I'm reading Brock's just released book on the history of the Right wing consiracy to destroy the Clintons.
In my last post I quoted Paul Waldman on why the Beltway press has it in for the Clintons: basically the deny the media's importance.
"And while I don’t have any direct evidence for this, I suspect that to at least some degree reporters share conservatives’ frustration that all the Clinton scandals and mini-scandals and pseudo-scandals haven’t taken them down. In a way it’s an affront to the power of the press. When we splash headline after headline about allegations of misbehavior across our papers, when we devote hour after hour on television to the fact that “questions are being raised,” well that’s supposed to make an impact. It’s supposed to drive the politician in question to the depths of ignominy. It’s not supposed to leave them in exactly the same position as they were when it started."
"Unlike the last media revolution, the current one may work in Hillary Clinton’s favor. She seems to understand that a snarky article in the New York Times is not going to hurt her, not when she’s already so well-known and there are so many other sources of information competing for voters’ attention. She can reach those voters through local news, through YouTube, through Twitter, through Facebook, and through a hundred other channels. And without a strong primary challenge, she has all the time she wants. If she doesn’t feel like taking reporters’ questions for a couple of weeks at a stretch, she doesn’t have to."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/05/22/the-political-media-dont-like-hillary-clinton-but-what-if-she-doesnt-need-them/
It works even more in her favor than Waldman says. What we have now that we didn't have then is us. In the 90s we had to listen to the Right wing hit job against her and Bill without any ability to fight back.
The 90s media totally favored the Right:
"We’re in the midst of the second media revolution Bill and Hillary Clinton have lived through, both of which changed how politicians relate to reporters. In the first one, which occurred in the 1990s, the media universe expanded and became more partisan, as conservative talk radio became a major force and cable news emerged to cover politics around the clock (Fox News was founded in 1996, in time for the Lewinsky scandal). The incumbent news organizations found themselves pressured by the right, bullied into covering stories they might have paid little attention to and forced to accelerate their news-gathering. Talk radio and cable were perfect for taking allegations against the president — legitimate or otherwise — and forcing them onto the agenda of the “old media” outlets, where they gained legitimacy and shaped the events of the day."
Back then for those of us who are political animals, we had few choices. I personally used to listen to the Rush Limbaugh show-where Rush would scandal monger against the Clintons all day. I was a political animal and this was before cable news came into it's own or the blogosphere had begun and it was the only place I could hear about politics at all beyond the a couple of minutes during the six o'clock news. Unless you wanted to stay up to watch Ted Koppel.
In my last post I quoted Paul Waldman on why the Beltway press has it in for the Clintons: basically the deny the media's importance.
"And while I don’t have any direct evidence for this, I suspect that to at least some degree reporters share conservatives’ frustration that all the Clinton scandals and mini-scandals and pseudo-scandals haven’t taken them down. In a way it’s an affront to the power of the press. When we splash headline after headline about allegations of misbehavior across our papers, when we devote hour after hour on television to the fact that “questions are being raised,” well that’s supposed to make an impact. It’s supposed to drive the politician in question to the depths of ignominy. It’s not supposed to leave them in exactly the same position as they were when it started."
"Unlike the last media revolution, the current one may work in Hillary Clinton’s favor. She seems to understand that a snarky article in the New York Times is not going to hurt her, not when she’s already so well-known and there are so many other sources of information competing for voters’ attention. She can reach those voters through local news, through YouTube, through Twitter, through Facebook, and through a hundred other channels. And without a strong primary challenge, she has all the time she wants. If she doesn’t feel like taking reporters’ questions for a couple of weeks at a stretch, she doesn’t have to."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/05/22/the-political-media-dont-like-hillary-clinton-but-what-if-she-doesnt-need-them/
It works even more in her favor than Waldman says. What we have now that we didn't have then is us. In the 90s we had to listen to the Right wing hit job against her and Bill without any ability to fight back.
The 90s media totally favored the Right:
"We’re in the midst of the second media revolution Bill and Hillary Clinton have lived through, both of which changed how politicians relate to reporters. In the first one, which occurred in the 1990s, the media universe expanded and became more partisan, as conservative talk radio became a major force and cable news emerged to cover politics around the clock (Fox News was founded in 1996, in time for the Lewinsky scandal). The incumbent news organizations found themselves pressured by the right, bullied into covering stories they might have paid little attention to and forced to accelerate their news-gathering. Talk radio and cable were perfect for taking allegations against the president — legitimate or otherwise — and forcing them onto the agenda of the “old media” outlets, where they gained legitimacy and shaped the events of the day."
Back then for those of us who are political animals, we had few choices. I personally used to listen to the Rush Limbaugh show-where Rush would scandal monger against the Clintons all day. I was a political animal and this was before cable news came into it's own or the blogosphere had begun and it was the only place I could hear about politics at all beyond the a couple of minutes during the six o'clock news. Unless you wanted to stay up to watch Ted Koppel.
Koppel was always great but it wasn't nearly enough to whet my appetite.
But today we Hillary supporters who blog like me or simply have a vocal place in social media can fight back.
As Brock says it's up to us Hillary supporters to defend her and not go through the 90s again. We have to publicly fight back.
Here is Brock in the introduction to his book-here is what this book is meant to be:
"This, then, is more than a history of the new, vast right-wing conglomerate and the progressive infrastructure that has grown up under its influence. It's a handbook-a practical guide for Hillary supporters who want to help protect her from the dishonest conservative campaign already underway, for Democrats who are sick and tired of being bullied by the radical right and lied to by the press, and for plain old everyday Americans who want to see a real debate about their futures rather than a rerun of the stale scandal politics of the 1990s."
I like the way he frames this. As a challenge for us. We are the difference makers this time. We must fight back and publicize this to the full extent possible.
But today we Hillary supporters who blog like me or simply have a vocal place in social media can fight back.
As Brock says it's up to us Hillary supporters to defend her and not go through the 90s again. We have to publicly fight back.
Here is Brock in the introduction to his book-here is what this book is meant to be:
"This, then, is more than a history of the new, vast right-wing conglomerate and the progressive infrastructure that has grown up under its influence. It's a handbook-a practical guide for Hillary supporters who want to help protect her from the dishonest conservative campaign already underway, for Democrats who are sick and tired of being bullied by the radical right and lied to by the press, and for plain old everyday Americans who want to see a real debate about their futures rather than a rerun of the stale scandal politics of the 1990s."
I like the way he frames this. As a challenge for us. We are the difference makers this time. We must fight back and publicize this to the full extent possible.
Hillary needs us, folks. Let's not let her down!
No comments:
Post a Comment