So Called Liberal Media

Both sides hatin’ on the SCLM

First, KLo got snippy and bitter watchingObama interact with the troops. At least that’s whatI’m betting made her head start to feel all ‘splodey. But she took it out on MSNBC.

And rightly so! I mean REALLY!

Egregious displays of matter-of-factly-ness such asthis simply cannot stand:

Perhaps I have a foggy memory. But I remember George Bush speaking to many military crowds when he was president. They were frequently enthusiastic. He was often emotional.
I remember thinking that there was an obvious mutual love and respect there. I remember servicemen and women and military family members e-mailing me with on-the-scene reports expressing those sentiments. But I never remember an MSNBC anchor telling me matter-of-factly, during a George W. Bush visit to deployed troops or their families on bases at home, “This is a big morale boost.” (President Bush, as you’ll recall, was not unpopular with the military.) “This is a big morale boost” is the tenor of the MSNBC coverage of President Obama’s visit to Iraq right now, of course.

I’m not saying an Obama visit is not a morale boost — feel free to e-mail me from Camp Victory and let me know. But there is a noticeable difference in the coverage. We get it. Your morale has been boosted, MSNBC. Perhaps you can take that to a government-run bank.

/blockquote>“This is a big morale boost.” That’s what set you off? Really?

Shit, girl, you oughta be glad Chris Matthews didn’t start talking about aftershave and leg tingles.

And yeah, there IS a noticeable difference in the coverage. Because you know why? Things are very fucking noticeably different than they were before, and no, I’m not talking about the decided lack of plastic poultry. If you wanna rail about policy, about ideology, go ahead. I won’t agree with you but I understand it, and sometimes one of you even says something substantive.

But when you start getting all twisted up about the fact that the new guy is charismatic, that people are excited about him, that he has something that politicians can’t learn, can’t buy, can’t fake, and oh yeah, Bush probably couldn’t even spell charisma, much less pronounce it, when you and your people show how much you hate this and fear it and talk about how “Hitler made great speeches too,” you know what?

You look fucking ridiculous, that’s what! Pathetic. Ten times worse than you already even are! It’s embarrassing! Stop it, please.

(deep cleansing breath)

In other news…

Huffpo’s Jason Linkins was slapping MSNBC from the other side of the table. This was also about matter-of-factness, too. Or more correctly, the lack of it. Because instead of pointing out that Michele Bachmann is, in fact, batshit crazy-undereducated-overambitious-cuckoo for coco puffs for spouting off about Overlord Obama’s plan for indoctrinating the nation’s youth with dangerous ideas about the dark arts of selflessness and service and volunteerism, this happened:

What followed was an almost
unbearably polite discussion of Bachmann. We are told that she has a knack for
saying “certain things that incite attention.” We hear that she
appeals to a “right flank” of the Republican party that is “enamored”
of her. Attention is given to disputing the idea that she is a “darling of
the Republican party,” probably because people in the Republican party —
who don’t exactly go out of their way to repudiate Bachmann’s nonsense — will
do the bare minimum of going to people like Erin Billings of Roll Call and
telling her: “You know, this is off the record, but Michele Bachmann
doesn’t really represent the Republican party.”

It’s all so lovely and
polite in the way it pirouettes around the larger point, but the larger point
remains the same: TODAY AT 9:22 a.m., MSNBC BEGAN A SEGMENT ON CRAZY MICHELE
BACHMANN WITH THE FOLLOWING SENTENCE:

“Can helping your
community be a bad thing?”

It’s a great rant.Read the rest.



4 thoughts on “Both sides hatin’ on the SCLM”

  1. Dumb Question: There is the option of serving your country in the military. However, isn’t basic training a re-education camp? (You made them strong, we’ll make them army strong). Isn’t the idea that you break folks down so you can build them back in the image of a soldier?

Comments are closed.