My nominee.
Posted on 11/12/2004 3:30:06 PM PST by SierraWasp
Why Bush's America hates the media
Commentary: Also, Time ponders the person of the year
By Jon Friedman, CBS.MarketWatch.com Last Update: 12:01 AM ET Nov. 12, 2004
NEW YORK (CBS.MW) -- If nothing else, President Bush's re-election underscores his supporters' profound hatred for anything that smacks of liberalism -- especially the non-Fox News media.
Take it from me. I know.
On Nov. 5, I wrote in this space that American pop-culture mavens could've easily recognized which way the political wind was blowing. I noted that "The Passion of the Christ" dwarfed the anti-Bush film "Fahrenheit 9/11" at the box office. It's a good bet that the folks who flocked to Mel Gibson's epic, a favorite movie of devout Christians, voted for President Bush.
Then, in an attempt to poke fun at my own decidedly liberal, out-of-touch sentiments, I noted, tongue-in-cheek, that I couldn't understand how I had gotten the election so wrong! With a nod to my fellow blue-state provincials, I joked that I'd religiously read The New York Times and the New Yorker and watched CNN.
(For the record, I watch Fox News' "Fox and Friends" program, too.)
At the end of the column last week, I invited readers to give me their comments. I'll say this for the "Wal-Mart Republicans," as the column dubbed the Bush loyalists: They're a bunch of sore winners!
Unfortunately, most of the 100-plus liberal bashers who sent me e-mail messages missed my stab at self-deprecating humor.
They reminded me of a football player who, not content merely to celebrate his touchdown in the end zone, feels compelled to also engage in some trash talking and finger jabbing.
With all the subtlety of a punch in the face, many of you gleefully mocked my alleged ignorance. Clearly, the right wing's thrill of victory on Nov. 2 hasn't diminished its red-meat loathing of the liberal press. If anything, it has triggered an outpouring of we-told-you-so anger.
Here are a few examples from my e-mail in-box:
"The fact that you don't get that is just laughably telling," wrote a gentleman named Eric T. This caring response came from Todd D.: "If you want to understand why President Bush won by such a large amount, get outside your informational cocoon. And, when you go there, don't snort or hoot or chuckle about what idiots, morons or religious zealots we are." (Funny, I don't recall using those fightin' words -- or any other pejoratives even remotely like them -- to describe the Bush supporters. As a matter of fact, the only person I remember slamming, on purpose, in the last column was me.)
Stuart S. weighed in by saying: "You, sir, are clinging to a failed world view. You are on the wrong side of history and probably eternity as well."
Sandi C. added: "It is so sad to see someone who has access to the world market, and can influence so many people, be such a total stupid jerk. You don't have a clue about how most people live or what they think." Phil said: "I'm sure glad people like you are in the minority. At least you have the decency to admit you are a liberal, which most of your buddies can't do." (And I do admit it!)
John K. from Nebraska took the time to offer me a little unexpected advice: "Maybe you and your media elite friends in the blue states should petition to have the Northeast and the West Coast join Canada. We'd both be happier then. Whatever you do, don't move here." He took pains to add a postscript: "And -- by the way -- I do NOT shop at Wal-Mart."
At the very least, I wish the readers could get my name straight when they give me a raspberry. You know who you are, Kris S., who wrote: "Come on, Joe. How could you be so ignorant?"
Most of the readers told me to watch Fox News, the right wing's favorite TV operation. It has been notoriously sympathetic to the Bush White House's agenda.
Meanwhile, the so-called liberal media -- aka The New York Times -- made their point with some subtlety after the election. The Times' clever television critic Alessandra Stanley, discussing the acclaimed Fox comedy "Arrested Development," wrote on Nov. 6: "The jokes are sly and smart in a blue-state kind of way."
Have no fear, right wingers. Fox, your network of choice, isn't taking that sort of claptrap lying down.
On the Nov. 5 "O'Reilly Factor" program on Fox, viewers were asked "What influenced your vote?"
The answers offered:
Iraq?
Terrorism?
Economy?
Anti-Bush media?
I didn't stick around to hear the answer, but I'd kind of be surprised if the "anti-Bush media" finished out of the money.
As if the liberals out there weren't downcast enough, I had a thought. Taking the success of Fox News one step further, I wonder why the right wing hasn't mobilized yet and created a print version of that TV network.
Sure, there already are the well-right-of-center Washington Times and New York Post as well as a slew of magazines, Web sites and blogs preaching the gospel according to Cheney and Bush.
I wonder, though, if those media that claim to promote family values aren't getting too big for their britches.
ABC's newest show: 'Desperate Programmers'
Take, for example, the terrible decision by the ABC (DIS: news, chart, profile) affiliates that decided not to broadcast "Saving Private Ryan" on, of all days, Veterans Day. See full story.
They fretted that the violence and cursing in the movie would prompt a reprimand from the Federal Communications Commission, in the wake of the action taken against CBS following the Super Bowl halftime fiasco early this year. When singer Janet Jackson bared a breast on TV, some viewers were horrified and wrote angry letters to the network and the FCC. A hefty fine ultimately was leveled against CBS, owned by Viacom (VIAB: news, chart, profile) (VIA: news, chart, profile), which also holds a significant stake in MarketWatch.
Never mind that "Saving Private Ryan" amounted to director Steven Spielberg's salute to what NBC's Tom Brokaw aptly called the "greatest generation" of Americans, those who defeated the Nazis.
The right wing had better watch itself. Perhaps Bush's victory over John Kerry is going to their heads. Maybe it really is true that you're never more vulnerable than when you're on top.
Time's person of the year
On Tuesday, Time will host a media lunch to begin the countdown to the publication next month of its widely followed person-of-the-year issue.
The POY, as Time likes to call the designation in its typically snappy magazine-speak, is often a subject of controversy. Before Time's selection in 2001, I wrote that if Time had guts, it would name Osama bin Laden because he had had the biggest effect on our lives. Read archived column. (Instead, Time named former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, but I came to realize that the magazine had justification -- and, as it turned out, guts, nevertheless. See column.)
A year ago, I wrote that Time should pick The American Soldier. See full story. A month later, the magazine did just that.
Pressing my luck, then, I'd choose as the 2004 POY The Bush Loyalists. Call the large bloc The Religious Right or identify it as The Revenge of the Red States or, as Media Web did last week, dub it The Wal-Mart Republicans.
By any name, and for better or worse, they've had the biggest impact on our lives in 2004.
Want to bet they pick Arafat?
This year the Time Person of the Year should be a no-brainer. Really.
Please have a good weekend, everybody. And most of all... Try to read this nonsensical Liberal with a straight face as he has an excellent suggestion in the last line of his piece!!! (some giggling is allowed, however, along the way)
Times Man of the Year - 2004:
The American Voter
Karl Rove?
Arafat is their person of the year.
It's seems to be CNN's if you pay attention to their coverage and TIME and CNN are part of the same company.
I'd nominate John O'Neill, the leader of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, as Man of the Year.
There's only one man for Time to pick. President Bush is that man. Nuff said.
Karl Rove, wearing the dorky camo suit and Elmer Fudd hat...flaps down.
His pick (and Time listened to him last year, he says) is at the very end of the article and you'll just love it!!! (I think, maybe...)
After Michael Moron/Dan Blather propoganda machine, is it any wonder we're suffering from smile fatigue?
Look at the end of the danged artickle, I tell ya!!!
The author is sore that he can't relegate us as "small minded hicks" in the relative peace of his candidates' bitter defeat.
My nominee.
Again, I tell ya... Look at the end for a little surprise, will ya?
"Never mind that "Saving Private Ryan" amounted to director Steven Spielberg's salute to what NBC's Tom Brokaw aptly called the "greatest generation" of Americans, those who defeated the Nazis.
The right wing had better watch itself. Perhaps Bush's victory over John Kerry is going to their heads. Maybe it really is true that you're never more vulnerable than when you're on top. "
This guy intimates that somehow W supporters are responsible for ABC yanking Saving Private Ryan off the airwaves. He doesn't seem to understand (or won't admit) that they did it as a feeble protest, that they didn't want America to see the horror of that War. The obvious conclusion viewers would have reached was that this war was monstrous, with exponentially more deaths than the current conflict, and yet our nation triumphed. We stayed united as a people and we won. The liberal agenda is to divide us from within, using the model of Vietnam. They will do everything in their power to remove any historical context from their coverage, up to and including a film that has been praised for its realism.
Those wascally wepublicans!
F That! We're breaking out with the cell-phones and sharpies!
In his zeal to call people "WalMart Republicans" he's totally forgetting the "South Park Republicans." ;-D
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.