Liberal "spin" is emphasizing aspects of a policy favorable to liberals without noting aspects favorable to conservatives; presenting the liberal interpretation of what an event means while giving little or no time to explaining the conservative interpretation.

Click Me to Stop the Spin

-- Anonymous, December 16, 2000

Answers

(Ah, Saturday Morning ramblings. :)

Ummm ... no. Republicans, conservatives, communists, liberals, moderates and circus roustabouts all spin from time to time. To assume that only liberals spin things is wrong. Reagan's people were masters of spin. It's part and parcel of politics.

A more important part of the game is making sure that you get to assign the labels. What is a "conservative?" A "moderate?"

To a die-hard militia member in the upper midwest, Rush Limbaugh has sold out. Next to a Tom Hayden or Helen Caldicott, Bill Clinton appears to be a conservative reactionary. Likewise, next to a Bo Gritz, even a Pat Buchanan appears moderate. :)

If *I* get to assign the labels, I can marginalize the opposition. I can declare them so far from center that I can push them "off the scope" so that they don't even get to participate in the public debate. Thus was Buchanan marginalized by the Republicans -- and I still don't understand why the Democrats didn't do a more effective job of this against Nader.

I don't understand, but I have my suspicions: Democrats have crowed for years that the Republican party is built on a house of cards, a fragile coalition between Blue Blood Big Money types, Christian Righters and fringe rightists.

(And they're right. Already, Jerry Falwell has complained bitterly that Bush shouldn't appoint Democrats to his cabinet. Rush Limbaugh argued passionately the day after Gore's concession that Republicans have power, they should "sieze it" and do "the right thing." It's going to be an interesting four years, and Bush's biggest opponents may end up being members of his own party.)

But the Democratic party is just as fractured. Before there was Nader, liberals and progressives gravitated to the Democratic party as being the lesser of two evils. For 8 years, they've been gritting their teeth, agreeing to compromises which were antithetical to their viewpoint (from NAFTA to defanging the EEOC to phasing out public assistance for the poor) solely because the alternative was to lose ALL power.

(And there you have WHY those progressives who refused to support Nader, but kept the popular front for Gore, are so upset; they feel that they compromised and kept their mouths shut for no good purpose. Jesse Jackson's attempt to "prove" that Gore really won Florida isn't just sour grapes; they are frantic to delegitimatize and remove what little mandate -- if any -- Bush has to govern.)

I still suspect, in my heart of hearts, that Buchanan may have had secret marching orders to destroy the Reform Party, which cost the Republicans the White House in two successive elections. And Nader still puzzles me; what was the point of his pyhrric crusade? Who financed him, and for what purpose? These are asides and pure speculation, but I DO wonder.[g]

(But you Gore supporters who want to holler about Florida and counts and Supreme Courts need to get off that and blame the REAL culprits in this election: Buchanan, who removed the Reform Party as a factor, and Nader, who siphoned off enough votes to deny Gore a clear win.)

A, rambling thoughts over my full-city-roasted Kenyan AA. (There's a shop here that fresh-roasts it daily; it's OUTRAGEOUSLY good.[g])

Tell me what you think?

-- Anonymous, December 16, 2000

To a die-hard militia member in the upper midwest, Rush Limbaugh has sold out.

I agree, he is a pimp for the GOP. However, there are some good points made and missed in his rant.

The point I would like some insight on is that the level of spin is proportionate to the media coverage. For example, is the mainstream electronic media equally balanced between liberal and conservative? In my opinion it is not. I think that is the bigger picture here. There is no right-leaning voice. FOX gives it the best shot but at the end of the day falls short as well.

BTW...I have noticed several ads the past few days about how news was fair and balanced in its reporting of the election. Coincidence?

-- Anonymous, December 16, 2000

Bob,

I agree that most television news leans leftward, but you can't just consider television. Talk radio is almost entirely right-wing now. The Web is more conservative than liberal (though that's changing; the Web was formerly a conclave of moneyed yuppies, but more people are getting on line now as prices continue to drop).

The print media are roughly divided. New York is an example: the Post is a thinly-vieled mouthpiece for the GOP, the Times is the precise opposite.

While I'm on a roll ... the only thing that I'd correct, being someone who WORKS in the media, is the idea that ownership automatically determines editorial policy. It does NOT; money does.

Thus, a TV network or paper could be owned by a conservative backer, but they need viewers and readers. Thus, a liberal anchor might keep his job, in spite of ownership, because the owners, at the end of the day, want to make money. If the anchor is bringing in viewers, he/she will keep that job.

The talk radio revolution is another case in point. It went conservative because Rush proved that it works. AM radio, which was near extinction, was revived by Rush and Dr. Laura. I personally know some liberal station owners who have gritted their teeth and put them on the air because the alternative is to go bankrupt. :)

(They try to "balance" this by putting liberal local hosts on the air -- but, with a few scattered exceptions, their ratings are usually dismal.)

-- Anonymous, December 16, 2000

I agree that most television news leans leftward, but you can't just consider television. Talk radio is almost entirely right-wing now. The Web is more conservative than liberal ...

I don't remember the exact figures but I believe that TV influences approximately 70% of the population...statistically speaking, TV rules the spin.

-- Anonymous, December 16, 2000

The Web is more conservative than liberal (though that's changing; the Web was formerly a conclave of moneyed yuppies, but more people are getting on line now as prices continue to drop).

Most political influence on the Web was liberal in the early days, since it started in the universities. Now it seems to be conservative leaning due to the masses of yuppies...;)

-- Anonymous, December 16, 2000

David

I am NOT a yuppie. I'm a working-class anti-hero...

-- Anonymous, December 17, 2000

"I'm a working-class anti-hero."

How do you have time to work when you are spamming this forum with right-wing crap 24 hours a day?

-- Anonymous, December 17, 2000

it's easy...i do networking and dsl, t1, t3, and isdn for homes and businesses...get to test my work all day long. bet that really pisses you liberal panty-wastes off, huh?

-- Anonymous, December 17, 2000

panty-wastes?

-- Anonymous, December 17, 2000

Panty-waste: alternate terms include "drawer skidmarks," "nicotine stains" and ...

No, I won't go further. :)

-- Anonymous, December 17, 2000

Pronunciation: 'pan-tE-"wAst Function: noun Date: circa 1936 : SISSY

-- Anonymous, December 17, 2000

Oh. Okay... I see.

I've always suspected that Bob was a mental midget, and now I see that he also has the emotional development of a 4 year-old.

-- Anonymous, December 17, 2000

The expression is "panty waist" as in to say the object of your insult has feminine characteristics. It's just an old-fasioned way of calling someone a pussy. Not very creative by any means and with a strong hint of sexism.

-- Anonymous, December 17, 2000

MALE CHAUVINIST PIG !!!!!!

Opps! Sorry, had a little '60s flashback there....

-- Anonymous, December 18, 2000

Poole:

Does that store do mail order? That Kenyan sounds great. Let me know.

-- Anonymous, December 18, 2000

I've always suspected that Bob was a mental midget, and now I see that he also has the emotional development of a 4 year-old.

Come on now! You can do better than that!

-- Anonymous, December 18, 2000