A Closer Look at the Deconstruction of John Edwards

One of my favorite observers of the media has done it again, exposing how the cross hairs of the image-making-machine targets its casualties.
Take exhibit A:

Given the power of impressions, however, the media has effectively “taken Edwards apart” in two pictures. (This should not be surprising, though, as any candidate that trends left and threatens to play outside the establishment rules is probably doomed to the same fate.)

On first go around, Edwards was feminized and sissified. On a slow simmer for years, that stage really got hot in early March after Ann Coulter publicly called Edwards a “faggot.” It culminated in late April, however, when Adam Nagourney, Maureen Dowd (viewable via johnedwards.com) and Howard Kurtz, within the same week, not only jumped all over JE’s pricey Beverly Hills haircut, but seemed to relished the opportunity to revive what Nagourney termed the “Breck Girl sobriquet” with all three journalists plugging (read: blessing) the infamous, Edwards-slandering “I Feel Pretty” You Tube video.

[...]

Phase two crystallized this past weekend with the publication of the NYT Magazine, above.

In the cover story, Matt Bai spends an impressive 7,827 words intimating that John Edwards is a filthy-rich hypocrite who is playing the poverty issue for political advantage. “Writes Bai: “Whenever you wrap yourself in the mantle of morality and conviction … even the smallest hypocrisy can leave an indelible stain.”

The entire post is worth a read, see the rest at HuffingtonPost.com.

Watching Fox News Makes You Dumb

Via TalkingPointsMemo.com, as we suspected, here’s the reason why watching Fox News makes one dumb:

There’s ample evidence that Fox News viewers tend to be surprisingly uninformed about current events. We’re starting to get a better sense as to why that is.

What’s more important: Iraq or Anna Nicole Smith? Depends on which network you’re watching.

According to [the Project for Excellence in Journalism's] first quarter News Coverage Index, “MSNBC and CNN were much more consumed with the war in Iraq than was Fox.”

In daytime, FNC devoted 6 percent of its time to Iraq, and 17 percent of its time to Anna Nicole. For CNN, the mix was 20 percent Iraq, 5 percent Anna; for MSNBC, the mix was 18 percent Iraq, 10 percent Anna.

“Fox also stood out for its lack of coverage on the firings of the U.S. attorneys, compared with the other channels. The story, which gained real momentum in mid March, consumed a mere 2% of Fox’s total airtime. CNN devoted twice that percent (4%) and MSNBC four times (8%).”

Joe “Joke Line” Klein

Just one more illustration of the establishment media talking-heads confirming their status as total asses, via Booman Tribune:

Do me a favor and look at the roll call of the House vote on the Iraq supplemental. You should see the name Harman on this list of ‘Nays’. She’s right there between Hare and Hastings (FL) and it’s pretty clear that the House clerk recorded her vote as a ‘no’. Maybe that is some kind of clerical error, or maybe Jane has forgotten how to vote, but it seems to make a mockery of Smokin’ Joe Klein’s point here:

I was wrong, sadly, last week to say that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama would vote for the Iraq supplemental bill. They voted against. As readers here know, I would have voted for the bill. Voting against it means you’re in favor of a precipitous departure from Iraq…

…Yesterday I spoke with Congresswoman Jane Harman (D-Ca.) just back from Iraq, who voted for the bill–as did a majority of Democrats who are not running for President. "Look, I would love to have cast a vote against Bush on this. We need a new strategy and I hope we can force one in September," she told me. "But I flew into Baghdad on a troop transport with 150 kids, heading into the field. To vote against this bill was to vote against giving them the equipment, the armor they need. I couldn’t do that."

F(au)x News: PR Arm of the GOP

Here’s enough reason for Democrats not to trust Fox News, and to correctly describe it as an extension of the republican party:

Journalists strive to report the news, not to be the news. So Fox News should have been a bit embarrassed to headline a story that ended with the Nevada Democratic Party canceling Fox’s sponsorship of a pre-caucus debate.

Then again, Fox is not a typical news organization. [...] Fox’s prime commitment is to the triumph of conservative politics, not to a well-informed public. From hiring hosts to selecting stories to framing questions for discussion, Fox demonstrates its dedication to advancing the ideological interests of the right.

As former Fox reporter/anchor Jon Du Pre put it in the documentary “Outfoxed,” “We weren’t necessarily, as it was told to us, a newsgathering organization so much as we were a proponent of a point of view … we were there to reinforce a constituency.”

[...]

What evidence, forged or otherwise, did Fox rely on in asserting that Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) attended a Muslim madrassah? If CNN could go to the school and give the lie to the report, why couldn’t Fox? What outside panel was empowered to investigate how Fox could have aired such an outrageously inaccurate report? Who was fired for the inflammatory falsehoods?

A study by a University of Maryland center concluded, “Those who receive most of their news from Fox News are more likely than average to have misperceptions” about Iraq. For example, in 2003, 67 percent of those who relied primarily on Fox wrongly believed the U.S. “found clear evidence in Iraq that Saddam Hussein was working closely with the al Qaeda terrorist organization.” Only 40 percent of those who relied on print media harbored this illusion, debunked thoroughly by the 9/11 Commission.

Instead of providing “fair and balanced” reporting, Fox has created an audience ignorant of the facts, but fully supportive of management’s ideology.

An audience that decides for itself, based on “fair and balanced” coverage, ought not to reach monolithic conclusions. Yet, in our 2004 polling with Media Vote, using Nielsen diaries, we found that Fox News viewers supported George Bush over John Kerry by 88 percent to 7 percent. No demographic segment, other than Republicans, was as united in supporting Bush. Conservatives, white evangelical Christians, gun owners, and supporters of the Iraq war all gave Bush fewer votes than did regular Fox News viewers.

Media Continues to Kowtow to Conservatives

Not surprisingly media watchdog groups find that the elite news media continues to favor the conservative view point, often allowing conservative voices to dominate the public airwaves:

OUR KEY FINDINGS:

• Despite previous network claims that a conservative advantage existed on the Sunday shows simply because Republicans controlled Congress and the White House, only one show, ABC’s This Week, has been roughly balanced between both sides overall since the congressional majority switched hands in the 2006 midterm elections.
• Since the 2006 midterm elections, NBC’s Meet the Press and CBS’ Face the Nation have provided less balance between Republican and Democratic officials than Fox Broadcasting Co.’s Fox News Sunday despite the fact that Fox News Sunday remains the most unbalanced broadcast overall both before and after the election.
• During the 109th Congress (2005 and 2006), Republicans and conservatives held the advantage on every show, in every category measured. All four shows interviewed more Republicans and conservatives than Democrats and progressives overall, interviewed more Republican elected and administration officials than Democratic officials, hosted more conservative journalists than progressive journalists, held more panels that tilted right than tilted left, and gave more solo interviews to Republicans and conservatives.

Now that Congress has switched hands, one would reasonably expect Democrats and progressives to be represented at least as often as Republicans and conservatives on the Sunday shows. Yet our findings for the months since the midterm elections show that the networks have barely changed their practices.