Thunder on the Left

By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, July 21, 2006 12:42 PM

In an online chat the other day, someone got mad at me for saying that there was as much anger toward the media on the left these days as there has always been on the right.

After all, haven't a couple of conservative bomb-throwers said that journalists should be tried, convicted, hung, shot and otherwise disrespected for spilling national security secrets?

True, and I haven't come across any liberal opinion-mongers wishing quite the same fate on card-carrying journalists. But let's not make the mistake of confusing the views of a few extremists with those of everyone on their side of the spectrum.

Trust me when I say that many liberals are really ticked off at the MSM, even though the nature of their criticism is very different from their rivals on the right. The anger that liberals feel over media coverage of President Bush and the war is tinged with deep disappointment over journalistic shortcomings and a hope, however vain, that things can be improved. Why aren't you on our side? The anger among conservatives is fed by decades of feeling that the MSM is a bastion of bias, and a sense of futility that things will ever change. Why can't we get an even break?

Now my view has been echoed, in no less liberal a journal than the Nation, by Lakshmi Chaudhry :

"The media rage on the left--at least among those politically active online--now matches that on the right."

What insight this writer has!

"In one sense, all political bloggers, conservative or liberal, define themselves in opposition to mainstream journalists, who are viewed as elitists determined to marginalize the true will of the American people as represented by the bloggers themselves.

"But where the right-wing blogosphere accuses journalists of ideological bias, the progressive netroots view them as corrupt and compromised.

"Journalists have therefore been assigned a very specific role in the netroots narrative about the ascendance of the right, which in turn enabled the wrongs of the Bush administration. They're marked as 'collaborators' who either because of cowardice or greed delivered this country into the hands of right-wing tyranny.

"Progressives therefore face a more difficult challenge than the one confronting conservative media-bashers: to advocate for a strong independent press able to do its job effectively and without partisan favor, while pushing its members to represent progressive issues and views. What this suggests is that in the area of media activism, borrowing from the Republican playbook--a favored strategy among progressive leaders these days--may not be quite as easy or desirable."

American Prospect's Greg Sargent had criticized a lengthy Washington Post article by David Broder and Dan Balz on the rise in partisanship after 9/11. When he said the story was useless because it didn't blame the GOP for pushing polarization, I wrote: "The piece is useless because they didn't slam the Republicans?"

Now he responds by expanding his indictment: "The Sunday piece perpetuated two fictions: First, that the post-9/11 reassertion of partisanship was as natural and inevitable a change in the weather; and second, that the parties were equally complicit in it. They weren't, though. The piece didn't include the crucial context that GOP strategy for years now has rested partly on the idea that polarization and partisanship works to the benefit of Republicans, because self-described conservatives outnumber liberals. Nor did it even mention that less than five months after the Sept. 11 attacks, Rove came right out and said that the GOP not just could, but should use national security issues to gain partisan advantage."

I dwell on this because it's a good case study in what journalism should be. The Post piece was built around a poll of public attitudes and did not set out to analyze which party was to blame (I wish I had a buck for every Post story about the Republican tactic of exploiting the war on terror). So it's like blasting a story about the Nationals losing another game for not analyzing why the owners were to blame for the team being lousy.

Even so, the Post story did say this:

"The first television commercials aired by Bush's reelection campaign in the spring of 2004 featured brief footage of flag-draped remains being carried out of the ruins at Ground Zero. The ad sparked instant controversy, with critics charging the Bush team with exploiting Sept. 11 for political gain.

"Bush was determined to use 9/11 in his campaign, and, knowing that any ad featuring the attacks would be controversial, his advisers had shown the opening commercials to groups of voters before putting them on the air.

"Many Democrats cite the political attacks on then-Sen. Max Cleland (D-Ga.), a wounded Vietnam veteran, whose votes for several union-protection amendments helped delay passage of the bill creating the Department of Homeland Security. His opponent ran ads saying that Cleland 'pretends to support President Bush, but he voted against homeland security 11 times.' That campaign signaled to many Democrats that Republicans would not hesitate to use the terrorism issue as a partisan club.

"White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove signaled earlier this year that Republicans will continue to use terrorism and national security to put the Democrats on the defensive."

So the issue of GOP responsibility was not exactly ignored. Maybe the piece could have been sharper. My only point is that it's our job to give readers the facts, not take sides in partisan warfare.

Speaking of bloggers, Slate's Jack Shafer reports on a Pew study of the broad mass of people posting online, not just the more prominent political commentators:

"About half of all American bloggers are men, says Pew. About half are under the age of 30. About half use a pseudonym. About half say creative self-expression or documenting personal experiences is a major reason for blogging. About half think their audience is folks they already know. Half say changing people's minds is not a major reason behind their blog, and about half had never published before starting their blog.

"Pew's blogging masses couldn't be more different than the American A-listers. Most A-listers are men over 30; have published before; are in it primarily to change public opinions and not to share their experiences; know only a fraction of their readers; and don't conceal their identities."

The president's first speech to the nation's leading civil rights group, like his first veto, has been overshadowed by the Mideast war, but here's how the morning papers are handling it:

"In his first speech to the N.A.A.C.P. since taking office in 2001," says the New York Times , "President Bush acknowledged on Thursday that 'many African-Americans distrust my party,' and defended his record on domestic issues, including education, prescription drug coverage and Hurricane Katrina.

"The 33-minute speech was an exercise in bridge-building, intended partly to strengthen ties between Republicans and black voters and partly to reassure moderate white voters with a message of reconciliation. Though Mr. Bush received a standing ovation when he called on the Senate to renew the 1965 Voting Rights Act -- it passed unanimously hours later -- a somber silence fell over the room as the president discussed his policies on education, jobs and housing, which polls suggest are unpopular with blacks.

"The president was booed when he raised the topic of charter schools and was also interrupted by a heckler who shouted about the Middle East."

Says the Chicago Tribune : "It is the renewal of the president's frayed relations with the African-American community that weighs on the minds of Bush's aides these days--with midterm congressional elections nearing, the president's approval ratings sagging and his party's prospects in question.

"And, judging from the reaction of rank-and-file members of the nation's oldest and largest civil rights organization after Bush ended a five-year hiatus here, the president still has a long way to go."

Michelle Malkin is unhappy with the speech:

"What a squandered opportunity. Bush could have hit back hard at the race exploiters who shamelessly accused him of hating black people and suppressing black votes and causing Hurricane Katrina.

"As for the lingering existence of racism, the President could have used his platform to excoriate NAACP leftists for doing and saying nothing while liberal bigots relentlessly attack minority members of his administration and the Republican Party.

"Could have. But didn't. You learn not to expect so much from a White House more concerned with La Raza, CAIR, and the NAACP than with its own base."

Eric Deggans of the St. Petersburg Times has an interesting column on war videos being posted on YouTube. Time's Ana Marie Cox tackles the subject from the perspective of soldiers uploading videos.

And while I recently wrote about politicians putting their video messages on YouTube, the Los Angeles Times has found a different wrinkle:

"Donnie Fowler has seen the future of American politics. Pull out your cellphone and you can see it as well.

"As people increasingly tailor their leisure time to suit their lifestyles -- through blogs, MySpace, iPods, video on demand -- politicians and their promoters are facing the same problem as Hollywood and the makers of toothpaste: How do you sell your product to an increasingly fragmented audience?

"To Fowler, a veteran Democratic strategist, the next big thing is the small screen on the cellphone in your purse or pocket. In just a few years, he said, the tiny device will allow you to access the Internet in all its vastness, as though you were seated in front of a computer." But does the world really need podcasting polticians?

Matt Smith of Lieberdem blames Josh Marshall's Web site for the latest mini-flap of the Connecticut campaign:

"The TPM Cafe blog ran a piece saying that Lieberman was 'mulling' a run on the GOP line. The person who wrote the initial post did not speak at the time to anyone other than a rather low-ranking member of his press staff. DailyKos and other outlets quickly picked up on the piece, saying that Lieberman was 'mulling' a GOP bid.

"Such a claim was obviously bogus from the start. The reality is that the people at TPM were simply unable to get ahold of someone sufficiently empowered to speak for Lieberman, and so speculated that the non-response of the staffer somehow meant Lieberman was 'mulling' becoming a GOPer. I doubt even the Kossacks bought into the story; they just wanted another excuse to get 'Lieberman' and 'Republican' in the same sentence for the umpteenth time."

On the other hand, maybe the low-ranking aide should have consulted with a "sufficiently empowered" high-ranking aide and given TPM Cafe an answer.

Are some Republicans ready to join the cutters-and-runners? Dick Polman sees a sign of the times:

"Here's another defeatist, hate-America, cut-and-run complaint about the current conditions on the ground in Baghdad: 'The condition there is worse than I expected....I have to be perfectly candid: Baghdad is a serious problem. . . . It's not safe to go anywhere outside of the Green Zone any part of the day . . . All of the information we receive sometimes from the Pentagon and the State Department isn't always true . . . I don't want to predict what will happen if things don't get better . . . What I think we need to do more is withdraw more Americans.'

"Must be Michael Moore taking a quick tour, right? Or maybe a 'liberal' journalist who is too chicken to leave the hotel room? Or maybe a weak-kneed Democratic senator who has succumbed to anti-Bush hysteria? No, those remarks were uttered this week by Republican congressman Gil Gutknecht of Minnesota.

"What does it say about Joe Lieberman when even a conservative back-bencher like Gil Gutknecht seems more willing than he is to question the Bush administration on Iraq?"

On Monday I previewed the upcoming Bravo series "Tabloid Wars," about the New York Daily News. Ex-News staffer Alfred Lubrano has some thoughts about life at his old paper:

"Beating the Post on crime stories was paramount. It was expected that you'd scoop the slow and stodgy New York Times. To do otherwise would be like losing a footrace to your grandfather. . . .

"The newsroom was populated by characters, like the editor who tried to use the paper's FedEx account to send cocaine to a pal in Miami. Or the mob writer Jerry Capeci, who'd get indignant calls from wiseguys he'd failed to mention in his column, the made men as petulant as debutantes left off the society page."

Nice little paper ya got there. . . .

Just in case you were losing sleep over the WSJ saying it will start accepting front-page ads, Jeff Jarvis suggests you calm down:

"Juan Antonio Giner rightfully ridicules the journalistic lead weights who are moaning about the Wall Street Journal taking an ad on its front page. They have to pay the bills somehow. How do they think journalism is supported? By advertising. You can't whine on the one hand about cutbacks and then whine on the other about revenue. I think it would be a mistake to hand over the page to an advertiser; it would be a mistake to blur the line between ad and edit on the page. But as Giner points out, lots of Europeans have taken ads on their front pages for year."

Was this piece about Kate Hudson really libelous?

"Kate Hudson has accepted libel damages from a supermarket tabloid that claimed she was dangerously thin, her lawyer said Thursday.

"The British edition of the National Enquirer has agreed to pay undisclosed damages and print an apology for an October 2005 article that claimed Hudson was 'way too thin' and looked 'like skin and bones,' said Simon Smith, a lawyer for the 27-year-old actress."

I thought actresses only sued for being called fat.

And today's must-see link: Jesus' General has a very funny ad with Angela Merkel endorsing Joe Lieberman.