This is for everyone who believes in the media's view of a certain politician; please, please read

[fpb]

I answered this to one of my online friends, but I think everyone ought to read it.

The trouble is that I knew about Sarah Palin since long before the left-wing blogosphere knew she existed. (Incredibly, Obama's own site did NOT list her among likely VP pics even AFTER she was picked!) And I know that the person I had read about bore absolutely no resemblance to the monster you people have been fed by your media. Sarah Palin was no book-burner; she was no racist (her husband is a full member of an Eskimo tribe); she was an experienced politician - twenty years' full-time career, always in responsible posts, mayor first, governor later, closely concerned with Alaska's oil business; she had toppled a corrupt male crowd who had tried to shut her out; she had thrown the lobbyists of BP, Shell Oil, Esso and so on, who had virtually owned the previous Republican administration, out of her office (this argues formidable campaigning skills - in the US, it is very difficult to turn an incumbent out, let alone a whole leadership); she had worked with the local Democrats, and her 80% approval rating after two years of government (at a time when politicians are at their lowest, between the honeymoon period and the next electoral campaign) showed that most local Democrats were as much on her side as most Republicans. And remember again those Republican enemies she has turned out. They were old and experienced politicians. If there had been anything bad to be found out about her, they would have found it out. They found nothing. And those who know her, the citizens who elected her and who know how she has been acting, give her the unheard-of percentage of a steady 80%-plus approval rating. They know what she has been doing. You do not.

What happened was this. Most of the media, after years of cutbacks and dumbing down, had no stringers or permanent representatives of any value in Juneau or Anchorage, and they went for news to the bloggers. And among the left-wing bloggers there had been a kind of feeding frenzy that I, for one, know all too well. These people hate and are proud of hating; invent lies, and revel in the lies they are inventing. You cannot tell me that the likes of aerynalexander do not hate; you cannot tell me that they do not invent lies, when I have seen at work doing just that; you cannot tell me that they are not proud of hating, when they told me the opposite to my face; you cannot tell me that they do not conspire to support each other's lies, when I have seen them do just that. Those of you who have been my friends long enough have seen it happen, in the FA wars years ago. And the result is that there is a monstrous entity that walks the earth in the posts of thousands of Harry Potter fans and Fandom_Wank readers whom I have never met, will never meet, and frankly, do not even care to meet: a fictional fpb who bears absolutely no resemblance to the person you have come to know over the years. This is the same kind of embodied, invented nightmare as the fake Sarah Palin that reaches you through the filter of most TV stations and the New Jerk Times.

The diagnostic element is that the hatred of the bloggers has affected you. You simply do not want to be told that this person is different from what the media have made you imagine her; that she is no book-burner, barely anything like a creationist, that she does not impose her views on others, and that her foreign policy is perfectly ordinary Republican fare. Everything she says is distorted or lied about, and you have been taught to get angry if the lies and distortions are pointed out. You found it terrible that the WSJ should not agree with Chris Matthews or Oprah Winfrey about a person you never met and of whom you know only what you hear from them.

I say this is diagnostic because it is the reaction of the whole opposition. I have already as good as lost a very dear friend over a similar "I don't want to be confused with the facts" reaction. And I say it because I know this vicious kind of creative, inventing hatred on my own body. So, in every sense, I know more than you do. Please, my dear friend, listen to me.

Comments

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

As a Republican, this all totally amuses me, because the media ranting about Palin -- which is their own fault, because they swallowed all these stories without fact-checking them -- has backfired badly on the Obama campaign. The more that the MSM hangs on like grim death to this image of Palin, the more that it destroys their own credibility, and the higher the McCain-Palin poll numbers climb.

This isn't an accident. The modern American Left primed this situation by their vicious, ad hominem based debating style. Now, they're demonstrating it to the country as a whole -- and America is rejecting them.

[curia-regis.livejournal.com]

I've barely paid any attention to anything on Palin.

But I would have thought it's fairly obvious that the media generally isn't that good at telling the truth or staying objective. I mean, they're there to sell a good story! It's our job to pick through the facts and to see if they're corroborated by other sources.

I mean, here in Aussieland, we've had a recent spate of news articles on Qantas (our national airline) and while some of them are newsworthy (like an oxygen cylinder exploding), some of them are just saying things like 'hey, passengers had a half hour delay for a domestic Qantas flight'. Stuff like that happens to every single airline every single day. I just presume that somebody high up in some newspaper has a bone to pick with Qantas.

On the other hand, I would argue that personally, in RL, most of the time people do tend to be right about other people. I mean, if all of your friends tell you that a certain person is unpleasant, lies to people, etc, then chances are, if you trust your friends, then they're most likely right. It might just take you a while to realise, especially if the person is being nice to you at that point in time. I used to try to give people the benefit of the doubt. I still try to not judge people on the opinions of others, but it's getting harder. Especially when I do trust the opinions of some of my friends.

Obviously this isn't the case every single time, but eh, I guess recently I've found it more the case than not with some of my friends and acquaintences.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

So you are saying that you would take what fandom_wankers have to say about me seriously?

[curia-regis.livejournal.com]

No. I don't think I know any of them personally. In any case, I know you.

But surely you can see why somebody who doesn't know you personally, and knows somebody from f_w personally might take what they say at face value?

[fpb.livejournal.com]

I think that the mob mentality on the Internet is seriously dangerous. These people never have to take responsibility for what they post. Most of the time, they post under assumed names. As a result, they do not much care what they say or how they say it. Sooner or later, they will kill someone.

[curia-regis.livejournal.com]

I see it as being pretty similar to high school. As such, I try to stay as far away from the wank as possible. I did practically the same for the entirety of high school! So much so that I think I missed out on a lot of the so-called 'gossip'. Meh.

From the Outside looking in....

[stigandnasty919.livejournal.com]

Lies, smears and distortions seem to be the order of the day in American politics. When most of the press appear to be partisan it becomes difficult to have any idea of the what the truth is. And with both the left and right in the US having their own sites 'correcting factual errors' in the reporting of one area or the other, I get the distinct impression that its almost impossible to believe anything anyone says about any politician.

If the press is in such a bad state, and if electors cannot know who and what they are voting for, the whole nature of democracy has to be called into question.

One thing that has occured to me over the past few days - wasn't there a guy Joe McClain, or John McCane or something involved in this election? Is he not standing anymore? Nobody seems to talk about him anymore

[super-pan.livejournal.com]

I am sorry about your friend; fighting with a friend over politics is a terrible thing.

I see that you feel very strongly for Palin, and I will never agree with you on this matter. But you should know that I take things you say to heart, and you have encouraged me to look at my sources of information critically, and you help me understand the point of view of people with whom I disagree. It doesn't mean I will change my mind, but I try to understand.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

Thank you. That is all I would ask for. Indeed, I do not support the McCain-Palin ticket across a large range of issues. I have already challenged the common reading of the Second Amendment, as you may remember, and I have said that, if anything, Obama's position on health care is disappointingly over-prudent, and that the US need a European-type national health system with universal coverage. I think however that these things can well be taken care of by Congress - which will have a Democrat majority, unless the Democrats themselves ruin their own chances. I think, however, that there are two issues on which I can only support McCain: foreign policy and abortion. And it so happens that they are the two issues on which the President can do most. The President can at most veto Congress-approved laws on matters such as healthcare or taxation, and that veto can be overcome; but the President nominates Supreme Court judges and conducts foreign policy, and I think that McCain is a better choice for both these issues.

I have said it before and I will say it again: Senator Obama is a man of immense and native talent, and, contrary to frequently-heard slurs, would have risen to the top no matter what the colour of his skin. Nonetheless, it is good for everyone to see that, when a truly major political talent emerged, colour was no longer an issue in his rise. This election is one that has shown US politics at its best. The epic contest between Obama and Clinton for the Democratic nomination has shown the resources of willpower and individual resolve needed, and the emphasis on individual talent so absent in European party machines. On the Republican side, the insurgent support for McCain and Huckabee against congress Republican business-as-usual and unashamed sleaze has shown that the Republican people would not tolerate politics as convenience, eventually singling out the two candidates who looked and sounded most opposed to the party machine. The confrontation between the talented Obama and the war hero McCain reminded us that elections are supposed to be about choosing the best; and the stellar launch of this bright shining new talent, Sarah Palin, has added an extra element of fascination and historical significance to an already epic event. And I will add that, however it may look from over there, European commentators have been impressed by the mutual courtesy and evident public spirit shown by both candidates in such events as the Saddleback forum.

That is why one would like to see such an event unpolluted by the kind of filth I know personally and all too well. You have more than a right, you have a duty as a citizen, to take a critical eye to the candidates, and to disagree with them where you think it right. But by the same token, you also have a duty as a citizen to pay attention to the worse kinds of reporting and campaigning in your country. And I would add one thing. Many Republicans feel that much of the venom unleashed at Governor Palin is really class-based, and represents the contempt of urban elites for "rednecks" from the sticks. If that is the case, then it should concern you too, as a citizen of an archetypal "redneck" state who loves her part of the world (as you have shown time and again) and does not fit stereotypes or agendas. Just sayin'.

[sartorias.livejournal.com]

I pay no attention to the media treatment of political situations--it's just another form of fictional entertainment.

I will say that I was extremely offended by Sarah Palin's speech, and that's all I will say on the matter.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

I would like to be told what exactly you found offensive. Not to argue about it - you know what offends you. But I would like to know. Here is a transcript of the original script: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=94258995

[sartorias.livejournal.com]

I probably shouldn't do this, but what the hey:

I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a "community organizer," except that you have actual responsibilities. I might add that in small towns, we don't quite know what to make of a candidate who lavishes praise on working people when they are listening, and then talks about how bitterly they cling to their religion and guns when those people aren't listening.

We tend to prefer candidates who don't talk about us one way in Scranton and another way in San Francisco.

And:

As for my running mate, you can be certain that wherever he goes, and whoever is listening, John McCain is the same man.

Um, no, actually, McCain has said conflicting things in different places, like "I'm a Baptist" in Baptist country, very recently.

But here's a little news flash for all those reporters and commentators: I'm not going to Washington to seek their good opinion. I'm going to Washington to serve the people of this country.

The implication that the opponents seek good opinions before the self-serving meaninglessness of "I'm going to Washington to serve the people of this country" sounds like empty rhetoric (at best) to me.

Politics isn't just a game of clashing parties and competing interests.

The right reason is to challenge the status quo, to serve the common good, and to leave this nation better than we found it.

Again, I found the first statement more empty rhetoric, because it IS a game of c.p. and c.i. And the problem is, she is supporting a status quo that I feel has nearly ruined this country in eight years of phenomenal corruption and outright piracy in the name of God, Constitution, flag, yadda.

Starting in January, in a McCain-Palin administration, we're going to lay more pipelines ... build more nuclear plants ... create jobs with clean coal ...

This is terrifying.

But listening to him speak, it's easy to forget that this is a man who has authored two memoirs but not a single major law or reform — not even in the state Senate.

Wrong.

But when the cloud of rhetoric has passed ... when the roar of the crowd fades away ... when the stadium lights go out, and those Styrofoam Greek columns are hauled back to some studio lot — what exactly is our opponent's plan?

Empty rhetoric condemning Obama's empty rhetoric? Please.

What does he actually seek to accomplish, after he's done turning back the waters and healing the planet? The answer is to make government bigger ... take more of your money ... give you more orders from Washington ... and to reduce the strength of America in a dangerous world. America needs more energy ... our opponent is against producing it.

Victory in Iraq is finally in sight ... he wants to forfeit.

I consider all that to be false, especially the last, which is just painful. There is no victory in Iraq "in sight".

Congress spends too much ... he promises more.

Taxes are too high ... he wants to raise them. His tax increases are the fine print in his economic plan, and let me be specific.

The Democratic nominee for president supports plans to raise income taxes ... raise payroll taxes ... raise investment income taxes ... raise the death tax ... raise business taxes ... and increase the tax burden on the American people by hundreds of billions of dollars.

He wants to tax the rich--the ones Bush has excused from taxes, while Halliburton moved its empire (built on our tax money) off shore, so it won't have any accountability. I find this falsity just incredibly irritating.

And the rest is empty rhetoric, the worst line being "McCain has fought for you." That is emotional blackmail of the worst sort. It is true that the poor man endured a hideous experience in Vietnam, but there is no evidence that that war was "for America." None. Instead, we spent money and lives over there in service to a defunct political idea (the one I was raised with, the domino theory) in support of a corrupt government.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

I think you are wrong in a considerable number of ways, but I said I would not challenge you, and I will not.

[sartorias.livejournal.com]

Well, that's why I usually keep my lip buttoned on political topics. We all view things differently, which is why I am a strong supporter of the Constitution--it makes room for all points of view.

And I don't have any animus against my conservative relatives (the few left, most have switched sides in the past four years) or peers, but I do get pissy when politicians (this is in general, not this current contest) use the same tactics that they hammer in their opponents, but declare that their underhandedness is okay because it's righteous and from pure motive. Blech.

[starshipcat.livejournal.com]

Ah yes, the "when I do it, that's different" defense.

Unfortunately, in many cases I think that they genuinely can't see how what they're doing is like what they condemn their opponents for doing. There's a blind spot there, and no amount of pointing it out to them will change their minds. They will simply dismiss your evidence as invalid and you as "out of touch with Reality."

And if they're in a position of authority over you, they'll also dismiss you as insolent and insubordinate.

Been there, done that.

[sartorias.livejournal.com]

You're right--the perspective can look so genuinely different from various positions.

I think a lot of my hot feelings come from years of the circus aspect to campaigns, in addition to the search for the truth behind implications and outright statements; as fpb stated at the outset, a lot of the accusations against Sarah Palin turned out to be distortions or outright manufactured. But personal attacks have been a staple of politics clear back to the days of Walpole being raked over the coals when the Hanoverian kings were establishing themselves.

[starshipcat.livejournal.com]

I wouldn't be surprised if it goes back to the Greeks and Romans. However, before the printing press such things would be recorded only in single handwritten copies, and thus less likely to survive the ravages of time. And what has survived may well not be among the sources that have been translated and made generally available, so you'd have to have a fair mastery of Greek and Latin to read them.

[sartorias.livejournal.com]

Actually, you're right. Aren't the plays full of now-obscure political reference? When I was adapting Aristophanes for my drama students a few years back, I couldn't make heads or tails out of some of the refs, and only tracked down a few after much hunting about.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

A much more powerful case can be made from Cicero - and not only because he wrote an essay about electoral campaigns that is still valuable for politicians today. One just has to compare his description of opponents in public or prosecution speeches with what he said about - or even to - those same opponents in his vast body of private letters, to see how often even the most rabid accusations could be no more than moves in a game.

[sartorias.livejournal.com]

Cicero! Now there's another I read far too young (in translation) to appreciate. I need to revisit him--I bet I would appreciate him far, far more now.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

And the Romans did not have "newspapers of record" that made it their business to place lies on the record and keep facts off it.

PS: I loathed the NYT, as I loathe the BBC, since long before the Palin affair. In fact, they have done nothing whatever that surprised me. I expected these man-eating beasts to do exactly what they did.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

What I was saying is that in at least one or two points you have downright misunderstood what Governor Palin was saying. In particular, when she said that she was not going to Washington to please the media, she did not mean it against Obama as you seem to think. Everyone else, including the media, perceived it as a response to the media's own onslaught on her and her family, which had already started, singling out her daughter and her baby son. Considering the situation, I would have said more and worse.

[sartorias.livejournal.com]

I see! At the time, it seemed to me the context was Obama-bashing. And so, of course, when I read it again, it just brought back that sense.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

She certainly did attack Obama. That is part of what was expected - and the Obama campaign did not spare her. But a lot of that speech was dedicated to chucking back in the media's teeth all the things the media had thrown at her (e.g. small-town mayor, etc.). Of course, the two things can overlap: if I am inexperienced, what will you say about your candidate for President?

My position is that this, in spite of all the mud, is a campaign that has done nothing but credit to the US system, singling out four candidates - Obama, Rodham Clinton, McCain, and Palin - of stellar attraction and ability, and quite undoing all the harm of the last - the campaign in which each of the two candidates was the best argument for the others. After the 2004 campaign, one felt that the curse of mediocrity and hollowness that has long damned democracy in Europe and Japan had finally paralyzed the USA; now it seems to me that in this at least, the selection and discovery of interesting candidates, the USA have been able to regenerate themselves to an extent that countries that have to choose between Brown and CAmeron, or between Berlusconi and Veltroni, simply cannot imagine. And long may it be so.

[sartorias.livejournal.com]

I hope you are right. My worries are about the growing power brokers who are not answerable to anybody.

Aside from that, I'm looking forward to the debates, when (I trust) speech-making rhetorical devices will be at a minimum, and actual exchange might be expected.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

Been there, done that, as well.