Getting All Veepy
I've been given the Tickler a rest for a few days -- something about the VP debate left me cold and depressed. I agree with most of what's been said: Edwards held his own, maybe even won, certainly is light years ahead of Cheney in terms of popularity. But just seeing Cheney up there, hard and stubborn as a gall stone, spewing lies and distortion with what for him passes as a straight face, it made me feel that all the commentary and debunking in the world just won't make the slightest difference.
I mean, here you have it: seven outright, easily verifiable, subtantive lies spoken on national TV by the VP. Not quotes out of context or truth-stretching. And not petty, insignificant misstatements. Lies. Little or no media coverage of this. Certainly nobody pointing out that Cheney has been doing this for almost 4 years now, certainly nobody suggesting that he might be "a verbal kleptomaniac, grabbing untruths from the rack, shoving them in his pocket and hoping to make it past the metal detectors". And the next day, Cheney is out there saying that the Duelfer report actually confirms their case for war (!) and they call it "positive spin".
Bush gets the cable news networks to cover a "major policy address" and proceeds to make what the Times freely describes as a "scathing stump speech", containing no new policy whatsoever. The Times duly reports every scathing line out of Bush's mouth, but makes no mention of the fact that the media had just been duped into giving Bush massive free publicity.
The press is getting played again and again, just as it got played in the run-up to war, and they don't even seem to care.
Of course, at this point, Cheney / Bush have no choice but call up down and the Sunni triangle "a valley of peace". Reality, from Samarra to Scranton, is contriving against them. They need to publicly deny that reality, not only to retain Bush's aura of strong and determined leader, but to empower their supporters to likewise deny the reality they see around them. They are locked in now, all they can do is stick to their guns.
But the chocie of denial as a campaign strategy should in no way compel the press to treat administration rhetoric as above dispute or just one side of the story. Things have long since gone beyond two differing interpretations of events, and I think the media, at least the print media, has an obligation to assert the truth of objective facts, even if they contradict Bush or Cheney's public statements. Moreover, the press has a responsibility to draw the obvious conclusion: Bush and Cheney are deliberately misleading the public. And further still: the press has a responsibility to draw a distinction between minor errors or distortions (e.g. $200 million spent as opposed to $120 million spent and $80 million earmarked through 11/05) and substantive misleading (links between Hussein and Al Qaeda).
Bottom line: this week's news should have been a disaster for Bush. The press would have you think he's bounced back.
Part of the reason this gets me so down is it makes Kerry's efforts seem sisyphean.
But let's stay positive: Kerry has some real advantages. For one, reality is on his side. Bush can't stop the bad news from rolling in, nor his own appointees from telling the truth. Second, and maybe more importantly, Bush has no credibility as a centrist, and Kerry does. And I'll go three: Bush took the last swing, yesterday. It's pretty clear what his strategy will be on Friday. That means Kerry can block and counterpunch at the debate, when Bush is at arm's length, and has nobody to help him defend himself.
But really, shouldn't Kerry demand a free nationally publicized speech? And if the press is so damned worried about bias, shouldn't they grant it to him?
I mean, here you have it: seven outright, easily verifiable, subtantive lies spoken on national TV by the VP. Not quotes out of context or truth-stretching. And not petty, insignificant misstatements. Lies. Little or no media coverage of this. Certainly nobody pointing out that Cheney has been doing this for almost 4 years now, certainly nobody suggesting that he might be "a verbal kleptomaniac, grabbing untruths from the rack, shoving them in his pocket and hoping to make it past the metal detectors". And the next day, Cheney is out there saying that the Duelfer report actually confirms their case for war (!) and they call it "positive spin".
Bush gets the cable news networks to cover a "major policy address" and proceeds to make what the Times freely describes as a "scathing stump speech", containing no new policy whatsoever. The Times duly reports every scathing line out of Bush's mouth, but makes no mention of the fact that the media had just been duped into giving Bush massive free publicity.
The press is getting played again and again, just as it got played in the run-up to war, and they don't even seem to care.
Of course, at this point, Cheney / Bush have no choice but call up down and the Sunni triangle "a valley of peace". Reality, from Samarra to Scranton, is contriving against them. They need to publicly deny that reality, not only to retain Bush's aura of strong and determined leader, but to empower their supporters to likewise deny the reality they see around them. They are locked in now, all they can do is stick to their guns.
But the chocie of denial as a campaign strategy should in no way compel the press to treat administration rhetoric as above dispute or just one side of the story. Things have long since gone beyond two differing interpretations of events, and I think the media, at least the print media, has an obligation to assert the truth of objective facts, even if they contradict Bush or Cheney's public statements. Moreover, the press has a responsibility to draw the obvious conclusion: Bush and Cheney are deliberately misleading the public. And further still: the press has a responsibility to draw a distinction between minor errors or distortions (e.g. $200 million spent as opposed to $120 million spent and $80 million earmarked through 11/05) and substantive misleading (links between Hussein and Al Qaeda).
Bottom line: this week's news should have been a disaster for Bush. The press would have you think he's bounced back.
Part of the reason this gets me so down is it makes Kerry's efforts seem sisyphean.
But let's stay positive: Kerry has some real advantages. For one, reality is on his side. Bush can't stop the bad news from rolling in, nor his own appointees from telling the truth. Second, and maybe more importantly, Bush has no credibility as a centrist, and Kerry does. And I'll go three: Bush took the last swing, yesterday. It's pretty clear what his strategy will be on Friday. That means Kerry can block and counterpunch at the debate, when Bush is at arm's length, and has nobody to help him defend himself.
But really, shouldn't Kerry demand a free nationally publicized speech? And if the press is so damned worried about bias, shouldn't they grant it to him?
posted by Benjamin Lessing at 3:40 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home