Ace of Spades HQ

« I, the Liberal Media | Main | FAQ: What is the Deal With the Cowbell? »

September 23, 2004

"Shouldn't We Be Talking About the Real Issues?"

Mayflower Hill thinks we should all stop talking about Rathergate and start focusing on the "real issues." You know-- the issues that hurt Bush.

I hear this in the liberal media eighty times a day. Over and over again-- "Can't we talk about the real issues? Can't we talk about Iraq?"

Here's the problem with that, boys.

First, as Kausfiles points out, we can talk about more than one issue at a time.

Second, as Kausfiles also points out, this is in fact a major story, no matter how much the liberal media or their political wing, the Democratic Party, would like to pretend it isn't. You've got a high-ranking Kerry aide, former Clinton spokesman Joe Lockhart, on the phone with a CBS producer and an unhinged Texas Democrat who is at least the conveyer of forged documents.

We're told again and again that the media doesn't care which party a story may damage; they're only interested in a juicy story. Well, here's an objectively juicy story, ladies. And yet it keeps getting reported deep in the interior of the paper, and every night we have to listen to sermonettes from you insufferable pricks about what a "distraction" all of this silly CBS-abetted-political-forgery-to-corruptly-change-the-outcome-of-a-political-election seems to be.

Third -- and this is my point -- it sure seems to me that this was considered a "real issue" two weeks ago when it was assumed the documents were authentic and showed that Bush got special treatment in the Guard over thirty fucking years ago.

But suddenly, the issue can't hurt Bush -- indeed, it hurts Kerry both directly (to the extent people suspect his campaign was involved in the deception-- not a wild suspicion, given the Mapes-Lockhart-Burnett fogery Triange Trade) as well as indirectly, by wounding the credibility of the institution that is most helpful and most committed to getting Kerry elected.

The biggest part of media bias isn't their double standards, although those are quite egregious -- when Trent Lott says something nice about doddering Dixiecrat Strom Thurmond, that's a media uproar; when Chris Dodd praises the life's work of former Ku Klux Klan Kleagle Robert Byrd, that doesn't even make the evening news.

And the biggest part of media bias also isn't slanting stories, although they're quite blatant about that. The Heritage Foundation -- both nominally non-partisan and conservative leaning -- is always identified as conservative leaning. Meanwhile, all liberal advocacy groups and think tanks, from the Institute for Peace to the Committe for a Responsible Federal Budget which are nominally non-partisan and also irrefutably left-leaning are of course described as "non-partisan."

A simple rule in the stylebook could end this practice once and for all. Either organizations will be described as "non-partisan" if they are in fact nominally non-partisan, or they can be described according to how they tend to lean ideologically, or both; but all such organizations must be described the same way. Not one rule for right-leaning organizations and a completely different rule for left-leaning ones.

A simple enough rule, of course. But the media won't institute this very simple, bright-line, black-letter rule, because they want the freedom to brand conservative-leaning organizations as "conservative," while dishonestly calling nominally non-partisan but transparently left-leaning organizations as simply "non-partisan."

The rule would be simple to declare and easy to follow and enforce. This isn't difficult, guys. They don't announce such a rule, nor adhere to such a rule, because they don't want to.

But even that sort of dishonest shading isn't the worst form of media bias.

No, the worst form of media bias is simple bias in story selection. The media gets to decide which stories get front-page play for weeks at a time (Abu Ghraib) and which get virtually no mention whatsoever (Sarin shells discovered in Iraq).

I have less and less interest in what the media thinks the "real issues" in this campaign are, because, coincidentally enough I'm sure, the "real issue" always turns out to be the issue that can most damage Bush and most help John Kerry.

When we captured Saddam Hussein in December, and it seemed as if Iraq would become a less dangerous place, the media was quite insistent that the economy -- the slow job growth -- was the "real issue."

Trouble is, from January through May we had explosive job growth, and yet the media -- previously deeming this the "real issue," remember -- suddenly wasn't so terribly interested at all in job growth. The better the economy got, the less of a "real issue" it suddenly seemed.

Of course, the economy went through a soft patch, and became a "real issue" again; but now job growth seems back on track, and the economy seems to have regained its "traction" (according to Fed Chair Greenspan), and guess what? It's not a "real issue" anymore.

The "real issue" for this week is of course Iraq, because Iraq is in pretty shitty shape. Should the unlikely happen and the level of violence decrease in Iraq, our media wisemen will decide that there's a new "real issue" we should all be terribly concerned about-- probably health care. That's always a go-to "real issue" when you've got nothing else.

So, forgive the fuck out of me, Dear Liberal Media, when I tell you that I don't give a rat's red raw ass as to your enlightened conception of what the current "real issue" facing all of us might be. You don't think that a major media organization participating in a clumsy forgery in order to change the outcome of an American Presidential election a "real issue;" I hope you will not be terribly put off when I inform you that I do.

And I hope that you're not offended further that I've even dared to express my opinion on the matter, and thereby showing the temerity to challenge your self-asserted right to judge on my behalf what ought to be occupying my thoughts at any particular moment.

This was a "real issue" when it could be used to hurt Bush. Need I list the stories on CBS News, 60 Minutes, CNN, Hardball, etc? Need I link the print stories in USAToday, the New York Times, and the Boston Globe?

So, two weeks ago it was a "real issue." Now that this "real issue" has backfired and is wounding the candidate you support, as well as your ability to continue propping him up, it has ceased to be a "real issue."

Go fuck yourselves.

Was that a little unclear? Perhaps the teensiest little bit indirect? Maybe a little too subtle?

Well, let me clarify my previous remarks:

Go fuck yourselves, assholes. I didn't elect you as my own personal fucking mentor, and I'm getting goddamned sick of your presumption in telling me what the fuck I should be interested in and concerned about.

P.S.: Does anyone doubt that if Keith Olbermann's evidence-free speculation turned out to be true-- that, O Happy Day!, it did turn out that Karl Rove was in fact the author of the forgeries-- that the Liberal Media wouldn't suddenly proclaim that this is in fact not only a Real Issue once again, but furthermore a Real Issue of Extraordinary Importance Requiring Flood the Zone Front Page Coverage Seven Days a Week and Repeatedly Compared in Terms of Impact to Watergate and the McCarthy Hearings?

Can Chris Fucking Matthews even look himself in the mirror and not crack a shit-eating grin as he says, "I swear, if Karl Rove were behind this rather than a partisan Democrat with shadowy connections to the Kerry Camp, I would be equally insistent that this is not a 'real issue' and should not 'distract us' from the real issues confronting us in this election"?

I'd like to be there when he tries. I'll hold the box of Kleenex for wiping his eyes after he stops laughing like a maniac goofed up on happy-gas.

And This Isn't Just Me Ranting Like a Lunatic Either; Instapundit Says So Too Update:

And it matters because Big Media are still the main way that our society learns about what's happening, and talks about it. A serious breakdown there, which seems undeniably present today, is very important. In many ways, as I've said before, it's more important than how the election turns out.

Instapundit's quite right; Presidents come and go, but the Liberal Media is Forever. They seem to almost grasp the challenge to their self-presumed authority, and they're reacting predictably to it.

They knew Bush was going to be on the ballot this fall, and possibly tossed out office. They didn't imagine that they themselves would be.

They don't seem to be liking the idea of that very much at all.

They all seem so happy to burble on about getting more "diverse voices" in the media when they assume those "diverse voices" will be ideological soul-mates -- better than soul-mates, actually; soul-mates to their left, who can help drag the media even further to the left (where most reporters and editors think it ought to be anyway) while they, the normal establishment liberal media, can pose as moderating centrists in the mix.

But now that they're getting a taste of genuine diversity, they don't seem to like the flavor so much.

I was trying to explain to a fairly moderate woman why I cared so much about Rathergate. I said, half-jokingly, that if I had the choice between beating John Kerry or beating Dan Rather, I'd have trouble making a decision.

I was, as I say, half-joking.

But not entirely joking.

Because the refs in this game -- the liberal media -- are hopelessly biased in favor the home team, and the home team is always the Democratic Party. I don't know about you, but, given the choice, I think I'd be tempted to lump a major loss if in return I could receive a permanent change in the umpire corps.

A loss is just a loss. But a change in the rules of the game to rules which don't always disfavor your team-- well, that's potentially a dynasty.

posted by Ace at 01:06 AM

Comments

You rule.

Posted by: ctob on September 23, 2004 01:30 AM

Is there just one guy writing all the stuff on this site? If so, you are incredible! Hell even if it is 3 people you are all incredible. The quality of investigation and deduction on this site is mind blowing to me. You make the mainstream media look pretty stupid. Dude, you are on fire!

p.s. I don't understand the deal with the guy holding the cowbell, that's just too weird

Posted by: VI on September 23, 2004 02:13 AM

VI,

At the sidebar, there is a Frequently Asked Questions header. Beneath that is a link for "What's the Deal With the Cowbell?" All is explained there.

Long story short-- cowbell is good. You're gonna want that cowbell.

Posted by: ace on September 23, 2004 02:18 AM

Well Said!!!!

What I would have written if I could write as "purty" as you.

Very well thought out....

Must.. Reach... Paypal.. Button...

Thanks for the last 14 days or so. It is appreciated

Posted by: Skinny Benny on September 23, 2004 02:26 AM

"I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore!" These MSMer's know the clout they have and trash our constitution with it every day. I used to think years ago about the inequality of voice some idiot on TV or in the press had over me or even millions of others.

The blogs are a small, at this point, way of raving back. But, up to and until the time there is true non-partisanship from the MSM, (an unlikely dream) no one will ever really have the truth.

Kerry has already started the last ditch clincher for Demorats: Social Security. That's right boys and girls, time to scare the old people. Even if it is a lie, so be it. I'll(Kerry) lie and the MSM will swear to it.

The only glimpse of light I see are people like Ace and Charles Johnson and others that raise constant awareness everytime they fuck up. Like Glen Reynolds said, keep up the heat, now is not the time to quit. Hold a fire to their feet that won't stop until they have to scream.

Posted by: Roundguy on September 23, 2004 02:34 AM

Hear hear! To paraphrase Zell Miller, don't even turn the bastards loose to get a better grip. Hoo-rah!

Posted by: Johnny Walker Red on September 23, 2004 02:42 AM

Ace you rule.

That was blunt force trauma to the head of the mainstream media and all their left/liberal apologist/co-conspirators.

I'm gonna cut and paste that whole thing and unload it on any fool who dares to piss me off. Oh don't worry I'll be sure to let em know who did all the heavy lifting.

Thanks for saying what I've felt for too damn long.

Posted by: ThomasD on September 23, 2004 02:50 AM

It was Wednesday. Wednesday night. Late. I dropped by HQ.
A rat with a red raw ass ran by. A carriage return slammed, then slammed again. It didn’t sound proportional.

“Go fuck yourselves assholes!”

I went toward the voice.

Kate brushed past, all high heels, tailored suit and pearls. She blew smoke in my face.

“He’s down there. He’s got sore feet from kicking butt all day. Look, I gotta go.” She slowed down to let me watch her walk out. Whatta dame.

“That you SondraK?”

“Na, Ace, it’s me. I got a information for ya… from Karl.”

“I'm getting goddamned sick of personal fucking mentors telling me what the fuck I should be interested in and concerned…”

“Nothin’ like that, big guy. Karl says six weeks. Be on ice. Eat your revenge cold and you be chuggin’ VRWC Champagne with Ann Coulter on your lap. Crossed legs and everything.”

I knew he wasn’t going to pour me anything from that bottle in his hand.

“OK, I’m leaving.”

I turned back.

“Just one more thing… I hear you been fittin’ some fatcat kneecappers for pink slips and stripes. History books are gonna need extra pages when this job’s over.”

Posted by: Lastango on September 23, 2004 03:00 AM

Right on, man. Keep going.

Posted by: Thomas E. Davis on September 23, 2004 07:55 AM

Jeez Ace,

You need to quit trying to get in touch with your feminine side and say what you mean. Perhaps you need a quick sniff from the oxygen tank after that rant.

Good on ya. Been wanting to say that for quite some time myself. Can I borrow the sentiments verbatim??

Seriously, good job.

Subsunk

Posted by: Subsunk on September 23, 2004 08:35 AM

GOOD on you , Ace! My sentiments exactly. I am so tired of the pompus jackasses inhabiting the newsrooms of the world. They think they are so far above the rest of us who do our daily work, raise families and are the glue holding the country together. Well, to hell with them!

Posted by: Marcy on September 23, 2004 08:50 AM

Ace:

That was quite possibly the best piece of writing I've seen on this or any other blog in a long time. You are truly slicin' like a hammer.

Posted by: JeffK on September 23, 2004 09:15 AM

Ace,

Me too, then.

Go.Fuck.Yourselves.

Like a fuckin' hammer.

And yes, loosening the liberal stranglehold on the flow of information is important. But I cannot under any circumstances abide John Forbes Kerry as the Commander in Chief.

The MSM will get theirs in due course.

Keep.Up.the.Good.Work.

Posted by: MeTooThen on September 23, 2004 10:13 AM

Lastango,

LOL!

Really.

Posted by: MeTooThen on September 23, 2004 10:15 AM

I would like to add my cheers to the crowd-
Wow, Ace.

Posted by: lauraw on September 23, 2004 10:33 AM

You turned into a maniac.

Posted by: Joe Mama on September 23, 2004 10:33 AM

"...liberal media or their political wing, the Democratic Party"

You get it, finally. The media do not favor the Democrats. It's the other way around: the Democratic Party is the MSM's bitch (one of several). This is the idea that you should run with and see where it takes you. All will become clearer.

Posted by: The Sage of Forest Park on September 23, 2004 10:35 AM

I swear, Ace, I almost wanna be bad...

*contented sigh*

That kind of righteous, visceral satisfaction is almost as good as sex.

Posted by: Joan of Argghh! on September 23, 2004 10:38 AM

Media:

real issues = class-warfare rhetoric and arguing for statist policies

Posted by: Mark on September 23, 2004 11:30 AM

approximately 50% of CBS news viewers must be conservative... what fun it would be if we all stop watching CBS news.

Posted by: steve on September 23, 2004 11:30 AM

I'll give $500 to the person who can get this printed in the op-ed section of a major newspaper.

Posted by: fat kid on September 23, 2004 11:39 AM

Right on, baby.

Posted by: Hucklebuck on September 23, 2004 12:16 PM

"Go fuck yourselves, assholes. I didn't elect you as my own personal fucking mentor, and I'm getting goddamned sick of your presumtuousness in telling me what the fuck I should be interested in and concerned about."

Ace... SLICING LIKE A FUCKING HAMMER.

Posted by: mcgurk on September 23, 2004 12:27 PM

Good rant, Ace.

One little nit to pick - "presumption", not "presumptuousness". Much more elegant, and doesn't stop the reader's eye while sorting out the string of vowels.

Posted by: Dianna on September 23, 2004 01:13 PM

Tom Brokaw, no better than the rest. Following the Iraq Prime Minister listing several cities in Iraq, it was reported by Brokaw as "rattling off" the cities' names.

What a left-wing dumb-ass.

Posted by: Dennis on September 23, 2004 01:36 PM

Dianna, if you have a problem with Ace's writing, go talk to Bob Dole's cock.

Posted by: lauraw on September 23, 2004 01:39 PM

Sorry Dianna. Don't know why I thought that was funny.

Posted by: lauraw on September 23, 2004 01:40 PM

I think you made Tawny Kitaen's panties wet with that one, Ace.

Posted by: Terry Notus on September 23, 2004 01:46 PM

Dianna, if you have a problem with Ace's writing, go talk to Bob Dole's cock.

Another inside joke that made me spit my sprite all over my monitor...

Posted by: fat kid on September 23, 2004 01:51 PM

Why are so many people watching "The Apprentice"? Don't they understand that Iraq is the real issue?

Posted by: Eric Spratling on September 23, 2004 02:26 PM

lauraw, I thought it was funny, too.

Posted by: Dianna on September 23, 2004 02:33 PM

Check out:
http://www.cbs.com/sales/

It lists Chevy, Home Depot, and Proctor and Gamble as sponsors of CBS programming. If you have a minute, send an email to those companies expressing your thoughts...

Posted by: hi on September 23, 2004 02:37 PM

Home Depot, huh? Disappointing, considering Home Depot's co-founders have given substantially to the RNC and its candidates and are well-known Bush supporters. Perhaps we should make them aware that their advertising on CBS is planting their mouths where their(personal) money isn't.

Posted by: SLG on September 23, 2004 03:10 PM

MSM will become totally irrelevant when all households have cable TV.

Posted by: Rookwood on September 23, 2004 03:18 PM

All,

Thanks a lot.

Dianna,

You're right on "presumption." I'll change it. Thanks.

Bob Dole's cock just called to tell me to lay off blogging when I'm angry.

And Bob Dole's cock is very persuasive.

Posted by: ace on September 23, 2004 03:36 PM

Got a point there Rookwood. My Dad has never had cable; he just switched from the bunny ears to some stupid dish program a few months ago.

Maybe instead of helping the homeless, we should be helping people get computers and cable. I'd be willing to set up a non-profit (heh heh) organization with that worthy goal as its mission.

Posted by: lauraw on September 23, 2004 03:41 PM

Dear Home Depot: If you don't stop sponsoring CBS programming, the next time I slice like a fucking hammer the fucking hammer will come from Lowe's. Don't make a fucking maniac out of me.

Posted by: Mr. Paul Anka on September 23, 2004 03:47 PM

Latest from the Kerry Spot:

McAuliffe used the term 'sugarcoat' in a speech 9 hours before the 60 Minutes story ran... the speech was, of course, attacking Bush's TANG service, and it used the forged-memo syntax. But, no, there's no coordination here.

Posted by: morpheus on September 23, 2004 04:13 PM

If given a choice between Bush winning and replacing the MSM, there would be no choice - MSM! The long term threat to our democracy is too great to leave information subject to the MSM filter/slant machine. I'd feel the same way if rather than replacing the MSM, we could just have a little more balance.

Full disclosure: I consider myself an independent, but after 9/11, the Dems pathetic obstruction of the war on terror, and Sen Kerry's to undercut our troops and allies, I'm a fire-breathing Bush supporter. I's also never support a Liberal.

Posted by: MaDr on September 23, 2004 04:52 PM

Damn fine piece! Spot on and pounded flat. Had something for everybody, well, except the Mainstream Media Dingoes that is.

Off to add you to my blogroll ...

Posted by: MartiniPundit on September 23, 2004 05:19 PM

Jeez...I gotta send you some money. This site is great. Keep up the eloquent work.

Posted by: RickyRetard on September 23, 2004 05:36 PM

Coming from "rickyretard" i'm sure that means a lot. ;)

Seriously. :P

Posted by: fat kid on September 23, 2004 05:47 PM

Good post.

James

Posted by: James R. Rummel on September 23, 2004 07:06 PM

Brilliant post!

Posted by: Evil Pundit on September 23, 2004 07:36 PM

Ace of Spades HQ,

I'n not sure why I just sent you $20.00 bucks. You have elevated the "f" word to new heights and I cannot think of any group more deserving of your diatribe than the liberal pundits. Since I am incapable of such journalist flash and you took the words right out of my mouth (so to speak albeit with far greater eloquence than I am capable) I guess the $20.00 is a fair enough trade for having you say to the world what needs to be said.

Posted by: Nomorelies on September 23, 2004 10:58 PM

No. I haven't said enough. The days of the liberal media are over. Dan Rather has opened the floodgates from hell and those narrow-minded bean-brain egocentric left-leaning commie-loving, tofu-eating, tree-hugging, Kerry-catering dingbats have finally met their match. They either capitulate or the lights go out at the MSM. When all the viewers go away they lose and can't get it back. They either listen to Ace of Spades and the rest of us or else. My money is that they are too intellectually arrested to get it and will go down with their ships.

Posted by: Nomorelies on September 23, 2004 11:20 PM

The finest commentary I have read about this whole episode.Thank you for saying it all and having this site!I am so happy to have recently found people who think like me.[But express it better]

Posted by: builder on September 23, 2004 11:35 PM

ACE, that was one excellent rant. I will add, the "real issue" is partially the liberal media, but it is also about a liberal agenda in school textbooks, and a pervasive lack of intellectual diversity in fields like teaching and journalism.

David Horowitz has been the tip of the spear on this structural lack of intellectual diversity in educational institutions at his Frontpagemag.com daily magazine. He recognizes there is educational value in diversity of the students, but has now sucessfully argued in several state legislatures, starting in Colorado, that true diversity must also include curriculum and a balanced ideological teaching body. Naturally, teachers, professors, and educators preparing or PC-ifying textbooks had a coronary over this - but Horowitz is gaining steam because, like the SwiftVets, his Truth is obvious to most people that read his arguments.

Sounds like the profession of journalism and the MSM execs & HR people need to have Horowitz or someone similar to him press the case for true diversity of thought there.

Posted by: Cedarford on September 24, 2004 12:49 AM

What the Bush campaign should to is check our the girls he dated while serving as Winton Blount's campaign manager. They would remember is they'd been pick up late because of his National Guard committment.

Me? I never dated the man, but I bet Montgomery, Alabama's mothership was in full force with such a Texas Prince piece in their midst. He was aristocratic and dime-on.

He was young and he dated.

I betcha some of those aging girls like me could stand up now for him and his late shows for their dates due to his National Guard duties ... if only they will come forward now.

Posted by: aliaenor on September 24, 2004 07:00 PM

We are talking about real issues. Just not the ones the media and all the lefty bloggers want to shift the discussion to. Wah. Fuck 'em.

Re: the beating Kerry/beating Dan Rather thang - do we have to make a choice? Can't we do both? ;)

Posted by: Ironbear on September 24, 2004 11:34 PM

Do youse guys bother to monitor one another as well as the Democrats? As in INDC systemacially locks out anyone who doesn't conform to Bill Ardolino's view of humanity? He just shuts down comments on his site that don't conform to his view of the world.

LGF never does that unless it's utterly obscene or violent. It also does not require one to "register" with some wizened proctor of internet IP address as does the Captain and his missing Whiskey of the Northern Alliance.

Charles Johnson, LGF, an honest Californian up against the world. Charles and Glenn Reynolds head the pack of honest bloggers. The rest? Egotists and hangers on like Powerline.

Posted by: on October 23, 2004 02:32 AM