Wright, the Media, the Pentagon Pundits, and You

Well, my pal Digby has characterized my posts about the Rev. Wright situation as a defense of him. I don't know that I was defending him so much as I was attacking a system that forces tagential associates into the spotlight of the Presidential race, and then harps on them to the point that they become the only issue that matters. Current campaigns for President are played out on a metaphorical level, where the meaningless controversies that come up, about Rev. Wright, or Tuzla, or flag pins, or whatever, stand in for controversies and crises that a future President may face. And yet there is plenty enough material given by candidates - their record, their proposals, their vision for the country, etc. - that there's no need to construct this metaphorical cauldron. You can use tangible issues, things like the GI Bill or the gas tax holiday, to speak to character and how a candidate faces a challenge, etc. The problem is that the media is uncomfortable with policy. It pains me to even write that.

Of late, I've been talking a bit about the media's inability to report on policy in a judgmental manner. They know how to imply that Barack Obama has had bad friends, and Hillary Clinton tells lies, and John McCain -- well, they know how to doodle his initials inside a sparkly heart. What they don't know how to do, however, is say that one candidate's health plan, or housing plan, or economic agenda, is better than another candidate's. Which is why folks basically have to vote on grounds of flag pins and flip-flops -- they're not given much else in the way of analytical guidance [...]

When confronted by the fact that their coverage of politics is frequently trivial and annoying, many in the media argue that they only report that way because the voters make their decisions based on trivial and annoying issues. But there's no doubt that, with proper press coverage, the gas holiday could be one of those trivial and annoying issues that comes to stand-in for broader character failures or narratives or whatever. It's just that the media doesn't like to deal with policy.

And so, despite the very real challenges facing the nation, we end up talking about Rev. Wright. And here's where the traditional media gets incredibly selective. Because not every associate gets the kind of scrutiny that Wright does - only the ones who aren't Village members in good standing. Monsters who directed the overthrow of multiple governments, the bombing of entire nations, and the killing of innocents - those candidates who receive their endorsement don't have to answer for them. It's only those outside the cozy Washington establishment who are seen as "problems." And I agree with John Cole - Jeremiah Wright, or anyone for that matter, making COMMENTS is not the crucial information we need on which to base our decision for leader of the free world. I have to excerpt quite a bit because it's too good.

First and foremost, I guess I am no longer the delicate fainting flower that most other bloggers and media commenters are these days. I spent several years in the early days of this blog being all sorts of outraged about petty bullshit. I spent days calling Ted Rall an asshole (he still is, I think), days opining about what an asshole Michael Moore is, and so on. I got my panties all in a bunch about Ward Churchhill (also a dick), and stupid things Bill Maher may or may not have said, and so on.

And you know what? They may be assholes, or jerks, or whatever term you want to use, but they sure as hell didn’t run this economy into the ground. They aren’t responsible for turning a huge surplus into a several hundred billion dollar deficit. I have yet to read any memos from Barbra Streisand detailing how we should spy on American citizens.

And so it is with Jeremiah Wright. Is he a jerk? I don’t think there is any argument to be made that lately he hasn’t in fact been one big, giant, puckered asshole. His ego tour the past few days was all about him, but so what? I blame the media as much as I blame him. Is it an offensive notion that the government created aids? Absolutely, but I refuse to get all bent out of shape about it, because the government that tortures people and ran the Tuskegee experiment and wiretapped MLK for years opens itself up to crazy accusations like that.

So Jeremiah Wright has acted like a jackass the past few days, and he may have acted supremely selfishly by hurting Obama’s electoral chances. Regardless, he may be a flawed man, but that does not undo all the good he has done over the years. I don’t know of any bloggers with thirty years of service to the poor and the indigent. Get back to me when Chris Matthews feeds hungry people for three decades. And even with all his flaws, Jeremiah Wright did give us this quality bit of entertainment, and I have to admit to enjoying someone treat the media with the respect they deserve (which is to be mocked, have eyes rolled at them, and taunted as Wright did yesterday at the Press Club).

Maybe it is because I am totally and unrepentantly in the tank for Obama, but I just can’t get worked up over what his pastor said. Maybe it is because I am not religious, and I am used to religious people saying things that sound crazy. Or maybe I just refuse to spend any more time and energy getting worked up over and denouncing, distancing, and rejecting the wrong people- people who really don’t matter in the big scheme of things. If you have a memo from Jeremiah Wright to John Yoo showing how we should become a rogue nation, let me know. If you have pictures of Jeremiah Wright voting against the GI Bill, send it to me. If you have evidence of Jeremiah Wright training junior soldiers on the finer aspects of stacking and torturing naked Iraqi captives, pass them on.

Exactly.

Did Barack Obama do something he had to do, or else the media would never get up off his throat? Yes. Is it going to stop the bleeding? No. Absolutely not. The media controls this game, where they pretend to be shocked at some associate, demand repudiation, and then having received it, move the goalposts again and demand some extra repudiation. They decide when someone is noble and when someone is weak. They decide who's up and who's down. They decide who gets to appear on their airwaves and who gets blackballed based on their being criticized in a book.

So I'm not going to give them a break for playing their little "Thou must distance yourself" game. The media's deep corruption in the face of the Pentagon Pundit scandal has been completely exposed. The major news nets, some of whom continue to use these Pentagon pundits, have essentially put together a media blackout on this story, opting for Miley Cyrus coverage instead. When pressed and pressured, they acknowledge the story but defend their own analysts, lying all the way through it. This dodge is pathetic.

When the news media comes to terms with that, when they actually start understanding the consequences of their own reporting, then I'll apologize for "defending" Reverend Wright. Until then, forget it.