Bozell Column: 2012, A Year of Media Savagery
For those Republican presidential candidates who eventually conclude there is no path to the nomination, there is consolation in the notion that they won’t be the ones to face the brutal onslaught being prepared for the GOP king of the mountain by Team Obama and their army of “objective” media allies.
This time around, the Obama machine cannot run on the fairy dust of Hope and Change. They cannot suggest after four years of dreadful executive-branch performance, the Promised One is on the horizon. Their only path to victory is the one that finds their opponents even more disliked. So it can be guaranteed that whoever wins the Republican contest will face one of the most scorching personal assaults the country has ever witnessed.
Occasionally, the old-style thrill-up-my-leg-over-Obama quote still emerges. The Media Research Center’s “Best of Notable Quotables” winners for 2011 provides examples. Stephen Marche of Esquire magazine won over judges of the “Obamagasm Award” by energetically asking “can we just take a month or two to contemplate him the way we might contemplate a painting by Vermeer or a guitar lick by the early-seventies Rolling Stones or a Peyton Manning pass or any other astounding, ecstatic human achievement?” At least when they said this in 2008, it hadn’t been completely disproved. Marche reminds us of Baghdad Bob, the ridiculous propagandist for Saddam, proclaiming the defeat of allied troops while they emerged around the corner.
Marche actually claimed we will look back decades from now and see “a glorious idyll in American politics, with a confident, intelligent, fascinating president riding the surge of his prodigious talents from triumph to triumph.” Someone hearing Marche declare this might rush him to an emergency-room for signs of dementia.
The winner of MRC’s “Media Hero Award” came forward as the congressional career of Anthony Weiner was about to end after having demonstrated his contempt for his wife by showing off his body parts all over Twitter (and actually tweet-exchanging with high school girls).
ABC’s Barbara Walters urged Weiner not to resign, citing as her role model the most shameless, brazen sex offender to ever darken the White House door. “And we had a President named Bill Clinton who went through a great deal of trouble, weathered the storm and is now not only respected, but he’s beloved by many people with a very good marriage. So, I think Anthony Weiner should hang in there.” Bad choice of word -- hang.
ABC is chock-full of nonsense like this. Their evening-news anchor Diane Sawyer won the “Occupy My Heart and Soul Award” for lathering praise on the anti-capitalist park squatters. “We thought we’d bring you up to date on those protesters, the Occupy Wall Street movement,” she panted. “As of tonight, it has spread to more than 250 American cities, more than a thousand countries — every continent but Antarctica.” There are some 190 countries on Earth, but Sawyer earned points on the Left for enthusiastic baloney. Days later, Sawyer restrained her hype to “more than a thousand cities around the world.” Anywhere two hippies lifted a sheet of tagboard, they were counted as a burgeoning global “reform” movement.
Katie Couric finally conceded her utter failure as anchor of the “CBS Evening News” in May, but she won the “Audacity of Dopes Award for the Wackiest Analysis” by concluding America was so deeply bigoted and consumed by “seething hatred” toward the world’s Muslims that we need a sitcom to straighten ourselves out. “Maybe we need a Muslim version of The Cosby Show....I know that sounds crazy. But The Cosby Show did so much to change attitudes about African-Americans in this country, and I think sometimes people are afraid of things they don’t understand.”
Loathing of Obama was still classified daily as transparent racism, and Sean Penn won the “Barbra Streisand Political IQ Award for Celebrity Vapidity” by reading Tea Party minds on CNN and projecting murder fantasies: “You have what I call the ‘Get the N-word out of the White House party,’ the Tea Party.... At the end of the day, there’s a big bubble coming out of their heads saying, you know, ‘Can we just lynch him?’”
The transition from Obama adoration to Republican defenestration was exemplified by Chris Matthews on MSNBC, who earned the “Mean-Spirited, Nutty, Blathering Chris Award” for just blurting out against Newt Gingrich, “But he looks like a car bomber. He looks like a car bomber, Clarence. He looks like a car bomber. He’s got that crazy Mephistophelian grin of his. He looks like he loves torturing. Look at the guy! I mean this is not the face of a President.”
But the real award-winning quote (for denying liberal bias) was this delusional Matthews gem captured by Politico: “Hardball is absolutely non-partisan.”
2012, here we go.
- Brent Bozell's blog
- Login to post comments
















Comments
I know I must be naive about this
Submitted by bkeyser on Tue, 12/27/2011 - 9:13pm.
but I still can't understand why it is that the media so desperately supports this man and his ideology. Maybe someone who does could help me out.
Which policies that Obama wants to install, that are also steadfastly opposed by the GOP, do Obama-supporters believe will lead to real and tangible prosperity for the majority of Americans? I mean, lets look beyond the "we're for the underdog" fallacies that the liberal media so often claim; let's look at actual tried and proposed Progressive economic policies.
I've asked this question in a number of ways and still can't get anyone to address it on the merits. Hopefully some of our resident liberals will at least give it a shot.
elitism
Submitted by MidAmerica on Tue, 12/27/2011 - 10:03pm.
I'm no expert, I just play one on blogs.... but I think besides obama being the media's creation and so they want to protect their 'team', I think a lot of the reason obama is so loved by the media is because he has the same elitist and condescending attitude towards average Americans as they do. More than elected democrats, it's the media democrats who trumpet and promote the increase of government that takes away an individuals rights to make personal decisions. And it's always for peoples own good.
For many of the media democrats, a Conservative Republican government removes their reason for being in 'journalism', which is being able to push the country in the direction of left-wing policies.
I'm no expert, I just play one on blogs...
Submitted by IrateNate on Tue, 12/27/2011 - 10:42pm.
Excellent line; mind if I borrow it?
I did my best not to argue with Mom (bless her ignorance) over Christmas dinner, but she wouldn't stop going on about Time Magazine's "Person of the Year" selection.
Irreversible brainwashing, nothing more. Granted, she has been exposed to the MSM slant longer than I.
It's nothing complicated, bob....
Submitted by motherbelt on Tue, 12/27/2011 - 10:48pm.
they just want to feel good about themselves for being "enlightened" enough to admire a black man.
Motherbelt
Submitted by Lord-come-soon-... on Tue, 12/27/2011 - 11:56pm.
That is EXACTLY what it is. Perfectly stated!
Maybe mb
Submitted by bkeyser on Wed, 12/28/2011 - 12:00am.
But the media is overly Progressive in ideology- and as far as I can tell, it's nothing but a pseudo feel-good agenda with the ultimate goal of creating a Bourgeoisie and Proletariat style society.
I know libs, you'll argue that that's precisely what Obama argues against -which is true- but it also appears to be nothing but a lie. Again, what Progressive economic policies will, in practice, actually create a lasting prosperity for the majority of Americans? I think it's a fair question since this seems to be a stated goal that the media overtly supports.
So honestly liberals, please help me out here. Please identify a Progressive ideological economic platform or policy agenda that is both universally rejected by Conservatives, and, if enacted, will be seen as a godsend to the poor and middle class 20 years down the road?
well, bob, I was talking
Submitted by motherbelt on Wed, 12/28/2011 - 12:16am.
well, bob, I was talking mostly about the liberal media elites. For everyday liberal folks, all I can think of is that they really think, with the right people in charge, there really is a free lunch.
I know mb
Submitted by bkeyser on Wed, 12/28/2011 - 12:42am.
and for the '08 and surely the '12 cycle, your assertion is probably the overriding factor. But it's a "cut off your nose to spite your face" proposition in my view; Progressivism is at best a path to Athens, at worst, Pol Pot.
mb and bk...I think it's a combination of Obama's race and...
Submitted by PrairieSky on Wed, 12/28/2011 - 1:26am.
a shared elitist political and sociological disdain and disapproval of, and condescension toward pretty much everyone that doesn't think and vote like they do.
"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction...It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them (our children) to do the same." ~President Ronald Reagan
I find phylosophing on lib
Submitted by Boudin on Wed, 12/28/2011 - 1:32am.
Policy is as about as useful as running cross traffic, but less painful. Who really wants to predict where Rats run?
Right you are...I gave up caring why these fools...
Submitted by PrairieSky on Wed, 12/28/2011 - 1:45am.
think, believe and act why they do a long time ago. To me, the liberal mindset is what it is, and there is no changing it...It's like caring or trying to understand why water is wet.
"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction...It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them (our children) to do the same." ~President Ronald Reagan
I have not given up
Submitted by NL207 on Wed, 12/28/2011 - 1:48am.
Every time I can open a set of liberal eyes to the obvious truths around them, that weakens Obama and the remainder of his followers. Acting alone, I will never overcome the liberal factory that public education in this country has become, but in great numbers we can balance it.
Hey, dont confuse tormenting libs
Submitted by Boudin on Wed, 12/28/2011 - 1:56am.
With logic, with giving up. Do you honestly think we believe you spend 10 seconds contemplating their policies? Even if you dont, and say you do, I know better.
I spend hours ...
Submitted by NL207 on Wed, 12/28/2011 - 8:12pm.
figuring out how to defeat their election strategies.
I wish the party establishment had a clue about this. Romney is the Democrat's best chance. The way to defeat the Democrats is to go Reagan / Goldwater Conservative. The 2012 Presidential election will go down just like 1980 if we do that. We will keep the House with a smaller majority and take the Senate. We might even reach 60 in the Senate. To do that we need to take 13 of the 23 seats the Democrats hold and keep the seats we currently hold. With a conservative standard bearer and the current economy, that is a possibility. With Romney its a pipe dream.
Nominate Romney and we get something akin to 2008 or 1992 again, especially if one of the Conservatives goes renegade and runs third party. Romney is poison to our Congressional, state and local ticket.
I was referring more to the institutional liberal mindset...
Submitted by PrairieSky on Wed, 12/28/2011 - 1:57am.
and not so much to individual liberals, although trying to get through to them can be and often is a herculean task, and is usually a fruitless endeavor.
"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction...It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them (our children) to do the same." ~President Ronald Reagan
I think we are all doing what we can
Submitted by Boudin on Wed, 12/28/2011 - 2:06am.
Some have more time, some more patients. But I think we are all committed to making Obama go away!
My post should always be taken with humor, : ]
Agreed, Boudin...
Submitted by PrairieSky on Wed, 12/28/2011 - 2:22am.
And I always have time to try to steer liberals away from going over the cliff that they are intently trying to drag us all, but as for patience? I admit I run a bit short on that one, in this regard.
"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction...It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them (our children) to do the same." ~President Ronald Reagan
Boudin
Submitted by bkeyser on Wed, 12/28/2011 - 12:40pm.
Yeah. I know. But similarly to Jane Goodall and her passion for studying chimps, the Progressive mindset -while not necessarily fascinating- is so confusing I'm almost compelled to figure out why.
Neither can I BK
Submitted by Boudin on Wed, 12/28/2011 - 12:03am.
Even asking bigtime proud libs, they all refuse to show me Obama's path to prosperity
That's easy, BK
Submitted by ckc1227 on Wed, 12/28/2011 - 1:35am.
"Which policies that Obama wants to install, that are also steadfastly opposed by the GOP, do Obama-supporters believe will lead to real and tangible prosperity for the majority of Americans?"
All of them.
Great, a finalist
Submitted by Boudin on Wed, 12/28/2011 - 1:45am.
Could you please provide the math. And like that B of a math Teacher used to make us, please show your work! : ]
I agree ckc;
Submitted by bkeyser on Wed, 12/28/2011 - 12:45pm.
certainly most of his true followers believe he has the answers. But failing evidence that the prophesy will prove true, that just makes them either ignorant, or just as mendacious as Obama.
Which specific policies, by the way, will provide that prosperity? And how?
It's very simple
Submitted by CO2Maker on Wed, 12/28/2011 - 9:40am.
The media support him because he's black. It's that simple.
They spent the entire 2008 campaign period and all of the time since then promoting the basic, unmovable, irrefutable fact (to them) that any opposition to Obama's policies was opposition to Obama, the man, and that means refusal to accept a black president. It's racism, pure and simple. Every pundit, morning show couch potato, and most news reporters have said, in one way or another, that the Tea Party is racist to the core, that opposition to Obama care is racially motivated (it's a black president's major accomplishment and it benefits the poor, i.e., mainly black people), and are waiting to assassinate Obama. Or else, if the left succeeds in their main programs, then there will be civil unrest. (And just so we know they are betting on red AND black at the same time, they worry that if the OWS movement is completely thwarted and jailed, they, the Occupiers, will resort to anarchy, mayhem, and civil unrest, too.)
This is the way I see it
Submitted by djwolf12 on Wed, 12/28/2011 - 6:06pm.
Look at Whoopi Goldberg's statement last week. THAT is the reason why the media supports this guy. They believe in socialism/progressivism/communism/statism because in their warped minds, it is good ideas on paper and they are still waiting for their knight in shiny red armour to enact their "ideas on paper" and carry them all to a communist utopia.
If...
Submitted by BBallleaper on Tue, 12/27/2011 - 9:45pm.
you'd had the opportunity to stop Hitler in the early thirties before he could murder millions and attempt to destroy the world, would you have done so?
If you'd had the opportunity to stop Stalin, Pol Pot, and Mao, before they could murder hundreds of millions of people in an attempt to subjugate the world to Marxism, would you have done so?
Here here
Submitted by Coldsnap on Tue, 12/27/2011 - 10:12pm.
It's time to make the journalists into baseball cards. I want to buy a deck of MSNBC reporters just to see their stats over the year. There's gotta be a fun game in this somewhere...I'll see what I can come up with...
A little bit of Christmas magic: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nS4G2f2Xy3w
Good idea
Submitted by CO2Maker on Wed, 12/28/2011 - 9:32am.
Except, there's one thing missing. They'd never be fired for getting it wrong. With the exception of Run-down Ricky Sanchez (he of Galapagos-Hawaii tsunami and "how big is 9 meters in English?" fame), who ever gets shown the door for inaccurate, erroneous, or mistaken reports? They might have chastised Ed the Slut Schultz and made him sit in the time-out chair for two days, but they didn't do anything to Whoopi "rape-rape" Goldberg on the Viewgina Monologues (but she probably is protected by a Gardol shield of the PC kind).
MSNBC cards, eh?
Submitted by djwolf12 on Wed, 12/28/2011 - 6:07pm.
I can just imagine the good times we all could have getting drunk and playing a**hole with those cards.
if....
Submitted by MidAmerica on Tue, 12/27/2011 - 10:18pm.
If the DNC bought MSNBC would it have to make any changes?
I'm Confused
Submitted by IrateNate on Tue, 12/27/2011 - 10:28pm.
What do you mean by "if"?
No, but the misspelling of
Submitted by ant on Wed, 12/28/2011 - 12:12am.
No, but the misspelling of words would probably become more numerous.
It's competition, bk
Submitted by deadeyedan on Wed, 12/28/2011 - 12:11am.
It appears that there is a competition among the media as to who can trash the country the mostest the fastest.
It's sort of like how they were all out to "save the planet" when global warming became the rage and they blinded themselves by wanting to appear "caring" so much that they virtually became the movement, so desperate were they to outdo each other. It helped that the IPCC was one world government oriented right from the start.
It is that "caring" that they fantasize as being embodied by liberalism that drives them to keep trying to best the competition in the race to see which one "cares" the most. It's never a matter of looking for an alternative opinion; it's just how much of the slanted viewpoint that each is able to display that counts to them.
CLIMATEGATE (now I & II) - the revelation that the pseudo-scientists at East Anglia University know just as much about the atmosphere as Harvard law professors know about the Constitution
Blind following
Submitted by bkeyser on Wed, 12/28/2011 - 12:32am.
I get that. I think that's largely the motivation of the vast majority of democrat voters, especially those fixated on race. But the media supposedly puts themselves above all that. You'd think the 4th Estate wouldn't be so easily duped.
I've tried to rationalize those who steadfastly support these Progressives and all I can figure is they're in one of two categories: The blind support category -as you indicate above- which makes them woefully naive and undereducated; or those that truly understand the real goal and believe their support will land them among the few haves, rather than the majority have-nots.
This is not to say that there aren't still a substantial bloc of traditional democrats who don't blindly follow or financially support the Progressive wing of the party. But come election day, they rarely have the strength to vote against their party, even if it means support for someone who -if able to implement the full platform- will ultimately take away most of what they currently believe is the American dream. These are what I call, the subjugated.
My award goes to Obama Sycophant Katie Couric
Submitted by GrannyJan on Wed, 12/28/2011 - 6:54am.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-QYKMOz_GNA&t=1m4s
I had fun with the Couric interviewing Robert Gate on Obama's gutsy call. He wasn't much better than Katie. "What was it like being in the room with him? Were you surprised at his resolve?
This clip deserved more ridicule and attention than it got.
The media and the 99%
Submitted by CO2Maker on Wed, 12/28/2011 - 9:13am.
[This is similar to what I wrote on another post:]
The media are the 1%. They are not the 99%, not part of the great unwashed.
Who has an opinion? Everyone! Who has something to say? Everyone!
Who has access to major media outlets? Not everyone!
Only the very well paid, well-heeled, well-schooled, well-opinionated get to display their ideas to a nationwide public. Only the members of the media can define and dominate the topics of conversation on a national scale.
Think of them as the Wall-Street bankers of information distribution. They are the 1%. They are the interviewers and reviewers and presenters. They are the questioners of presidential candidates!
They are the scorners of Walmart and McDonalds. They eat arugula and bok choy. They use brown mustard instead of yellow mustard. They go to films.
They are the 1%.
Don't forget that.
Lies, Lies and Ever More Blatent Lies
Submitted by Saltherring on Wed, 12/28/2011 - 11:57am.
One aspect I have noted as the 2012 election rhetoric heats up is the left's propensity to tell ever more, greater and more blatent lies than in the past. The order of the day seems to be which network "correspondent" can come up with the most outlandish, totally fabricated and unsubstantiated whopper to feed their drooling masses.
The second aspect is these outright lies are seldom if ever refuted by the perpetrators or their "learned colleagues", even after proven totally false by objective, honest sources.
The third and saddest aspect of this evolution is that a seemingly growing segment of America's dumbed-down populace accepts such lies at their face value (which is zero), probably due to decades of indoctrination by the media and "educators".
Proof of my assertion: He resides in our White House.
I am still waiting
Submitted by djwolf12 on Wed, 12/28/2011 - 4:01pm.
for Chris Matthews to apologize, retract his statement that he spewed on air that Rush Limbaugh wants to re-segregate the Armed Forces. Anything less than a resignation will not suffice.
The irony is
Submitted by JJ OKC on Wed, 12/28/2011 - 11:13pm.
Dems say the right is blinded by faith and church not able to accept new ideas, when they are guilty of that a 1000 times more. Any idea or discovery that counters their little shielded view of the world is deadly and must be stamped out.
Just look at the coverage of anyone other than a Dem or right sided views and you would think the devil was chasing after them.
“War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature, and has no chance of being free unless made or kept so by the exertions of better men than himself” John Stuart Mill
“Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.” ~ William F. Buckley, Jr.