The liberal blogosphere: Fair and balanced?
Liberals sure have figured out how to use the blogosphere to their advantage.
A comment Republican 2nd Congressional District candidate Ed Tinsley made at a recent forum in Las Cruces exploded onto the national stage on Wednesday thanks to their efforts. It’s sure to come back to bite Tinsley in November.
The assault began with two liberal New Mexico blogs, Democracy for New Mexico and NMFBIHOP, posting video of Tinsley uttering these words during a candidate forum held last week in Las Cruces:
“How can I call my two nephews over there right now -- one’s a first lieutenant in the Marine Corps in Anbar Province, another one in the Persian Gulf -- and tell them I’m running against a guy that will cut your throat, that will cut the bottom out of your funding?” Tinsley asked.
The liberal bloggers pounced.
“What kind of person would use that kind of language about someone like Harry Teague (Tinsley’s Democratic opponent) who has been well known and well respected in the District for decades?” the Democracy for New Mexico posting asked.
“Did we find Ed Tinsley’s macaca moment?” FBIHOP asked.
From that beginning, the controversy surrounding Tinsley’s comment snowballed. The video was posted on nationally read liberal Web sites including Daily Kos, Talking Points Memo and Swing State Project, and it even got a mention on the journalistic Web site The Politico.
Keith Olbermann, the left-leaning host of MSNBC’s “Countdown,” named Tinsley as Wednesday’s “worst person in the world.” During his show Olbermann answered Tinsley’s question about how he can tell his nephews that his opponent wants to cut their throats:
“I don’t know, Mr. Tinsley. Maybe the same way you can talk about how you can conjure up the image of your own kin getting their throats cut just to score points in a political campaign,” Olbermann said. “To its credit, the crowd booed so vigorously the rest of Mr. Tinsley’s exploitation of his nephews could not be heard.”
The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee plans to spend $1.2 million on TV advertising in the race in September and October. Who wants to bet on whether the group will use Olbermann’s quote in an ad?
A powerful movement
That ability to affect the news cycle through the Internet is an incredibly powerful aspect of the liberal movement in America that some conservatives have tried, without success, to match. The left has figured out how to use the Internet to organize and communicate. In doing so, it has created some fairly prominent Web sites. Those sites get the attention of the national media, so there’s a tunnel all the way from a sparsely attended candidate forum in Las Cruces to MSNBC.
The tunnel is controlled by liberals. Stories are usually told with a slant. Context is often left out. Video is edited.
The Tinsley situation proves that. The day before the forum, and for months before that, Teague’s Web site stated this as his position on Iraq: “I will vote to de-authorize funding for the war… and implement a plan for immediate withdrawal.” Many who have opposed stopping the funding say such cuts would put troops in harm’s way without the tools they need to ensure their survival.
At the forum, Teague admitted that his Web site had stated that he supported stopping funding for the war. He said that was a mistake that had been corrected, and he actually supports continuing to fund the war while implementing a plan to withdraw from Iraq.
That context is missing from the coverage of Tinsley’s comments. And Teague’s admission of the Web site mistake was conveniently edited out of the video that’s circulating. Nobody whose postings I read indicated that they tried to contact Tinsley for comment.
‘Nowhere to hide’
Tinsley tried -- to no avail -- to combat with two news releases the forces that were working against him on Wednesday. His campaign accused the Teague-friendly media outlets of “creative editing” of the video. Tinsley suggested that Teague didn’t change his Web site until after the forum, and Tinsley also said his “harsh words” may have been responsible for Teague’s shift on funding for the war -- which Tinsley said would make his statement “well worth it.”
The news releases were too little, too late. The first came out minutes before Olbermann’s show aired.
Democracy for New Mexico, in a Wendesday evening follow-up post, touted the fact that it started an avalanche that, less than 24 hours later, ended up on national television.
“Zoom. From the little DFNM blog in out of the way New Mexico to the nation’s TV screens in less than 24 hours. There really is nowhere to hide in this election cycle,” the follow-up post states.
That appears to be true. The liberal blogosphere is powerful. But fair and balanced it’s not. That isn’t its goal.
CATEGORIES IN THIS STORY:
About Heath Haussamen
After seven years as a newspaper reporter and editor, Heath Haussamen left behind a stable paycheck in May 2006 to join the Internet revolution. He started Heath Haussamen on New Mexico Politics, a news Web site covering politics and government in New Mexico that was recently named by the Washing...
Comments:
Posted 08/14/2008 10:03 with
It is Mr. Tinsley who put his foot in his mouth that is the problem not liberal blogs. They just followed up on his outrageous statement that obscured the real issues in Iraq.
Mr. Edward Tinsley III is using the Karl Rove method of debating? As Rove stated: “And that gives the conservative message machine a significant, built-in advantage over liberals. In this environment, confrontation, indignation, morality plays, good guys and axes of evil naturally dominate political debate, just as they do in Hollywood blockbusters. The fear-mongering, fury and self-righteousness of Fox News, Limbaugh, O’Reilly, Hannity and Coulter makes much better theater than “nurturers” like Bill Moyers. Conservatives rage, liberals whine. And rage is much more entertaining.”
The “raging” Tinsley has made good theater – but he goofed up. This is the same Ed Tinsley who said about the death penalty: “I would certainly like to take the people out and drag them behind my horse until their head popped off.” That hurt him in his last run for Congress. The Pearce campaign successfully used his remarks against him.
Posted 08/14/2008 12:12 with
Since this opinion piece (or is it straight factual reporting?) is on here as well as Heath’s blog, I thought I might as well repeat the comments I made there and add a bit:
Is Heath implying that the “context” of Tinsley’s remarks about throat cutting rendered them unworthy of being reported on in his post on the Las Cruces forum (or in the Sun-News article)?
Personally, I can’t think of any context that would justify accusing your political opponent of wanting to cut the throats of American troops. And I can’t imagine hearing a candidate say something like that and failing to report it as a cogent fact in a story about the event.
“Reporters” may not be as obvious about inserting their opinions in their coverage, but by including or ignoring things like Tinsley’s remarks, they can give their pieces a slant nonetheless. Was the “debate over debates” or the rules of the forum really more important than the fact that Tinsley said what he said?
Blogs like mine make no bones about being partisan. Along with factual stories, we provide opinion that’s often passionate. Everybody reading blogs like mine gets that and considers what I write accordingly. But it’s a fact that Tinsley said what he said. Period. No amount of context can change the fact that it was a personal and dishonest attack.
There is plenty of opinion on NMI, Heath’s blog and others that present themselves as being “journalistic” in nature. It’s just that sometimes it can be a little bit harder to discern by the casual reader.
By the way, presenting equal space for R’s say, D’s say, doesn’t always equal balance. Sometimes one side or the other is simply right, based on the facts. Personally, I can’t believe that NMI and Heath wouldn’t be appalled and say so if any candidate of any party uttered what Tinsley said. Clearly it’s an affront to political dialogue, regardless, and has no place in a congressional forum.
Posted 08/14/2008 13:06 with
blogosphere is misspelled in the title. I know, not a great comment, but at least I commented :)
Posted 08/14/2008 13:23 with
hemingway-again you don’t have a clue…..the point of the article is that the liberal blogs are horribly slanted and to claim they aren’t is like claiming Ann Coulter is fair and balanced again wise up….
Barb, you mean like saying that dems aren’t run by big money either….lol yeah right, again refer to my Coulter quote, to say that liberal blogs or neo-con blogs like limbaugh or coulter are anything but fair and balanced is a fair statement by Heath, (who does do a very good job and remain fair, even when other bloggers like yourself have no qualms about being slanted read:less than honest in what they hold out as true to the world. I would agree bloggings isn’t journalism, but dishonesty is still dishonesty when you put something in the public domain.
Keep up the good work Heath, I may rarely agree with you, but you continually re-affirm why I respect you nonetheless!!!
Posted 08/14/2008 16:41 with
Thomas, what are you saying is dishonest in the topic being discussed??
Posted 08/14/2008 22:00 with
“That context is missing from the coverage of Tinsley’s comments.”
What kind of context do we accept language like “slitting your throat” in political debates. I was just as offended when John McCain joked about beating his wife.
Anybody with journalistic scruples knows that those who are calling for a halt to the funding for the war, aren’t calling for a U.S. soldier turkey shoot. To report or call into question otherwise is dishonest.
Has the author ever been to Michelle Malkin’s site? Why no mention of the unethical stranglehold the right has on radio and mainstream television? On the “liberal blogosphere”, readers with any sense can actually fact check.
I find it interesting that at a time when Fox news is doctoring their critics photos to make them look uglier (how is that not illegal?), that the playing of a video of a republican gaffe is called out on journalistic ethics. Should Bush saying “fool me once”, or McCain getting on-air geography lessons from Lieberman been fact checked with their staffs to gleam the right “context”?
Posted 08/15/2008 10:16 with
I am saying that it is dishonest to put a slant to facts and hold them out as the truth, thats fairly revisionist and dishonest. I agree with Heath’s point that placing things into the media-stream out of context does not represent fair and balanced. I would further contend that such dishonest tactics are Rovian in nature and do a disservice to the general populace. But ultimately barb, you are right, its your blog and your free speech, nobody should impinge upon that, it may still be a shame however that the right and left components of the blogosphere misuse the power of speech in such a backhanded manner.
Posted 08/15/2008 13:28 with
The bigger question, for me, is what is fair and balanced in the media? Both in the blogosphere, as well as print journalism, television and radio? Do journalists ever leave some facts out of their stories, or not cover certain stories at all, due to their own personal agendas, or to advance their own careers?
What power does the “liberal blogosphere” frame have, when it comes to public perception? How does it stack up with the recent news reported right here at NMI about the conservative slant of the opinion pages of the nation’s newspapers? These same newspapers are often charged with being part of the “liberal media,” so what gives?
Why not just “the blogosphere” in general? Are we to believe that Fox News doesn’t regularly read conservative blogs? Someone tell me, because I don’t know. But I do know that Fox news is a conservative outlet. Where does it get all the tidbits that feed its 24-hour nonstop “news”? And is it invalid for mainstream media to look to blogs for news? It appears that many news outlets do so routinely these days. It used to be that there were many more newspapers in this country, from small “rags” to metropolitan wide publications. It could be that blogs are picking up some of that slack.
Life, in fact, is not as cut and dried as a lot of career journalists would like it to be. Journalism, by its nature, interprets reality for the public. That is not a function owned by anybody. Regarding the particular case that Heath mentions here, I’ve actually heard counter-arguments from Barb, et al, for why that particular comment was worthy of being reported. Their question, then, is why didn’t Heath himself report it? And why does he think that his interpretation of the context is more valid than theirs?
Posted 08/30/2008 17:16 with
John McCain is not a friend of the American Military:
John McCain does not know that 9-11 was caused by Osama Bin Laden not Sedam Hussein?
John McCain in September 2007: voted against the Webb amendment calling for adequate troop rest between deployments?
John McCain July 2007: voted against a plan to drawdown troop levels in Iraq?
John McCain in March 2007 was too busy to vote on a bill that would require the start of a drawdown in troop levels within 120 days with a goal of withdrawing nearly all-combat troops within one year?
John McCain in February 2007 didn’t even bother to show up to vote against a resolution condemning it? For such a strong supporter of the escalation, McCain didn’t even bother to show up and vote for it?
John McCain in June 2006, voted against a resolution that Bush start withdrawing troops but with no timeline to do so?
John McCain in May 2006, voted against an amendment that would provide $20 million to the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for health care facilities?
John McCain in March 2004, once again voted for abusive tax loopholes over veterans when he voted against creating a reserve fund to allow for an increase in Veterans’ medical care by $1.8 billion by eliminating abusive tax loopholes. Jeez, McCain really loves those tax loopholes for corporations, since he voted for them over our veterans’ needs?
John McCain in October 2003, voted to table an amendment by Senator Dodd that called for an additional $322,000,000 for safety equipment for United States forces in Iraq and to reduce the amount provided for reconstruction in Iraq by $322,000,000?
John McCain in April 2003, urged other Senate members to table a vote (which never passed) to provide more than $1 billion for National Guard and Reserve equipment in Iraq related to a shortage of helmets, tents, bullet-proof inserts, and tactical vests?
If he believes that we should stay the course for as long as possible he should be willing to support the people he puts in harms way.
Posted 09/02/2008 14:32 with
Mr. Haussman complaining that the left “blogosphere” is not fair and balanced? Is the right “blogosphere” fair and balanced? Is talk radio fair and balanced? Why not write a piece on that? Is Mr. Haussman’s blog fair and balanced?