Why Bush's America hates the media; Also, Time ponders the person of the year

CBS MarketWatch.com ^ | 11/12/04 | Jon Friedman

[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.

[OldCorps]

lol, i initially thought they were a bunch of clueless democrap congersmen off on another boondoggle.

Note to politicians: don't wear military gear (especially if you're fat) unless you wore it in a previous career. Otherwise you'll look ridiculous and every guy who ever wore a uniform is going to be laughing at you.

[Syncro]

He was nixed in 2002 thank goodness.

 

December 18, 2002

Contact: Anson Kaye
202-225-6616

WEINER TO TIME MAGAZINE: DON’T NAME ARAFAT ‘PERSON OF THE YEAR’

---

AWARD SHOULDN’T GO TO TERRORIST, WEINER SAYS

New York City - Time Magazine is considering naming Yasser Arafat its ‘Person of the Year’, going so far as to post his name on their web site along with 15 other potential recipients. Congressman Anthony Weiner (D-Queens & Brooklyn), a member of the House Homeland Security Task Force, issued the following statement:

"Yasser Arafat has long craved the kind of prestige and stamp of legitimacy Time’s ‘Person of the Year’ award conveys, but he’s the last person in the world who should get it. Maybe if he returns his Nobel Prize first, but until then ‘Terrorist of the Year’ would be more like it--especially if it’s a lifetime achievement award.

"Time says its ‘Person of the Year’ merely goes to the person ‘who has most affected the news’, but when it comes to Yasser Arafat that’s an excuse worth less than the paper its printed on. For years, he’s presided over one of the most corrupt and blood thirsty regimes in the world, forging ties with terrorist and axis of evil states, and claiming the lives of hundreds of innocent Israeli’s."

###

Congressman Anthony D. Weiner
  

[WOSG]

It's so obvious that BUSH is the Person of the DECADE.
Given that the media will never give him his due, that implies TIME will never pick him!!!

I will faint if they pick him.

[M Kehoe]

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.

About time you're correct in something Mr. Friedman. That choice did finish in the money. And you knew it would because you and your ilk ARE BIAS, and anti-American to boot.

5.56mm

[Verginius Rufus]

I thought Time had a rule that in a Presidential election year the man who won the election was their Man of the Year...but I don't know if they follow that rule when an incumbent President wins re-election.

[KingNo155]

Whats with all the Wal-mart references? Am I missing something?

[bray]

Time Person of the Year-Anybody But Bush!! Here's a clue Mr Dinosaur, we love and voted for W!!! What a whiner!

Pray for W and Our Troops

[Bernard]

2004 - the voters in Afghanistan.

2005 - the voters in Iraq.

[onyx]

OMGoodness!
That's perfect!

[Naspino]

If this is how they react to Bush winning -- I can only imagine what would happen if we overthrew abortion. I suppose the gloves would come off, the horns would come up and the wings come out.

They were never the party of the people, they were the party of workers, just like Stalin and Mou were. They want us to be dependent and poor and then mock what we have. If only that pesky Jesus hadn't been so popular and their comrades hadn't made so many mistakes in the 20th century.

[MississippiMan]

I've read a few threads at DU since the election. Stunning display of delusion. They talk about the Democrat party as if it's the world's penultimate bastion of purity and forthrightness. They talk about the incredible character and genius of Kerry. They talk about the stolen election and how they have to keep fighting in order to preserve our democracy. And get this (no, I'm not kidding) paraphrased summary of one post: "We desperately need our own media. The right wing has Fox, CNN, NBC, CBS, ABC, and we have nothing. That's why we can't win anything."

The intellect of the place is on the level of a bunch of grade schoolers, and that's not hyperbole.

MM

[AmishDude]

If they wanted to nominate an amalgam of people, it would be "the bloggers".

Even though I'd love to see Buckhead, Bush is the only one it could be.

[skinkinthegrass]

This year the Time Person of the Year should be a no-brainer. Really.

...Does anyone have that sKERRY in that "blue" NASA suit. ...a fine pic. TIME'S Person Moron of the Year. :P

Time's, Person of the Year, "The American Voter"

[The Mayor]

*

[ladyinred]

I hate the media because they along with the current leadership of the democrat party are card carrying Marxists and are attempting to hijack the constitution. But other than that, they are nice guys! :-)

[SierraWasp]

"When a MAN comes around!" (the Johnny Cash song!)

[skinkinthegrass]

..is it any wonder we're suffering from smile fatigue?

..I like it, will keep it next spring! :)

[MarkL]

No, Mr. Friedman, I don't hate all things liberal. In fact, I don't "hate" much of anything at all.

However, I'm disgusted by the blatant way that certain parts of the CBS news division, what many used to call a "news organization," has become the propaganda wing of the Democratic National Committee.

I might have forgiven pot-shot after pot-shot against President Bush, although it was very difficult to forget the way that CBS and 60 Minutes made sure that Bill Clinton's campaign wasn't sunk. In fact, I remember Don Hewitt saying that 60 Minutes saved the Clinton campaign.

I might have forgiven the shameful hyping of anti-President Bush books, published by Simon & Schuester, who shares a parent company with CBS. I don't remember the last time that 60 Minutes devoted 2 entire segments to a single story.

And then there was the shameful "Rathergate" story, where Dan Rather and company decided that a story needed to be reported, and the story was more important than bothering with the facts. I still suspect that CBS News knowingly presented the falsified documents, assuming that nobody would ever question the ethics or actions of CBS news. I think that my favorite part of the whole "blow-up" was Dan Rather saying that just because the documents that "proved" President Bush refused a direct order were falsified, doesn't mean that President Bush didn't refuse that direct order. You know, I think that the actions and words surrounding the incident pretty much says it all... That CBS News producers spent 5 years trying to track down a story, and while they've never quite had the proof they needed, they knew the story was true. That's not news reporting: That's obsession.

But the one thing that I can never forgive CBS is what now appears to be a coordinated attack on President Bush by the UN and the DNC, facilitated by the New York Times and CBS News, in the attempted "November Surprise" of the "missing explosives scandal." The NYT and CBS news conspired together to present a story to the public just 36 hours before the election, knowing that there would be no chance for the Bush campaign to respond and refute the story. What we have here is CBS News conspiring with the UN, in other words, foreign powers, to hijack the election of the President of the United States. I can only say that I'm sorry that Congress never actually declared war on any country, as I believe that in a time of war, the actions of those at the New York Times and CBS News (as well as those in charge at the DNC) committed treason in plotting with foreign powers to rig the election.

That is something for which I will never forgive CBS.

Mark

[cookcounty]

This from CBS, the arrogant self-appointed priesthood that tried to lie George Bush out of the White House and now pretends to be a bunch of befuddled old men.

By the way, is Richard Thornburgh still investigating Danny the Liar? How long do they get to coordinate their alibis?

[Ciexyz]

It would kill those libs to name Bush "Person of the Year".