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 [...]