candor. It is good to know someone in the press corps has balls, brains and an ability to write. It is worth noting that the epic failure that is Sarah Palin was of her own creation. She is possibly one of the most ignorant politicians I have ever had the misfortune of having to listen to. Her debate with Joe Biden was a wretchingly awful performance from an intellectual stand point. I guess they score those things on basis of fuckability and flirtation not a command of the issues or an ability to perform basic cognitive functions without winking. That was before she had been cut loose. She was cut loose because she is an absolute and utter moron. Anyone who thinks she was a success as a politician or a public servant is equally as idiotic as she has proven herself to be time after time after time. Thanks for another great article.
Wasn’t picking palin as VP a sexist move in itself? it was clearly calculated for the most potential political gain (calculated by idiots, true) so they basically used her being a woman to try and steal potential Hillary voters from Obama.
Yet Matt Taibbi is the big bad guy because he referred to cheering on someone as ‘cheerleading’. Not sure what other word would have worked there.
People are just douches, Matt. Oh shit, there I went again. Maybe we won’t be sexist if we call them enemas instead. <rolling eyes.
Yes, the choice of Palin as running-mate was sexist. Everything else you said was ever so muddled. Try thinking a little harder.
In response to another comment. See in context »matt:
blow jobs are great. AND if you ever need one, let me know.
Yes, the bullets were flying at Palin the minute she stepped on the stage and for good reason, she is an idiot. The press let Gore have it, they turned on Clinton, and were scared to actually report what Bush was doing for four years because they were afraid of being seen as un patriotic. The press is all over Palin because they know a train wreck when they see it, and she gets ratings. There is a small group of people that support her, and the majority that are still stunned how someone so ignorant was a VP candidate. Both lap up stories about her. The person people should take issue with is John McCain. He put this numbskull on the map.
Does having played center field make one prone to using “centered around”? Aside from being impossible, centering around as a mental exercise leads to insanity.
A female figure was not conjured in my mind by your reference to either cheerleading or blowjobs. Cheerleading is in fact a completely gender neutral noun not even necessarily referring to actual cheerleaders. And everyone knows that men give the best blowjobs.
Or a verb, cheerleading, that is.
Not sure if I like the beard, Matt. Makes you look way older. Maybe a mustache instead?
Having said that, (anyone catch the Curb finale last week?) who was that woman on MSNBC? She really doesn’t know what she’s talking about.
Her position:
Yeah the people who bailed Wall St. out are still up at the White House, but it happened BEFORE Obama was in office so things are different, even though Obama and his guys are continuing the same fleecing of America that they did under Bush.
It’s like she didn’t get the notion that Obama himself is directly perpetuating these policies. Oh, he’s just new, you know, hasn’t gotten his sea legs yet and is about to get down to business to show those bankers a thing or two!
No, he has clearly chosen his position.
Not sure if I like the beard, Matt. Makes you look way older. Maybe a mustache instead?
Having said that, (anyone catch the Curb finale last week?) who was that woman on MSNBC? She really doesn’t know what she’s talking about.
Her position:
Yeah the people who bailed Wall St. out are still up at the White House, but it happened BEFORE Obama was in office so things are different, even though Obama and his guys are continuing the same fleecing of America that they did under Bush.
It’s like she didn’t get the notion that Obama himself is directly perpetuating these policies. Oh, he’s just new, you know, hasn’t gotten his sea legs yet and is about to get down to business to show those bankers a thing or two!
No, he has clearly chosen his position.
*sorry for double post. t/s was running slow for a little bit.
Matt,
Unless you wake up to the fact that the Palin’s, Huckabees, Sanfords, Craigs…W…are insane, you are doomed to be governed by their lies. They think Jesus is just about to swoop down and rescue them from the holocaust the rest of us will face at their beloved Rapture.
(They float naked up to heaven with Him)
That’s why they initiate unwinnable wars and destroy the environment and run up endless deficits and hate the babies they force women to have.
They believe the Antichrist emerges at the first of seven seals and that at the fifth trumpet the locusts will cone out of the botomless pit and the Euphrates dies up at the sixth bowl. How do you reason with that?
We’re not talking about people who contemplate Kantian Categories or Platonic Forms or Baconian idols.
We’re not talking about people who debate whether Dan Brown’s vision of the subatomic realm is reasonable.
Pray for them if you must, but stop being so gentle with them. They make the Taliban look reasonable.
Go to twitter-philosophize for more.
Lee
I am a woman (with eight sisters, do I get extra woman’s point of view clout?!), and I just didn’t detect any sexism in the post. Honestly. The blow job thing was astute and funny to me.
Also, I was struck that “teabaggers” is frowned upon but “nutcases” is okay? They seem of a piece to me, as less-than-flattering but sometimes apt words.
Matt is right in that the teabaggers did not start speaking out until the stimulus package was passed – they seem to tolerate the TARP and other bailout crap just fine.
Those teabaggers don’t know current events, American history or sexual slang.
First of all, do you REALLY want to put yourself in the same category with that fruitcake Andrew Sullivan? That guy belongs in the funny pages of the National Enquirer. The man is beneath contempt.
As for the Tea Party, I wonder if you have spent any time with these people? They do not seem to me to be Republicans, but even moreso not liberal Democrats. I expect that if anyone in the media actually did some, y’know, investigating, they’d find out that a lot of them vote for Blue Dog Democrats when they get the chance. They appear to me to be the tip of an iceberg that is populist and nativist, and intensely patriotic nationalist.
How big an iceberg it is these days is not clear. It’s been around in American politics since Andrew Jackson’s time, though, and moved back & forth between the major parties. You may remember that Ross Perot tried to capture it in a 3rd party but failed. I remember that George Wallace did the same thing, with the same result.
And then there’s Sarah. She’s the natural leader of the Tea Party. You might have noticed that the media treats the Tea Party with the same mixture of ignorance, contempt and fear that it does Sarah.
You might be right about the Republicans trying to cut Sarah and the Tea Party loose. I guess they think that those voters have no place else to go, or that the Republicans will have the majority of the remaining votes. I suspect they are wrong on both points.
My guess is that Sarah is thinking long term, and third party.
fruitcake? alright, you’re a jackass. we’ll all ignore the rest of your comments.
In response to another comment. See in context »I see you haven’t actually read any of his lunatic postings about Palin’s grandchild. He’s a birther of a different color.
In response to another comment. See in context »No I’ve read it, and I’m not sure why he cares whose baby it is. He also is anti-choice, among other reprehensible positions.
That, however, doesn’t give you the right to attack his sexuality.
In response to another comment. See in context »/wants to attend Thanksgiving at the Taibbi house!
[...] Like a Boot Stamping on a Human Face—Forever [...]
I am coming a bit late to the party, I know, but I have to also register my discomfort with the sexist language in this post. I noticed it and cringed a bit as I read, then noticed the vitriol flung at the two women who dared to challenge it.
I think you are definitely missing something. Using the word “pussies” to indicate that someone is weak, or in other words, exhibiting characteristics traditionally associated with women, is sexist. The point isn’t whether women are actually like this, it is that these characteristics, “attacking only when it is safe” have been applied to women to denigrate them. And also applied to men as a way to feminize them, and thereby denigrate them. It isn’t manly or honorable to attack only when it is safe, right? That is why you used the word “pussies” right? It might be invisible to you, but it is still misogyny.
You did’nt invent being a jerk but you certainly have a lock on being #1…………….
wow, erinzmum can’t respond to anything without insulting the person’s intelligence or implying they just don’t know shit about shit.
Maybe you’d help the cause you seem to be championing by not being such a dick. Or do I mean pussy? Are there any words in the English language that you don’t automatically assign a sex to? Can I call you a jerk or did that term originate to describe men and jerking off or male dominance and thus would be sexist when applied to a woman? Does asshole work or because people get fucked in the ass, and women tend to be the ones “getting fucked” during coitus, that word is out of bounds, too?
Every female besides you who has commented on this article has basically said you’re full of it, and I’m not willing to discard every one of their opinions because you are louder than them.
I won’t call you a bitch, and I’m against any use of that word towards women, but if there is a non-sexist equivalent of it, then your responses indicate that you pretty much fit that profile.
Watch the language? Are you joking? What kind of a dingbat thinks the word “blowjob” is demeaning? Get a life, you insufferable little bore.
Ya know, everyone who gets defensive with erinzmum is supporting her cause. Or don’t you get that?
I will agree that her dogged replies are starting to sound more and more exasperated and condescending. e’zmum, you might wanna take a breather. As long as I’m wasting lunch hour, I have to say I found it funny that you found it necessary to point out to me that the “sensitive” reference was a compliment. hah! I was neither insulted nor complimented, as it was more an observation that happens to be correct. But thanks anyway. I guess, that is, since obviously the “heroic attempts” was anything but a compliment.
My concern here is that yes, you can find sexism anywhere if you look hard enough, just as you can find racism and conspiracies – like finding a tiny dust curl after spring cleaning. Have you ever been sexually harrassed or intimidated? Those are real issues, not this. Do you think all of Matt’s writings are sexist in their attitudes towards women? Those in support of him obviously think he’s fair handed in the criticism and accompanying language, or we wouldn’t have responded.
Like it or not, the language of this article probably pales in comparison to that of the press corps. Different reporters have different writing styles. A rebuke will be more effective if you speak the language. Think Colbert’s scathing satire at the Washington press corps dinner. Totally clean and on the mark. What does the press do? Ignore it, say it wasn’t funny (oh, were they wounded?), and then they proceeded as they had before the dinner. Part of why I’m not offended by this article is because that it hits people where they live. Go see “In the Loop” and get back to me.
[...] Matt Taibbi, poison pen, on Palin and media conspiracies [...]
[...] historians, and academics in respected journals? –Treat yourself to Rolling Stone’s Matt Taibbi on mainstream newspaper journalism. (His style is snappy and hilarious.) –See Bill [...]
Matt, to answer your question about “cheerleaders” and “blow-jobs” being sexist: I think it really depends upon the reader’s mind set and the context of the phrases at the moment of reading the article.
There are days I would say without doubt that was sexist. You should be dragged out back and pelted with soggy marshmallows. And maybe just for good measure rolled around a kiddie pool filled with rice crispy cereal so you could properly wear your shame.
And then there is today, where the double on the visual is just so hilarious and spot on correct. No sexist anything going on but the wording perfect for the intended meaning. Beautifully written! (wasn’t GW a cheerleader in college?)
Anyway, I’m inclined to believe your intent was not to be sexist.