Josh Marshall has a great post about it this morning. It is rather amazing that Kevin McCarthy's momentous gaffe turned the coverage around over night but that's what it did. Before the revelation, the media was as Kevin Drum puts it credulously believing everything Republicans say about Democratic leaders.
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/10/media-gets-f-on-benghazi-committee.html?showComment=1444677536419#c896479294797840797
"Let's set aside whether it's a witch hunt or even what it is. What it is has been obvious all along to anyone paying attention with even the most baseline level intelligence and experience. And yet it took an offhand remark from Kevin McCarthy to suddenly make the obvious discussable. Step back and think about it and that's amazing. Why didn't reporters feel empowered to pose these completely obvious questions absent McCarthy's remarks? It's been out there totally in plain sight all along. How could journalists of all people either be oblivious to this or not feel they had permission to discuss it?"
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/benghazi-and-the-journalism-of-permission
Part of it is something I've discussed often regarding the treatment of Hillary-the media moves in memes and narratives. The narrative that Hillary is in trouble and that there is something there with her emails though nobody really knew what, was the meme for months.
Only way to change a media narrative is a new narrative and McCarthy made that possible. Of course, I agree with Marshall that it took such idiotic candor to make the press question the investigation itself.
Marshall then hits on a key difference between the parties. When Democrats go after the Republicans on scandals they have merit, they aren't just as President Obama said of Emailgate just something 'ginned up.'
"Before driving in another shiv, let's step back to say that it's hardly surprising that a congressional probe mounted by either party has political dimensions. It's part of the cynical genius of our system that both parties are given political incentives to uncover wrongdoing on the part of the other party. This is a feature of the system, not a glitch."
"The question is whether you find any goods on the other guys that merits whatever political advantage you seek to draw. The other question is whether the effort is run with even a modicum of procedural fairness, transparency or even honesty about what's going on. Then finally, is the focus of the attack in any clear way tied to what you're investigating? On each of these fronts, the Gowdy/Benghazi committee has been a colossal joke - one of the main reasons it's come under such withering attack once prestige journalists decided to actually consider the work it was doing."
"When the legendary former Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) did his probes they routinely revealed substantial wrongdoing and maps for possible legislative change - especially when they were focused on the private sector. Take a look at this book for an understanding of Waxman's record. At the same time, Waxman's probes of the government itself often paid political dividends for Democrats. But when they did so, they usually found the goods."
He then makes a great point.
"One point to recognize is that it's inherently difficult to probe or seek to reform government when you don't believe in government in the first place - when you actually want to break it. But again, why do prestige journalists need an off-hand remark like McCarthy's before they feel they have permission to say or look at the obvious?"
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/10/media-gets-f-on-benghazi-committee.html?showComment=1444677536419#c896479294797840797
"Let's set aside whether it's a witch hunt or even what it is. What it is has been obvious all along to anyone paying attention with even the most baseline level intelligence and experience. And yet it took an offhand remark from Kevin McCarthy to suddenly make the obvious discussable. Step back and think about it and that's amazing. Why didn't reporters feel empowered to pose these completely obvious questions absent McCarthy's remarks? It's been out there totally in plain sight all along. How could journalists of all people either be oblivious to this or not feel they had permission to discuss it?"
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/benghazi-and-the-journalism-of-permission
Part of it is something I've discussed often regarding the treatment of Hillary-the media moves in memes and narratives. The narrative that Hillary is in trouble and that there is something there with her emails though nobody really knew what, was the meme for months.
Only way to change a media narrative is a new narrative and McCarthy made that possible. Of course, I agree with Marshall that it took such idiotic candor to make the press question the investigation itself.
Marshall then hits on a key difference between the parties. When Democrats go after the Republicans on scandals they have merit, they aren't just as President Obama said of Emailgate just something 'ginned up.'
"Before driving in another shiv, let's step back to say that it's hardly surprising that a congressional probe mounted by either party has political dimensions. It's part of the cynical genius of our system that both parties are given political incentives to uncover wrongdoing on the part of the other party. This is a feature of the system, not a glitch."
"The question is whether you find any goods on the other guys that merits whatever political advantage you seek to draw. The other question is whether the effort is run with even a modicum of procedural fairness, transparency or even honesty about what's going on. Then finally, is the focus of the attack in any clear way tied to what you're investigating? On each of these fronts, the Gowdy/Benghazi committee has been a colossal joke - one of the main reasons it's come under such withering attack once prestige journalists decided to actually consider the work it was doing."
"When the legendary former Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) did his probes they routinely revealed substantial wrongdoing and maps for possible legislative change - especially when they were focused on the private sector. Take a look at this book for an understanding of Waxman's record. At the same time, Waxman's probes of the government itself often paid political dividends for Democrats. But when they did so, they usually found the goods."
He then makes a great point.
"One point to recognize is that it's inherently difficult to probe or seek to reform government when you don't believe in government in the first place - when you actually want to break it. But again, why do prestige journalists need an off-hand remark like McCarthy's before they feel they have permission to say or look at the obvious?"
Their hatred of government is their Original Sin and why they have so much trouble even electing a House Speaker much less electing a primary candidate that isn't a total joke in the general election.
No comments:
Post a Comment