Corporate Media Manufactures Power for LimpDick Failed GOP

by David Sirota

Cable news shows gave powerless and irrelevant Republican legislators twice as much media coverage about their views on the stimulus bill.

(i.e. Diaper Boy Vitter, Spray-Tan Beener,etc)

Stimulus Package Unleashes Onslaught of Republican Lies
So, as reviewed ad nauseum here, Republican legislators and their economic policies not only got their ass handed to them in the most recent election, but when it comes specifically to the economic stimulus package, they themselves admit they have almost zero actual legislative power to impact the bill. That is, when you empirically consider the rules of the House in giving almost tyrannical power to the majority, and when you consider that even Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell effectively acknowledges he can't stop the stimulus in the Senate, congressional Republicans have just about zero official power to stop - or even shape - the economic stimulus bill.

And yet, as ThinkProgress reports, cable news shows have given these same completely powerless and irrelevant Republican legislators twice as much media coverage about their views on the stimulus bill as they have given to Democratic legislators who have all the power to shape and pass the bill.


Considering, again, just the pure empirical realities, it would be a travesty if Republican legislators even got equal time to Democrats because they do not have even close to equal power in shaping the bill. But we're way beyond "travesty" now. Giving Republicans twice as much coverage as Democratic legislators is quite literally an effort to MANUFACTURE political power for Republicans when they don't actually have any.

Why would cable news try to do this? In this case, I don't think it has as much to do with the media's inherent conservatism (though that certainly is a factor) as it does with the media's desire to create the perception of a real political "battle" for the sake of attracting viewers.* If reporters and producers permit the public to believe a real legislative "battle" doesn't exist - that is, if they actually report the mathematical reality of the situation - then it's harder to create fancy conflict-focused graphics, slogans and narratives convincing viewers they must tune in to get the latest on a supposed bloodsport. That's simply an unacceptable route in this age of infotainment, and so the media works to fabricate a storyline by portraying Republicans not just AS powerful as Democrats, but as MORE powerful than Democrats - twice as powerful, to be exact.

The problem, of course, is not just that portrayals can create their own vague reality. I'm not saying the media can wave its magic conservative wand and give Republicans enough power to overcome wide Democratic majorities. But I am saying that by giving powerless Republicans twice the media coverage as Democrats on a given bill, the media can take a completely powerless group and give them a shred of public opinion-shaping relevance, which over time, can translate into power.

This is one of the big reasons I thought it was a huge mistake for Barack Obama not to follow the lead of people like Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) or Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-MD) and instead engage House Republicans - the most politically irrelevant people in American politics. It's not that I thought he shouldn't meet with them or try to get them to support his stimulus bill. Rhetorical outreach is AOK by me. I thought it was stupid for him to start - or even pretend - to legislatively negotiate with them on policy, because that gave the media a justification to pretend that House Republicans actually have a modicum of legislative power (that they, in fact, do not).

That said, Obama's fetishization of "bipartisanship" cannot explain away the media crime of cable news giving legislatively powerless people twice the coverage of people with all the legislative power. That's just straight up journalistic malpractice.

* UPDATE: Paul makes a great point: If the ONLY thing the media cared about was creating conflict - and not ideology - then they would have given disproportionate coverage to Democrats when they were in the congressional minority under George W. Bush (ie. the analog to the situation Republicans find themselves in right now). But that didn't happen, meaning that what's going on here is definitely a mix of BOTH the media's conservative bias and its desire for conflict.


http://www.alternet.org

******************

Stimulus Package Unleashes Onslaught of Republican Lies

by Jane Hamsher

They looked like a bunch of petulant, narcissistic brats and did a nice job of making Obama appear measured and statesmanlike by comparison.

While few found the stimulus bill perfect for a variety of reasons, most sensible people admit that it was desperately needed. Bernie Horn of CAF called the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act "a remarkably 'clean' bill" and "the biggest and boldest progressive legislation in 40 years." But the praise isn't one sided. As James Clyburn said:

"Economists across the political spectrum agree that a bold plan is needed to jumpstart the economy. Economist Mark Zandi of Economy.com and an advisor to the McCain Campaign said that the House plan would create 4 million jobs by 2010. In South Carolina, Zandi predicts the recovery package will create or save over 37,000 jobs by 2010 helping to decrease the unemployment rate by 1.7 percent. For every month we don't act, Zandi predicts an additional 2 percent will be added each month to the unemployment rate. We can't wait to act. I believe, along with a long list of economic experts, that this package is the best approach to turning our economic crisis around."

Media Matters has a rundown of the zombie lies now in circulation about the bill, but suffice to say that there was no shortage of people willing to sacrifice the American economy for political gamesmanship. The Republicans unleashed their inner Church Lady and demanded contraception be cut for the sinfully promiscuous poor, then complained they didn't "get" anything in the bill and turned the whole thing into a well-choreographed publicity stunt. They looked like a bunch of petulant, narcissistic brats and did a nice job of making Obama appear measured and statesmanlike by comparison.


But everyone knew that was coming, and their votes weren't needed. It was more troubling that few Democrats stepped out to defend the bill. Think Progress says that Republicans outnumbered Democrats 2 to 1 on the cable news shows talking about the stimulus. Media Matters has documented the historic bias in booking Republicans, but this felt like something else -- Democrats afraid to speak out. Why aren't they making the argument that Republicans are trying to block an upgrade of the electrical grid to Oklahomans freezing in the dark in the midst of a snowstorm? Or make them take responsibility for the crumbling infrastructure? Obama has mobility right now because his approval numbers are solid. If they start to slip in a relentless GOP onslaught that the Democrats won't answer, and people start to associate their own personal struggles with what they hear in the zombie lies, those numbers won't hold.

There are many reasons for progressives to be happy with this bill, but as Paul Krugman, Jamie Galbraith, Dean Baker, Ian Welsh, Stirling Newberry and others have said, the size of the stimulus may ultimately be too small to sufficiently address the problem. If the GOP attack machine is allowed to carry the day unanswered we have seen how easily "up" gets turned into "down" and GOP obstructionism can morph into heroism because everything doesn't get instantly fixed. This isn't the end, it's just the beginning, and our leaders need to stop doing the 2010 cower and start articulating a coherent vision of progressive governance. Because the alternative leaves Obama with nowhere to go, and that is unthinkable.