Sulkdodds
Companion Cube
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2003
- Messages
- 18,846
- Reaction score
- 25
So normally our student newspapers are total shite, but sometimes, just sometimes, there's something worth reading in them. I read this article when it was publishlate last year and never till now got the chance to type it up. But I thought it was worth doing - while it doesn't provide any stunningly new insights it does put quite a nice cap on certain issues.
ENGINEERING DISSENT: THE RISE OF THE POLITICAL COMMENTATOR IN THE AGE OF OBAMA
by Clement Knox
Stolen by me
ENGINEERING DISSENT: THE RISE OF THE POLITICAL COMMENTATOR IN THE AGE OF OBAMA
by Clement Knox
Stolen by me
The News is Broken
In the UK we know what to expect when we watch the news: an emotionless narration of the day’s tragedies, clean graphics and presenters who think ‘suit’ is spelt with a ‘y’. Whatever else we might accuse it of, the news is rarely controversial. The best we can expect from our presenters is some flirtatious banter between the anchors, and the odd withering aside from Jeremy Paxman.
Across the Pond it’s a whole different story. In America the Fox News motto of ‘Fair and Balanced’ is a long-running in-joke., It is not uncommon to see live discussions end in blind rage, physical threats and, occasionally, tears. The crucial difference is that in Britain, and Europe in general, there is a clear divide in the public mind between information and entertainment. There is an expectation that the news will be a perfunctory affair in which seasoned journalists will provide an objective précis of current affairs.
Our attitude towards the news and its presentation stems from the existence of the BBC. The BBC, with its requirement to present the news in a non-partisan fashion and its independence from commercial interests, has led the way in creating a template for news distribution which most other news networks have now adopted.
In America the new networks are locked in a perpetual struggle for a greater share of the audience; ratings are all important, and the success of a show is judged by the value of its commercial breaks. The boundary between information and entertainment has been irretrievably blurred. A 2007 report by the Pew Research Center claimed that The Daily Show, a mock news program hosted by comedian Jon Stewart, had become the primary news source amongst young people. News is not treated as a dry formality but as an extension of the networks’ entertainment programming.
Motivated by profit and ratings, American news networks have become much more hard-headed in terms of cornering their target audience. What this had led to is the effective division of the networks down party-political lines as content is targeted at particular demographics – so Fox News serves conservative tastes and MSNBC caters for a left of centre audience.
This willingness on the part of networks to identify themselves with particular political causes has given rise to the political commentator. These commentators, such as Bill O’Reilly on Fox or Keith Olbermann on MSNBC, are usually given an hour slot around prime time and have free reign to discuss current affairs from their own particular angle. There is no expectation that commentators in the US will be trained journalists; indeed some, such as two time university drop-out Sean Hannity, don’t even have degrees. Their only talent lies in their ability to provide a compelling personal take on the news which will correspond to the views of their audience. All that is required is the capacity to simultaneously speak English and look into a camera.
What is remarkable is how politically powerful such individuals have become.
One of the big stories since Obama’s election a year ago has been the growing power and influence of conservative commentators in shaping the right-wing reaction to the Obama administration. This has been a theme of the American political discourse ever since Rahm Emanuel declared on Face the Nation that Rush Limbaugh was “the voice, the intellectual force and energy behind the Republican party” and that “whenever a Republican criticizes him, they have to run back and apologize to him”.
Emanuel’s point was proven the same day when RNC chairman Michael Steele denied that Limbaugh was the de facto leader of the Republican party and derided Limbaugh’s style as “inflammatory” and “ugly”. Rush promptly questioned Steele’s ability to lead the party and extracted an apology from one of the highest ranking Republican officials in the land: “Rush is a national conservative leader, and in no way do I want to diminish his voice. I truly apologize.”
The Collapse of Republican Leadership
To understand the roots of this recent phenomenon it’s necessary to look back beyond last March and to the election campaign which catapulted Obama to the presidency and men like Limbaugh to positions of ever greater influence.
The primary process for the Republican party essentially saw the party break down into its constituent parts, with each significant strand of Republican policy being embodied in a different candidate. There was Mike Huckabee representing the Christian Right, Mitt Romney representing fiscal conservatism, Ron Paul standing for Libertarianism and John McCain relying on his hawkish foreign policy credentials.
Already in the primaries the Republican party was faced with making an awkward choice: Whoever was selected would be a divisive figure within their own party; no single candidate united all the different aspects of conservative political thought. Moreover, if any one of these four had the support of the conservative commentariat it was Mitt Romney who both Limbaugh and Sean Hannity openly professed support for. It has to be remembered just how unpopular John McCain was among the right wing of his own party. He was derided for his status as the Democrats’ favourite Republican and his loyalty was questioned after he was approached by John Kerry to be his running mate in the 2004 election. In February 2008 Limbaugh went on a long tirade against McCain on his radio show declaring that McCain was “going against conservatives” and questioned McCain’s integrity stating that “he’s just playing the American card or the patriot card, the prisoner of war story or whatever.”
When McCain did indeed win the nomination it was a bitter pill for many in the party to swallow, and the selection of Sarah Palin was in part an attempt to reconcile members of the Republican party to their own presidential candidate. Added to that the campaign was a disaster: McCain often looked old and out of touch next to Obama, an election that was meant to be about foreign policy rapidly became about the economic collapse and behind the scenes the campaign dissolved into fierce internecine fighting between Sarah Palin and McCain’s campaign staff which climaxed with acrimonious claims in the wake of McCain’s defeat that Palin hadn’t known that Africa was a continent and not a country.
The year that has passed since Obama’s election last November has not been kind to the Republican party. Probably the most damaging blow to their morale was the role that the lame duck President Bush had to play in response to the economic meltdown. In a move that was tantamount to heresy amongst conservatives, Bush was forced to publically defend the effective nationalization of banks and the extension of emergency loans to the floundering financial sector. That such steps were necessary is rarely questioned; it was that Republicans had been forced to betray their own principles so publically that jarred. The economic crisis and the response it demanded effectively ruined the Republican party’s long-held vision of itself as the party of small, responsible government. Since Obama’s inauguration the Republican party has lost clarity and consistency.
Once loyal Republicans have had to witness a steady flow of errors, gaffes and inconsistencies from party leaders. These range from Michael Steele’s bizarre declaration that he would reorientation Republican principles to suit “urban-sub-urban hip-hop settings” to Bobby Jindal’s bold pledge that the state of Louisiana would not accept stimulus money and then later accepting that same money; from Dick Cheney’s public appearances prophesying another wave of terror unless the CIA recommences water boarding everyone with facial hair, to Sarah Palin’s use of the statesmanly medium of the Facebook note to warn Americans about Obama’s “death panels”.
The Rise of the Commentator
However, if a reasoned opposition to Obama within the Republican party ranks has failed to coalesce, a powerful, unofficial opposition has emerged outside of it. If the election campaign of 2008 demonstrated anything about grass root Republican sentiments about Obama it was that they have a non-negotiable, all-consuming terror of him and all the hope and change he has promised to bring in Washington. As the McCain-Palin campaign entered its death throes in the Autumn of last year the atmosphere at Republican party rallies turned nasty with fearful Republicans shouting ‘traitor’, ‘Muslim’, and ‘terrorist’ whenever McCain mentioned Obama’s name. The tenor of town hall rallies was becoming so distasteful that at times McCain had to defend Obama in front of his own supporters, on one occasion telling a worried man that “he (Obama) is a decent person, and a person that you do not have to be scared of as President of the United States”. This fear has not dissipated since the election; if anything it has intensified. Unable to find leadership within the party, Republicans of all stripes are looking for leadership outside of it, and they have found it in the form of conservative political commentators.
This unofficial opposition has largely manifested itself in the Tea Party protest movements – Tea being an acronym for ‘Taxed Enough Already’. The first nationally coordinated Tea Party protest occurred on April 15th of this year which saw an estimated 268,000 Americans in 200 cities demonstrate against supposedly onerous taxation. The protesters reached greater prominence over the summer as they made their presence felt in town hall meetings convened by Democratic congressmen in order to sell the proposed health care plan. Across the country security was beefed up at such meetings as Democrats were confronted by increasingly enraged conservative protesters.
When Obama himself turned up at one such meeting in New Hampshire one of the demonstrators outside the building was seen to be carrying a pistol which he later confirmed had been loaded. These protests have been actively promoted by commentators such as Beck, Hannity and Limbaugh, and these three, in particular Glenn Beck, are idols to the Tea Party protesters.
One video clip from a health care protest in late August shows a man brandishing a copy of what he calls the “U.S.S. Constitution” whilst he condemns ‘Obamacare’ as “radical communism and socialism” and states that “someone ought to investigate that, like Glenn Beck has been doing”. Beck’s show has become an open forum for Tea Party protesters to air their complaints and concerns in a welcoming environment. Indeed, Beck is on the frontline of the Tea Party and is often the keynote speaker at protests. He launched the ‘9/12 Project’ in March this year with the aim of capturing “what it felt like” the day after 9/11. The Project quickly morphed into a vehicle for expressing popular conservative resentment of Obama’s bailouts, tax plans and proposed health care reforms and was instrumental in organizing and promoting the Taxpayer March on Washington which took place last September 12th.
Anti-Politics
On one level this renewed activism amongst the Republican party’s base has been a boon for conservatives. However as the political thinking behind them has matured it has become apparent that they pose as much of a threat to the Republican party as they do the Democrats. The leaders of the movement, such as Glenn Beck, have sought to gain credibility by divorcing themselves completely from the Republican party establishment.
The organizers of a large Chicago Tea Party pointedly failed to give Michael Steele a speaking slot at their event explaining to Steele in an email that “this is an opportunity for Americans to speak, and elected officials to listen, not the other way around”. Beck adopted a blunter approach, stating at a rally at the Alamo that the “Republicans suck”, going on to say that his complaint was “about how much Barrack Obama and George W Bush and both congresses have been spending for years. It has nothing to do with parties. It has everything to do with politicians from those parties lying to the people that they are supposed to serve.”
A movement that was born out of opposition to the Obama administration has turned into one with a general opposition to the American political system.
Right Wing Radicalism
In addition, the extreme views that many within the Tea Party movement hold mean that the Republican party risks being tarred with the same brush. Democrat strategists are having a field day as images of Tea Party protesters holding up placards showing Obama dressed as Hitler are broadcast across the country in the evening news. Whilst a significant proportion of protesters are in possession of legitimate concerns about Obama’s fiscal policies, there are a large minority within the movement whose statements range from the bizarre to the homicidal.
The same people who shouted ‘Muslim’ at McCain rallies a year ago now hold banners showing images of Obama with ‘President of Kenya’ written alongside. Unsurprisingly allegations that such protesters are motivated by racism have become widespread, particularly after Jimmy Carter stated that he thought many protesters felt that Obama “should not be President because he happens to be African American.” Moreover the movement’s leaders are not much better than the rank and file: the political commentators, who are responsible to no electorate, can make the most outrageous claims without risking censure.
It has already become common parlance amongst right wing commentators to refer to Obama as a socialist and/or fascist; when Hannity interviewed Rush Limbaugh, Hannity stated that “socialism is the Obama vision for America”, to which Limbaugh responded and fascism too, we must not be afraid to use that word either. It’s a combination of the two.” Events got even more out of hand after Obama’s mishandling of the Henry Gates affair which resulted in Glenn Beck asserting that America’s first black president was “a racist” with a “deep-seated hatred of white people or the white culture”.
TO BE CONTINUED???
In the UK we know what to expect when we watch the news: an emotionless narration of the day’s tragedies, clean graphics and presenters who think ‘suit’ is spelt with a ‘y’. Whatever else we might accuse it of, the news is rarely controversial. The best we can expect from our presenters is some flirtatious banter between the anchors, and the odd withering aside from Jeremy Paxman.
Across the Pond it’s a whole different story. In America the Fox News motto of ‘Fair and Balanced’ is a long-running in-joke., It is not uncommon to see live discussions end in blind rage, physical threats and, occasionally, tears. The crucial difference is that in Britain, and Europe in general, there is a clear divide in the public mind between information and entertainment. There is an expectation that the news will be a perfunctory affair in which seasoned journalists will provide an objective précis of current affairs.
Our attitude towards the news and its presentation stems from the existence of the BBC. The BBC, with its requirement to present the news in a non-partisan fashion and its independence from commercial interests, has led the way in creating a template for news distribution which most other news networks have now adopted.
In America the new networks are locked in a perpetual struggle for a greater share of the audience; ratings are all important, and the success of a show is judged by the value of its commercial breaks. The boundary between information and entertainment has been irretrievably blurred. A 2007 report by the Pew Research Center claimed that The Daily Show, a mock news program hosted by comedian Jon Stewart, had become the primary news source amongst young people. News is not treated as a dry formality but as an extension of the networks’ entertainment programming.
Motivated by profit and ratings, American news networks have become much more hard-headed in terms of cornering their target audience. What this had led to is the effective division of the networks down party-political lines as content is targeted at particular demographics – so Fox News serves conservative tastes and MSNBC caters for a left of centre audience.
This willingness on the part of networks to identify themselves with particular political causes has given rise to the political commentator. These commentators, such as Bill O’Reilly on Fox or Keith Olbermann on MSNBC, are usually given an hour slot around prime time and have free reign to discuss current affairs from their own particular angle. There is no expectation that commentators in the US will be trained journalists; indeed some, such as two time university drop-out Sean Hannity, don’t even have degrees. Their only talent lies in their ability to provide a compelling personal take on the news which will correspond to the views of their audience. All that is required is the capacity to simultaneously speak English and look into a camera.
What is remarkable is how politically powerful such individuals have become.
One of the big stories since Obama’s election a year ago has been the growing power and influence of conservative commentators in shaping the right-wing reaction to the Obama administration. This has been a theme of the American political discourse ever since Rahm Emanuel declared on Face the Nation that Rush Limbaugh was “the voice, the intellectual force and energy behind the Republican party” and that “whenever a Republican criticizes him, they have to run back and apologize to him”.
Emanuel’s point was proven the same day when RNC chairman Michael Steele denied that Limbaugh was the de facto leader of the Republican party and derided Limbaugh’s style as “inflammatory” and “ugly”. Rush promptly questioned Steele’s ability to lead the party and extracted an apology from one of the highest ranking Republican officials in the land: “Rush is a national conservative leader, and in no way do I want to diminish his voice. I truly apologize.”
The Collapse of Republican Leadership
To understand the roots of this recent phenomenon it’s necessary to look back beyond last March and to the election campaign which catapulted Obama to the presidency and men like Limbaugh to positions of ever greater influence.
The primary process for the Republican party essentially saw the party break down into its constituent parts, with each significant strand of Republican policy being embodied in a different candidate. There was Mike Huckabee representing the Christian Right, Mitt Romney representing fiscal conservatism, Ron Paul standing for Libertarianism and John McCain relying on his hawkish foreign policy credentials.
Already in the primaries the Republican party was faced with making an awkward choice: Whoever was selected would be a divisive figure within their own party; no single candidate united all the different aspects of conservative political thought. Moreover, if any one of these four had the support of the conservative commentariat it was Mitt Romney who both Limbaugh and Sean Hannity openly professed support for. It has to be remembered just how unpopular John McCain was among the right wing of his own party. He was derided for his status as the Democrats’ favourite Republican and his loyalty was questioned after he was approached by John Kerry to be his running mate in the 2004 election. In February 2008 Limbaugh went on a long tirade against McCain on his radio show declaring that McCain was “going against conservatives” and questioned McCain’s integrity stating that “he’s just playing the American card or the patriot card, the prisoner of war story or whatever.”
When McCain did indeed win the nomination it was a bitter pill for many in the party to swallow, and the selection of Sarah Palin was in part an attempt to reconcile members of the Republican party to their own presidential candidate. Added to that the campaign was a disaster: McCain often looked old and out of touch next to Obama, an election that was meant to be about foreign policy rapidly became about the economic collapse and behind the scenes the campaign dissolved into fierce internecine fighting between Sarah Palin and McCain’s campaign staff which climaxed with acrimonious claims in the wake of McCain’s defeat that Palin hadn’t known that Africa was a continent and not a country.
The year that has passed since Obama’s election last November has not been kind to the Republican party. Probably the most damaging blow to their morale was the role that the lame duck President Bush had to play in response to the economic meltdown. In a move that was tantamount to heresy amongst conservatives, Bush was forced to publically defend the effective nationalization of banks and the extension of emergency loans to the floundering financial sector. That such steps were necessary is rarely questioned; it was that Republicans had been forced to betray their own principles so publically that jarred. The economic crisis and the response it demanded effectively ruined the Republican party’s long-held vision of itself as the party of small, responsible government. Since Obama’s inauguration the Republican party has lost clarity and consistency.
Once loyal Republicans have had to witness a steady flow of errors, gaffes and inconsistencies from party leaders. These range from Michael Steele’s bizarre declaration that he would reorientation Republican principles to suit “urban-sub-urban hip-hop settings” to Bobby Jindal’s bold pledge that the state of Louisiana would not accept stimulus money and then later accepting that same money; from Dick Cheney’s public appearances prophesying another wave of terror unless the CIA recommences water boarding everyone with facial hair, to Sarah Palin’s use of the statesmanly medium of the Facebook note to warn Americans about Obama’s “death panels”.
The Rise of the Commentator
However, if a reasoned opposition to Obama within the Republican party ranks has failed to coalesce, a powerful, unofficial opposition has emerged outside of it. If the election campaign of 2008 demonstrated anything about grass root Republican sentiments about Obama it was that they have a non-negotiable, all-consuming terror of him and all the hope and change he has promised to bring in Washington. As the McCain-Palin campaign entered its death throes in the Autumn of last year the atmosphere at Republican party rallies turned nasty with fearful Republicans shouting ‘traitor’, ‘Muslim’, and ‘terrorist’ whenever McCain mentioned Obama’s name. The tenor of town hall rallies was becoming so distasteful that at times McCain had to defend Obama in front of his own supporters, on one occasion telling a worried man that “he (Obama) is a decent person, and a person that you do not have to be scared of as President of the United States”. This fear has not dissipated since the election; if anything it has intensified. Unable to find leadership within the party, Republicans of all stripes are looking for leadership outside of it, and they have found it in the form of conservative political commentators.
This unofficial opposition has largely manifested itself in the Tea Party protest movements – Tea being an acronym for ‘Taxed Enough Already’. The first nationally coordinated Tea Party protest occurred on April 15th of this year which saw an estimated 268,000 Americans in 200 cities demonstrate against supposedly onerous taxation. The protesters reached greater prominence over the summer as they made their presence felt in town hall meetings convened by Democratic congressmen in order to sell the proposed health care plan. Across the country security was beefed up at such meetings as Democrats were confronted by increasingly enraged conservative protesters.
When Obama himself turned up at one such meeting in New Hampshire one of the demonstrators outside the building was seen to be carrying a pistol which he later confirmed had been loaded. These protests have been actively promoted by commentators such as Beck, Hannity and Limbaugh, and these three, in particular Glenn Beck, are idols to the Tea Party protesters.
One video clip from a health care protest in late August shows a man brandishing a copy of what he calls the “U.S.S. Constitution” whilst he condemns ‘Obamacare’ as “radical communism and socialism” and states that “someone ought to investigate that, like Glenn Beck has been doing”. Beck’s show has become an open forum for Tea Party protesters to air their complaints and concerns in a welcoming environment. Indeed, Beck is on the frontline of the Tea Party and is often the keynote speaker at protests. He launched the ‘9/12 Project’ in March this year with the aim of capturing “what it felt like” the day after 9/11. The Project quickly morphed into a vehicle for expressing popular conservative resentment of Obama’s bailouts, tax plans and proposed health care reforms and was instrumental in organizing and promoting the Taxpayer March on Washington which took place last September 12th.
Anti-Politics
On one level this renewed activism amongst the Republican party’s base has been a boon for conservatives. However as the political thinking behind them has matured it has become apparent that they pose as much of a threat to the Republican party as they do the Democrats. The leaders of the movement, such as Glenn Beck, have sought to gain credibility by divorcing themselves completely from the Republican party establishment.
The organizers of a large Chicago Tea Party pointedly failed to give Michael Steele a speaking slot at their event explaining to Steele in an email that “this is an opportunity for Americans to speak, and elected officials to listen, not the other way around”. Beck adopted a blunter approach, stating at a rally at the Alamo that the “Republicans suck”, going on to say that his complaint was “about how much Barrack Obama and George W Bush and both congresses have been spending for years. It has nothing to do with parties. It has everything to do with politicians from those parties lying to the people that they are supposed to serve.”
A movement that was born out of opposition to the Obama administration has turned into one with a general opposition to the American political system.
Right Wing Radicalism
In addition, the extreme views that many within the Tea Party movement hold mean that the Republican party risks being tarred with the same brush. Democrat strategists are having a field day as images of Tea Party protesters holding up placards showing Obama dressed as Hitler are broadcast across the country in the evening news. Whilst a significant proportion of protesters are in possession of legitimate concerns about Obama’s fiscal policies, there are a large minority within the movement whose statements range from the bizarre to the homicidal.
The same people who shouted ‘Muslim’ at McCain rallies a year ago now hold banners showing images of Obama with ‘President of Kenya’ written alongside. Unsurprisingly allegations that such protesters are motivated by racism have become widespread, particularly after Jimmy Carter stated that he thought many protesters felt that Obama “should not be President because he happens to be African American.” Moreover the movement’s leaders are not much better than the rank and file: the political commentators, who are responsible to no electorate, can make the most outrageous claims without risking censure.
It has already become common parlance amongst right wing commentators to refer to Obama as a socialist and/or fascist; when Hannity interviewed Rush Limbaugh, Hannity stated that “socialism is the Obama vision for America”, to which Limbaugh responded and fascism too, we must not be afraid to use that word either. It’s a combination of the two.” Events got even more out of hand after Obama’s mishandling of the Henry Gates affair which resulted in Glenn Beck asserting that America’s first black president was “a racist” with a “deep-seated hatred of white people or the white culture”.
TO BE CONTINUED???
![[Dragoon]](https://valvetime-data.community.forum/avatars/s/14/14201.jpg?1330940198){kind=avatar}
