Obama's unhelpful media helpers

Rod, there's one unimpeachable source that completely agrees with you: The Atlantic. They didn't use the shot. Why bother with this story?

"I'm not sure how this is a comment on the media rather than her."

because the photographer went beyond the bounds of her contract and duped the candidate. she has posted the sinister image on her website and note that the blog Rod linked to has also posted the image. I saw the image on Fox News Channel this morning.

"Greenberg said, "Good. I want to stir stuff up, but not to the point where I get audited if he becomes president.""

the above comment had me snorting my morning tea through my nose. a perfect example of the liberal mindset. i'm sure that the IRS has already put her name down on the To Be Audited By a Republican Administration list. I suspect that they have a similar list for a Democratic administration

I can't figure out if Rod is the Bob Guccionne or Jenna Jammison of the pornography of outrage.

if you think the sinister photo is bad then you need to check out Greenberg's other photos especially the one she titled "It was really fun to cheat on my car-injured-disable first wife" shows McCain with lipstick stained lips and a big grin on his face

This is probably the wrong thread to throw this out there, but I actually do agree that the msm tends to be liberal. (I'm a liberal.) I think journalism by its nature attracts more liberals than otherwise, because journalism is an inherently rebellious and anti-authoritarian pursuit.

Journalism's job is to penetrate and violate and manipulate the powers that be in order to extract the truth, and liberally inclined people are more likely to want to take on authority and precedent, whereas conservatives are more inclined to respect it.

Mike F,

With all due respect, the notion that journalism is "inherently rebellious" and "anti-authoritarian" in the way you describe is itself indicative of liberal bias in the media, in at least two ways.

One is the dual assumption that authority as such is inherently illegitimate, and therefore that rebellion as such against authority -- *any* and *all* authority -- is inherently justified.

That kind of assumption is intrinsic to the stunted or truncated "liberal" or "progressive" modern morality that some of us discussed on the thread on Jonathan Haidt's Five-Foundations Theory of moral psychology.

So, your understanding of journalism's purposes is a tautological one that reinforces the liberal bias by making liberal bias intrinsic to journalism as such -- which, of course, it is not.

The other sort of liberal bias that even your commendable critique of liberal bias from a liberal point of view nonetheless betrays is a failure to recognize that liberalism or progressivism or leftism itself *is* a form of authority and at times of authoritarianism that can be and often is abused in ways that would justify precisely the sort of rebellion that you celebrate as intrinsic to journalism in particular and to liberalism, progressivism, and leftism in general.

Given most liberals failure, generally speaking, to recognize deference to authority as at times a moral good, most liberals are unable to conceive of themselves as they authority-figures and at times the authoritarian figures that they are to people who are not like them.

Much if not most of the media, the education system, and the culture industry in this country at the current time are liberal institutions which wield authority in their promulgation of or propagandizing for liberal, progressive, and leftist values.

Therefore, a fully "rebellious" and "anti-authoritarian" ethos would require the media sometimes to "afflict" powerful liberals and to "comfort" powerless conservatives.

It would require the education system to equip students with the critical thinking skills to critique, to interrogate, and to deconstruction liberal as well as conservative ideology.

And it would require the culture industry to produce works of art that question the liberal as well as the conservative aspects of the status quo in our society.

Now clearly, the media, the education system, and the culture industry are failing -- and failing very badly -- to do at least of half of their respective jobs.

As a result, we have a public culture that is much less than what we require and what we deserve.

That's a shame.

If saying so makes one "right-wing" or a "redneck" or whatever, then so be it.

Life is short and Truth is long.

How about some waffles. Har.

Richard Bottoms,

A meal in which I join you for a hearty plate of Sunday morning waffles appeals much more to me than the meal you tried to make of my leg last Sunday afternoon.

I'm glad to note your meds are kicking in, though I believe it takes several months for rabies fully to work itself out of one's system.

For your sake more than mine, I hope that it has done so by January 2009 -- regardless of where things stand at that point in time. ; )

I think the strobe photo of McCain will backfire in a way not mentioned (if it has, forgive me; it's early and I haven't read all the posts here).

For one, I think McCain looks strong in the strobe photo, and given that it looks like he's under the spotlight being given the 3rd degree AND that he's actually been tortured, the photo shows a man who's been tested under fire and still comes out swinging.

That the photographer thought it would make him look like a monster, I'm reminded of the comic of the psychiatrist showing ink blots to a patient.

Patient said, "Sorry doctor, but they're your dirty pictures."

"But what a gift to the McCain campaign. It's going to be all over talk radio all next week. These loony leftists are going to hand him the election by playing exactly into its most useful narrative."

Here's what I don't get.

This woman isn't in any way connected to the Obama campaign, right?

Okay, case closed, what does this have to do with anything?

This says nothing, nada, less than nothing, absolutely nothing at all about Mr. Obama's fitness to be president.

Are you really saying that people make up their mind, about WHO SHOULD BE PRESIDENT, based on this sort of stupid, IRRELEVANT trash?

Are you saying that people are too stupid to understand this?

Is that what you think???????

Wonderful.

Sullivan is not a lefty in any sense of the word. He is a conservative.

I don't agree with Sullivan on a lot of issues - and I'm not a Catholic, not a Christian at all. Not a lefty either. I am not a Republican.

I think it's true that he let the Trig birth thing go on for too long.

But other than that, Andrew Sullivan has been frighteningly excellent.

I think he has integrity, and incredible fortitude - and he can write superbly.

He makes mistakes, he is sometimes reckless. But I think this is mostly because he is fearless, obsessive. Right now, no one is doing a better job of exposing the farce that is the Republican party.

He is very, very tough on Palin - and I think this is absolutely correct.

She is not remotely qualified to be president. Her interview shows that she is dangerously unqualified. She is a fundamentalist - and Sullivan considers this dangerous (as I do.)

Next, her convention speech was angry, mocking, contemptible. She did NOT need to do that. She had an unprecedented opportunity to elevate the debate, present herself as a different kind of politician, deliver an upbeat, positive vision for the country. Take the high road. She chose the low road. With a smile!

Palin isn't the pit bull - that has been shown to be absolutely false - Andrew Sullivan is.

And now we also have the hilariously dishonest McCain campaign.

This is a great democracy, and given the cowardice of the "mainstream media", writers like Andrew Sullivan are vital. Absolutely vital.

Standing by, watching another election lost to hateful "culture wars" and character assassination is not acceptable.

It is disturbing to think an election can be decided by voters pissed off because some idiot lefty NOT connected to the campaign said or did something stupid.

Wasn't the cry "Country first!"? I wish the voters would also take that advice (well, okay, it would be good, too, if the Republicans could hew to their own slogan!)

Writers like Sullivan are critical.

Another writer who is doing an absolutely excellent job on the election is Daniel Larison at The American Conservative. Really fearless stuff - less pit bull, more surgeon, but every bit as effective. Here is a link:

http://www.amconmag.com/larison/

Likewise, the same goes towards the right's 'assassination helpers' who planned to kill Obama in Denver.

These loony rightists are going to hand him the election by playing exactly into its most useful narrative. You're literally turning him into another JFK and MLK combined.

This sort of dirty trick will end up being a lot more helpful to Obama than McCain.

anonymous
This woman isn't in any way connected to the Obama campaign, right?

Okay, case closed, what does this have to do with anything?

You've forgotten the rule of politices: Anything done by anything that can be vaguely attributed to a 'Democrat' is attributable to the entire party. Like, for example, this person, and the biggest example is Ward Churchhill.

Whereas not only does that not apply to Republicans individuals, it doesn't even apply to actual Republican personalities like Malkin and Savage and Limbaugh, who are actively included in Party events and given access to right-wing politicians.