“Once these stories get out there, they’re hard to stamp out because our media do such a lousy job of speaking truth to stupid.” – Bill Maher, July 31, 2009, L.A. Times

CNN's Dobbsian President Jon Klein: "Yes! We have no standards!"

Ugh.  During the recent Lou Dobbs birther dust-up, CNN President Jon Klein confirmed a suspicion I’ve had that the cable news networks have fundamentally debased American journalism (cue laugh track).

King Birther Dobbs

Lou Dobbs should have stuck to business reporting.  Instead, Dobbs has fashioned himself after someone more of his era, Father Coughlin.  From Coughlin’s Wikipedia article:

He was one of the first political leaders to use radio to reach a mass audience, as more than forty million tuned to his weekly broadcasts during the 1930s. Coughlin used his radio program to promote Franklin D. Roosevelt and his early New Deal proposals, to issue antisemitic commentary, and later to rationalize some of the policies of National Socialist Adolf Hitler and Fascist Benito Mussolini.  The broadcasts have been called “a variation of the Fascist agenda applied to American culture”. His chief topics were political and economic rather than religious, with his slogan being Social Justice, first with, and later against, the New Deal.

Dobbs as a modern-day Coughlin was evident with his alarmist xenophobic advocacy journalism on the subject of immigration. Now he enters the fracas as a light of hope for the “Birthers”, recently tying the two issues together to say Obama might be an illegal immigrant:

I’m starting to think we have a document issue. You suppose he’s un — no, I won’t even use the word undocumented, it wouldn’t be right.

The birthers are primarily composed of southern redneck Republicans (the party’s base, and Dobbs’ demographic):

The conspiracy has a regional flavor. Overall, even including Democrats and independents, only 47 percent of respondents in the South said they believed Obama was born in America, with 23 percent saying he was not and 30 percent saying they were unsure. In the Northeast and Midwest, the percentage of respondents who believe Obama was born in the U.S. was over 90 percent.

Ninety-three percent of Democrats say the president was born in the United States, as do 83 percent of independents.

Virtually nobody except for Lou Dobbs and America’s Backwater Republicans gives any serious consideration to the birthers.  So why is Lou Dobbs on CNN  promoting the tin hat redneck crowd’s most delusional hope to an international audience?  Ratings – the only thing that matters in cable news.

After Dobbs first salvo on behalf of the birthers was aired on CNN, he continued giving fuel to the birthers on his radio show by stating that, “Obama should put his birth certificate out there. I’m still looking for validation.”

Dobbs has no intention of backing down, but at least the birther nonsense seems to have hurt his ratings. Thank God for small favors.

Important lesson via CNN President Jon Klein

The most important lesson to be learned here has nothing to do with the birthers, and everything to do with how cable news is operating.  CNN’s President, Jon Klein, has had to defend Dobbs before, but his recent defense is illuminating:

We have no control over what he says on his radio show. It’s not a CNN radio program so he does what he does on the radio separate from what he does on our air. So we ask you and anyone writing about this, to look at what he says on CNN. It’s the only thing we control.

“It’s the only thing we control” is not correct.  You control giving Dobbs a platform.  You control what kinds of opinions you judge to be worthy of airing.

The defense Klein raises is problematic for the public interest, something that a news agency is supposed to hold supreme after “truth”.  It tells people turning to CNN that the network could care less about the integrity of the people they want you to hear, as long as they do their nasty business off ‘their air’.

Yeah, but…Dobbs did say these things on ‘your air’, Mr. Klein, and continued with them on his radio show.

Lou Dobbs as Father Coughlin is one thing, but the debasement of cable news journalism is more evident at Fox News, where few standards are in place for the pedigrees of their pundits, as I wrote last week:

Whether it be foul-mouthed stalker Rachel Marsden; the scandal-fabricating Aaron Klein; former gay porn star and male escort Matt Sanchez; or the crazy racist Hillary supporter Harriet Christian; the number of bottom-feeders with few journalistic–or personal–ethics who are paraded before us by the mainstream media is startling.  It’s not even a left-or-right issue.

With cable news thinking people like this are worth listening to, and people actually listening, there appears to be absolutely no way to fix this breakdown in our national discourse on cable news.  When there are no standards for opinion-makers, the quality of Americans’ opinions suffers.

Thanks, Jon Klein, for confirming that your network could care less what your pundits do and say when they are not on ‘your air’.  It logically follows that David Duke could have his own show on CNN, as long as he doesn’t talk about white supremacy on ‘your air’.

Or maybe even the white supremacy bit is okay, if you appear on Rachel Maddow.

Pat Buchanan was pied in 2005 at Western Michigan University not because his racist views were unknown. Image: Melanie Maxwell

Dear Daily Kos,

I write this as an unabashed liberal: why has your site become a shill advertising machine for the destructive “journalism” of the cable news you oft-decry?

Whether it be foul-mouthed stalker Rachel Marsden; the scandal-fabricating Aaron Klein; former gay porn star and male escort Matt Sanchez; or the crazy racist Hillary supporter Harriet Christian; the number of bottom-feeders with few journalistic–or personal–ethics who are paraded before us by the mainstream media is startling.  It’s not even a left-or-right issue.

The question the blogosphere needs to answer: why perpetuate the sins of these so-called news networks by writing endlessly about the cretins they slap on our screens?

The answer works like this: crazy-talking pundit gets on the O’Reilly Factor, Rachel Maddow or Chris Matthews, and then the blogosphere is happy to have something to write about the next day (“This crazy person on [Fox News/MSNBC/ABC/CBS] said something crazy!  Shame!“).  It drives traffic, baby, and comments!

While there is some fun in pointing out how awful people can be (I’ve done it), sites like Daily Kos et al. have devolved into waiting for the latest clown to be paraded on cable so that they can write about their attrocities.

The networks love it – it brings in viewers, and creates “buzz” around their shows.  Links and embedded video clips ensue.

The blogs should focus less on debating the ponyboy pundits’ words, whose kinked thoughts about humanity merit little serious consideration, and more on why the networks giving such outrageous people air time only seems to bring benefits.  That’s why you are seeing more of these characters.

Instead, Daily Kos and the rest discuss and debate their gutter perspectives, giving them the credibility of artificial controversy.  Our country’s most vile views are pored over in the minutest details, breathing life in to them as people become curious about the fuss.  Blogs like Daily Kos are  unwitting dupes in the game.  They used to be forceful critics of the practice.  Why  take off the air trash-talking nitwits whose documented histories show little integrity, when they get so many people watching, talking and typing?

Racist Pat Buchanan shows the blogosphere’s utter fail

The most recent dust-up is Pat Buchanan, who has been letting everyone know he’s for white men, and that the GOP will continue to flounder with voters as long as they stay away from race-baiting and culture wars.  Never mind that Buchanan has been saying these things for decades, including that he thought the Republican Party could learn a lot from Ku Klux Klansman David Duke (“Take a hard look at Duke’s portfolio of winning issues and expropriate those not in conflict with GOP principles, [such as] reverse discrimination against white folks”).

When Buchanan appeared on Rachel Maddow last night saying the United States was built 100% by white men, Maddow predictably smacked him down.  And the blogosphere predictably went to town on filling its role of advertising the crazy people on cable news and their crazy words.  Maddow, who put this old man with his long-discredited views on her shows, comes out the hero.  Why wouldn’t she put a racist on her show, then?

Rachel Maddow, Chris Matthews, Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity, Glen Beck: they are modern versions of the 1990’s love-fest with Ricki Lake, Richard Bey, Jerry Springer and Jenny Jones.  They put the same guests on, except now they wear suits and there is no live studio audience to boo, hiss and call the guest a “dog who should be in the dog house.”  That’s become the job of Daily Kos and the blogosphere.

Daily Kos, the 24-hour-news cycle’s best advertiser

The Daily Kos is perhaps the most egregious cable news advertising shill out there.  In just a little over a day, Kos and his bloggers have written no less than seventeen posts exploring the minutia of Pat Buchanan and his racism.  They are all predictable diatribes that effectively expand Buchanan’s name-recognition and give his racism a wider airing, often with a video clip:

The Imperial Wizard Of MSNBC.
Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 06:07:16 AM PDT
632 comments

Dear MSNBC
Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 07:09:06 AM PDT
63 comments

You are gonna break my heart dear Rachel!
Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 10:09:53 AM PDT
75 comments

Open memo to MSNBC re: Tonight’s Rachel Maddow Show
Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 10:36:20 AM PDT
79 comments

I’m Not Angry At MSNBC.
Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 12:34:21 PM PDT
67 comments

Buchanan calls Robinson “boy”?
Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 02:26:34 PM PDT
129 comments

Pat Buchanan, your electoral math doesn’t add up
Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 03:09:35 PM PDT
15 comments

Maddow calls Pat Buchanan “dated”
Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 06:44:45 PM PDT
66 comments

What would white people do…
Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 05:40:04 PM PDT
387 comments

Rachel Maddow decides she’s had enough”
Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 07:05:03 PM PDT
610 comments

Buchanan is right. This white man is full of resentment.
Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 07:21:51 PM PDT
447 comments

Dear Rachel – boot the bigoted “Uncle Pat”
Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 07:19:54 PM PDT
66 comments

Why We NEED Pat Buchanan on TV
Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 09:09:52 PM PDT
52 comments

A Word on Princeton and Affirmative Action
Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 10:10:22 PM PDT
151 comments

I’m gonna miss you, MSNBC.
Fri Jul 17, 2009 at 05:37:45 AM PDT
109 comments

Mything the point of “White Men Built This Country”
Fri Jul 17, 2009 at 07:08:31 AM PDT
49 comments

Is Pat Buchanan Really Playing with Fire? (with poll)
Fri Jul 17, 2009 at 08:04:53 AM PDT
1 comment

How many different ways can you parse the words of a racist before you are the platform for their views, Kos?

The worst was the Rachel Maddow boot-licker ErinW43’s post  (“Rachel Maddow decides she’s had enough“)  that cheered the same Maddow who handed a racist her platform again:

After seeing MSNBC talking heads continue to treat Pat Buchanan like the lovable but misguided uncle for far too long, Rachel Maddow decided to call a spade a spade on her show tonight during Buchanan’s guest appearance.
[....]
But Rachel Maddow continued to prove her skill as an effective pundit and stopped the MSNBC practice of politely giving him a pass and instead coolly and calmly, but forcefully, called him out on his views.

Yes, but she still put him on as she has done multiple time, and will do so again in the future.  These appearances on what are meant to be serious shows lend credibility to Buchanan, which is how he makes his money.   ErinW43’s shilling forgets the last time Maddow ‘called out’ Buchanan.  From the August 2008 Daily Kos story “The Beauty of Rachel Maddow’s Smackdown of Pat Buchanan Last Night“:

Keep this in mind when you’re watching Pat Buchanan spout his asshat opinions on every show. Here is the Pat Buchanan I know and loathe. And three cheers to Rachel for the SMACKDOWN. You are so awesome!

Erin, how many repeat smackdowns does Maddow need to have before you realize they are contrived?  It’s a game that ErinW43 and many  bloggers play into because they don’t see that when the cameras are off, host and vile pundit wink, wink each other over the fireworks that will get the attention of…ErinW43 at Daily Kos, et al.

They never ask where is Maddow’s responsibility to obtain decent guests who challenge our intellects, instead of bait our moral outrage.  After Buchanan’s performances on MSNBC this week, it’s the only question an intelligent person should ask.

The Jon Stewart-Tucker Carlson feud, where Carlson couldn’t believe that Stewart refused to play by these unwritten rules, should have clued you in, especially since Carlson has never gotten over it.

Rachel Maddow and Daily Kos seek short-term gain, ignoring long-term harm

Maddow is going by the playbook: create controversy, create buzz and watch the ratings climb.  When the cameras are off, guest and host talk about what a “smackdown” it was, and how it will be good for ratings.  That’s how Ann Coulter gets booked.  “What crazy thing will happen next with her?” is not David Brinkley, it’s Ricki Lake.

Whether they are adding anything productive to our national discourse is a meaningless consideration.  That ain’t the game.  It’s short-term gain in viewers and web traffic, over the long-term harm it does to how we respect each other and our views.  The blogosphere, once pointed critic, is now the lap-dog of this pablum. Why?  It brings traffic and comments.

Short-term gain that ignores long-term harm was a key element in our financial meltdown.  People wonder why the media is in meltdown?  Those ratings they are getting from all of this horror aren’t followers; they are people grabbing popcorn and watching the spectacle of their desperate attempt to forestall their implosion.  The blogosphere is now part of the show.  What’s left in our debasement?

One of My Worst Moments

In 1987 my family moved from New Jersey to Georgia, and I was in the 7th Grade. It was exciting. It was an adventure. Moving from the outskirts of New York City to a rural, cow-pastured exurb of Atlanta was an experience that would shape and haunt me well into my adulthood.

I had no idea that the South still fought the Civil War, such that in 7th Grade my southern peers all knew to call me “Yankee” and ridicule my accent. The playground was an anxiety-producing nightmare. One particular bully would sit on me, slap my face, and make me repeat words in my northern accent that made the other kids laugh. “Water” (me: “Wood-er”); “Dog” (me: “Dhuwg”) and, worst of all, “Cyndi Lauper” (me: “Cyndi Lawpah”). That Cyndi Lauper herself had a thick northern accent made this particularly hysterical, and I became known as “Lawwperr”, as the southern drawl pronounced it.

I lived in Georgia for five years, and I adopted the local style of dress, began to say my waters, dogs and Laupers like the southerners, and did whatever I could do to not stand out. I debased myself. I spoke derisively of Yankees, even though the vast majority of my family were still living in Pennsylvania and New Jersey. By the time I was in the Eleventh Grade in 1991, I had a wispy mustache, long hair in the back, wore overalls with black hightop Reeboks, and I spoke derisively of African-Americans, like all my white southern friends.

Atlanta had forced busing, and our rural high school had a lot of inner city kids attending alongside the rural cracker kids I considered my peers. Eventually, there were race riots in the school, and we were a featured story on CNN one night. I was one of the white kids fighting the black kids.

This was one of the worst moments of my life. In my desire to fit in, I adopted attitudes and ideas that today I find repugnant, and 16-year-old racist me haunted my life for a long time. My mother, seeing that I was developing into a person that she did not like, moved me out to Colorado with my stepfather to finish my senior year in high school (where I would then become ostracized as the stupid redneck hick kid with a mustache nobody wanted to talk to).

Our worst moments come back to haunt us on Wikipedia

Recently on Wikipedia there was one of those tragically unfair Requests for Adminship that I rail against, where a person’s worst moments are held up as a true indication of who they are.  Wikipedia is stressful.  The editors on the site *all* know people read what we write, and that we have a hand in shaping people’s opinions.  Unfortunately, that leads to an arrogance on the site; it also leads to a justifiable cautiousness–usually, not always–in how we operate.  This cautiousness is taken to extremes.  Case in point: a recent “Request for Adminship” for a stellar contributor who, years ago in 2006, made some anti-gay remarks during a fit of stress and anger.  It was a one day, one moment kind of thing.  Now, years later, it is the main reason why people will not approve this person to be an admin.  I’m gay, and I think it’s wrong.  I would like to share this editors heartfelt explanation and apology for that moment in 2006 that is causing so many people to be unforgiving:

I honestly don’t know what else to do but keep apologizing for how angry I was that stupid day in 2006. I wasn’t attacking these people for being gay, or gender transfers. Christ, I’d NEVER do that in that. Reread the comment–I was lashing out and saying “Did you forget in any way what its like to be ostracized?” aimed at all the people that at the time I thought were trying to drive me off in what seemed at the time utterly petty and vindictive ways.

I can absolutely, positively, totally guarantee you that I am not a bigot or even vaguely homophobic. Did you ever read Wikipedia Review? The massive wars I got into with the anti-gay bigots there sometimes? Read my reply to JayHenry— opposition #15. I marched against Proposition 8. I took photographs of the event for probably the most visible and vocal liberal alternative newspaper in the United States, The Stranger, and linked the article with my work. One of my best friends that I spend time with multiple times per week is gay. I have another three close homosexual friends.

My best friend that I grew up with, who I’ve known since we were both 11 years old, both 33 now, began the process to transfer from being a man to a woman when we were 25, and when his religious family threw her out, my wife and I took her in for nearly a year until she was ready to move to another state. I gave her a couple thousand dollars to help get her squared away, knowing full well I’d never see it again, and not expecting to see it again. I outed my name right there in the RFA with the link to that news article in a sign of incredible good faith, knowing full well I painted a massive target on my head for all manner of nutjobs in the future if my RFA passes, to prove who and what I am.

Humanity has a real problem with itself.  We harshly judge each other based upon our worst moments, as if that moment is the one that counts in a person’s arc of life and growth.  It’s hypocritical.  I learned from my interviews, photography and Wikipedia work that we all have things in our past that we haunt or embarrass us.  Look at Matt Sanchez, former gay porn star-turned-anti-gay right wing pundit.  We have all done something that some might consider despicable; said something others might find an indication of our bad characters; think thoughts others would find racist or prejudiced; or abused ourselves and others in ways we wish we never had.

When I see other people judging someone for one moment in their past, it raises my ire and sympathy for them, because I know how hypocritical are those people casting judgment.

I may not know what it is you harbor inside yourself that you hope nobody else ever knows, but I know you have it, and I know you would hate for other people to judge you for it.  That I know that about you, dear reader, is what allows me to reveal personal things about myself, such as my teenage racism.

Our worst moments haunt us

I recently wrote about Ted Haggard, who over years was taking drugs and having gay sex while he railed against homosexuality.  Even now, he won’t admit his philosophy is flawed, but that he is flawed.  Neither he, nor his former congregation at New Life Church, which he founded, will deal with the reality of his situation and what it says about how their attitudes treat gay people.  If you watched Haggard’s media blitz this week, you will see a man who victimized others and himself, and has shown next-to-no personal growth from his abhorrent behavior.

This example contrasts with a reader who called me after reading Sally’s story on my blog.   He related to Sally’s time on the streets as he had been a homeless teen himself years ago.  When I asked him how he survived that time, he danced around the question and then changed the subject.  I didn’t push.  Last night I received a message from him:

I was pretty vague with you and skirted the issue because I had to do a lot of pretty shitty things in order to survive on the streets and to this day I am ashamed and embarrassed by it.  I believed for the longest time that God punished me because, like Sally, I contracted cancer in my 50s.  I know better, because the God I believe in is an all forgiving God, but there are times when I go to that dark place, and still believe that I  am punished for how I lived as a teenager on the streets.

This reader lives in San Francisco, and I have never met him outside of phone calls and e-mails (he doesn’t comment on the blog), but I can tell you one thing:  he is no Ted Haggard.  He is an amazing individual, who I know has inspired many people out in San Francisco with his life story, and for that he will always live on in the hearts of those who know him for who he really is.

What we do or do not do when we are trying to survive in impossible situations is not what defines us; those are the moment that show us our humanity.  Many people are never confronted with as few options for survival, and what he proved is that he is a survivor.  And he will do what it takes.  He did what any of us would at least consider doing in his situation.

If you fear and worry about your unfinest moment, know that life throws all of us curve balls at which we swing our bats the best we know how; sometimes, on reflection, our best could have been better.  That’s life.  And if you can honestly say that you don’t have those moments in your life, then you’re missing out on what life is all about.  Even Mother Theresa felt like a fraud.