Blatant

I’ve talked a bunch of times about how I’m sick of the corporate media trying to cram their own election-related Narratives down our throats — they’ve decided, for example, that Hillary Clinton is the inevitable candidate, and ignore any news to the contrary. All of the stories they report are crafted with their decided narrative in mind (from what I can tell, it appears that the media has decided it will be Clinton vs. Giuliani).

On the Republican side, in particular, they’ve ignored the candidacy of Ron Paul. Paul is an anti-war Libertarian (leaning pretty heavily into the “no-Federal-ANYTHING” Libertarian nutjob school of things, so his anti-war stance isn’t enough to sway me, as it appears to be swaying some supporters on the left). He is a strict anti-interventionist and blasts the administration for corrupting conservatism. But he’s a dweeby, little-known Congressman. He doesn’t make for Sexy reporting. Plus, his massive upsurge in support is coming largely from Teh Intarwebs, so of course, when the media does report on it, it’s dismissive and condescending. He’s the Howard Dean of the 2008 elections.

For example, check out this blatant bit of BS: The Conservative Leadership Conference held a Republican Straw Poll this weekend in Nevada, and Paul blasted everyone else out of the water — 33% of the votes, with #2 coming in at 16%.

The headline on MSNBC?

ROMNEY LOSES NV STRAW POLL

Can you believe that shit?

4 Replies to “Blatant”

  1. So, not to disagree with you, but haven’t kings always had kingmakers? Is this a notably different situation than has existed… well, ever? I’d be thrilled to know it was different at some point in time, but I can’t think of one personally — well, maybe Walter Cronkite era, but I’d be hesitant to even to state that definitively. I agree that it sucks, don’t get me wrong. I’m just not sure how we’ve come to expect anything else.

  2. Oh, believe me, I’m not saying it’s a new phenominon. (I remember TIME magazine’s “Why Voters Don’t Trust Clinton” cover during the primaries in 91, right before he won a bunch of them, and then secured the nomination, for example)

    The only thing that’s new is the rise of instant information from non-corporate-sources, which makes the corporate BS all the more transparent.

  3. It’s even broader and more insidious than that. Each candidate is fashioned into a one-note character by the collective media (including the late-night circuit), and each report on that candidate from that moment forward is shot through that lens.

    Bush was the down-to-earth (if slightly dim) Everyman.
    Kerry was the effete snob.
    Gore was the wooden boring guy.
    Hillary Clinton is the tough-as-nails bitch.

    Etc., etc.

    Then, of course, the candidate must bend over backwards to try and fight their particular stereotype (except Bush, who was happy with his and — apparently rightfully — didn’t think the being-stupid thing would hurt him). Kerry has to go hunting (and, of course, is shown holding his gun like a fairy). Gore has to crack jokes on Letterman. Hillary must were bright pant suits and cackle like a school girl.

    It drives me up a wall.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.