Right Wing Entitlement Culture: Pt. II - The Media

UPDATE: Somehow I posted the unchecked, raw version of this post the other day without noticing it. So, in the spirit of showing you that I'm not a dithering buffoon who doesn't understand grammar, here's the version that should have been posted.

---------------------------------------------

In the second installment of our series on Right Wing Entitlement Culture, we examine the singular aspect of the modern American landscape that the Right claims is largely against them - The Media.

While the Modern American Right continually blast the "Mainstream Media", it's interesting to note that they also love to blather endlessly about how Fox"News" enjoys a massive audience share that other outlets should be jealous of.

Admittedly, I do watch Fox"News" now and again, but not for the reasons that they claim most people do. More on that aspect of the Right and the media in America in a moment.

I thought I would start this off with what is likely the perfect example of Right Wing Entitlement machinations: a healthy dose of rank conjecture, conspiracy, and more than a sprinkling of insistence of victimhood.



Immediately Breitbart goes after his most prestigious foe - Media Matters. Not because they are explicitly wrong by using context and the precise and accurately accounted words of the Modern American Right and their Fox"News" masters, but because he has a metaphorical hard-on to see Eric Boehlert and company be proven false by any means necessary.

This is the first, and most shining example, of conservative framing - attack the messenger without merit.

In terms of O'Reilly's insistence that he and Fox"News" have proven that Media Matters is a sham operation funded almost exclusively by George Soros, he again references the demonstrably misleading chart of Soros's financial contributions to Media Matters - something Breitbart and Fox"News" have tried to do with NPR as well.

This is where Breitbart - accompanied by an easily convinced O'Reilly - start to make completely false connections with Media Matters, Daily Kos, and Anthony Weiner's staffers that is the perfect definition of "unfounded". What O'Reilly postulates is that simply because people question Breitbart's motives and sources, they are simply trying to "smear" him.

Here is where they actually got it wrong, though their instincts were right from the start.

Andrew Breitbart has been so eager to prove that his socio-political opposites are nothing but corrupt and immoral that he will distribute and champion material that he apparently doesn't properly vet. And for those that used this template as a rational for going after the story and it's credibility, they were wrong - this time.

Breitbart then tries to explain his specious and laughably poor "connections" by referencing the non-controversial Journolist story as if it were in any way controversial. But, to a Conservative or Libertarian, any way to besmirch media that you don't control automatically demands that you label it as controversial.

The pair then went full-on Beckian to insist that MSNBC, Media Matters, and the White House are in this together in order to attack Breitbart and Fox"News". Again, this is something that is not even provable or even in the realm of speculation. What Breitbart and O'Reilly are relying on is another piece of conservative framing - something that media outlets have decided to cover based on nothing more than the Right has said that it was true.

Certainly, Barack Obama has had meeting with bloggers and reporters that champion the Left, but he has be equally open to those on the Right. But, I suppose that O'Reilly and Breitbart think that since they have both not been invited to an exclusive "sit-down" with Obama that this means that there is some sinister plot to destroy them.

Immediately following, O'Reilly defends his network's easily probable track record - defending, championing, and even employing members of the Modern American Right - against attacks targeting them when Breitbart boasts it is simply "projection" by the Left. It's at this point in the "interview" that reality is completely turned on its head.

After Brietbart lambastes The Huffington Post for being a primary source for ensuring that conservative claims never see the light of day - something that simply doesn't happen - O'Reilly goes full on "you know they are going to try and kill you". And Breitbart is more than eager to embrace that meme. After all, conservative victimhood works to their advantage more often than most people are willing to admit.

With that said, I'm not going to state that people of any ideological stripe have not threatened Breitbart. But one has to question what those threats are and if they are real or just posturing. We have all seen where conservative rhetoric leads to.

So how does this "interview" express the very real aspect of Right Wing Entitlement Culture in relation to modern media?

Primarily, it demands that anyone within the Modern American Right never be accountable for their previous mistakes and favor a singular instance where they were correct. I'm reminded of the popular phrase that "a blind squirrel can find a nut every great once in a while".

Secondly, The Right demand on a daily basis that their framing be used as a primer for all media coverage. Unfortunately for those of Liberal/Progressive perspective, this is all too true - even though the opposition that makes these demands will never admit it. Just take a look at virtually all the Sunday Shows on all major networks and you will see this in action. The Modern American Right demand that all media push their narrative - regardless of its merit - again and again and again. This is where they get the term "Liberal Media Bias". If someone doesn't genuflect to their particular belief system then you are guilty of heresy of the highest order.

For classic examples of what Breitbart and O'Reilly are referencing, check here and here.

Let's get back to the notion that Fox"News" has such a large audience share because their "reporting" is accurate, yet they can't seem to embrace the idea that this would make them "mainstream".

I have stated many times that accurate reporting and ratings-share are mutually exclusive creatures and to state that one equals another is a complete fabrication. This equivocation is another form of Right Wing framing. If this were true, then it should cross over into all forms of communications to audiences: The film AVATAR would have been more factually accurate than The Hurt Locker, as more people saw the former at theatres than the later.

Also, employees of Fox"News" have also claimed that America is a nation that is "Center-Right", yet that flies in the face of the fact that a plurality oppose the views that Fox and their compatriots champion.

The job of the American Media is to report the events of the day. When those events are beginning to be largely shaped by Right Wing ideology - and the media doesn't accept that premise - those that are attempting to shape it consider themselves being attacked by those they are attempting to control. This is the very nature of Right Wing Entitlement culture in relation to media.

Essentially, they are spoiled children being told that they can't have all that they want all the time. The reality is that their socio-political opponents are not in control the way they are being presented as.

The Palin/Soros Chalkboard Connections

Oh, this is just too sweet to pass up.

Glenn Beck spent the past week denouncing the liberal billionaire and philanthropist George Soros as a "puppet master" who is orchestrating a coup "to bring America to her knees."

Given Soros' alleged role plotting to destroy the United States, Beck and his Fox viewership might be surprised to learn that one of Sarah Palin's top aides has been on Soros' payroll for years.

That would be Republican lobbyist Randy Scheunemann, Palin's foreign policy adviser and a member of her small inner circle. He runs a Washington, D.C., consulting firm called Orion Strategies. Scheunemann and a partner have since 2003 been paid over $150,000 by one of Soros' organizations for lobbying work, according to federal disclosure forms reviewed by Salon. The lobbying, which has continued to the present, centers on legislation involving sanctions and democracy promotion in Burma.

Scheunemann's client is the Open Society Policy Center, a DC-based advocacy group founded and funded by Soros. The Open Society Policy Center says on its website that it "encourages Congress and the Administration to press the military dictatorship in Burma to restore political rights and democracy."

( h/t to Ed Brayton )

And while I'm not even going to be so naive to expect Beck to broach this subject from even a damage control perspective - as it's these sorts of revelations that are summarily ignored by conservatives - I do believe this should be blasted from all corners of the liberal/progressive blogosphere.

Here's a little "conspiracy bait" for Beck - Palin actually recommended Randy Scheunemann to do debate prep for a Tea Bagger candidate that Palin and her media masters at Fox"News" were literally drooling over for weeks - Christine O'Donnell.

I can almost sense Beck's chalkboard hand twitching with confusing and horror.

Profits, Prophecy, And Preposterous Notions

Here's a heaping helping of Glenn Beck doing his best impersonation of Jack Van Impe, complete with "Soros Doomsday Clock".



Despite the fact that all Americans benefit from "socialism", Beck feels that Lawrence O'Donnell's admission that he is a "socialist" while debating "Glennzilla" Greenwald on Morning Joe was clearly a a send-up of conservative fear of the word, those same conservatives - including Beck - have latched onto this like this is the missing puzzle piece in a grander puzzle that is going to rend the fabric of space/time in two.

I will, however, have to pause a moment and say that Beck's concern that Mark Penn saying Obama "needs another Oaklahoma City" incident is actually grounded in reality. But using this as a jump-off point to claim that liberals/progressives actually embrace this idea isn't grounded in anything at all, as liberals/progressives have clearly expressed their outrage at such a suggestion.

Beck is quite adept at taking completely disparate moments in time and connecting them in his chalkboard style to create a deceptive web of intruige. And adding George Soros to the mix isn't exactly a new tactic - he just goes a lot further than O'Reilly has ever done.

The part that really gave me a great laugh is Beck's claim that people on Facebook or Twitter who point out the ignorance of those citing him as a credible source are all too often paid operatives of Soros. And while it would actually be nice to get paid for doing this blog, I have yet to receive a check from George Soros.

But while Beck completely brushes off the very real aspects of what he does and how it has affected certain viewers of his program, I think we are beginning to see the culmination of what Beck wants - a conservative, preemptive strike against a foe that really isn't there.

Likely, Beck will also talk about this segment from the Dylan Ratigan program on MSNBC:



This is already something that conservatives are already claiming that Ratigan, his guest, and the entire network are advocating violence. The trouble with that, is that these people obviously didn't pay attention to the interview and will likely not read the book.

And this guy is clearly not a fan of Obama - just in case Michelle Malkin decides she's going to cyber-stalk this guy and find out who is "really is".



Beck does make one claim that is so off the charts that I think I should end with it, as it is something the entire Fox"Network" loves to tout without fulling realizing it's complete irrelevance.

The fact that a large number of people watch his show has no correlation to it being even remotely accurate. It's a lot like saying that since more people went to see Avatar in theatres instead of The Hurt Locker, that James Cameron's film is more factually accurate than Kathering Bigelow's film. The next time some conservative points to Fox's and Beck's ratings as a signifier of accuracy, hit them with that movie reference and see what happens.

O'Reilly's Metric

O'Reilly has successfully become a poor caricature of Glenn Beck.



Might as well have said "Did you know that Soros shops at Macy's twice a week? Should that shock America? Is he attempting to manipulate middle class mothers who are about to Christmas shop?"

Not only that, and to echo a point made by Bob Cesca, is O'Reilly really going to go the route of "look at all the mean things these people say" to claim that the modern conservative movement is somehow morally superior?

Then again, conservatives are more incensed when a woman is called a bitch while not taking violent assault against a liberal woman seriously.

Why NPR Was Right And Conservatives Are Still Wrong

Yesterday, NPR terminated the contract they had with Juan Williams for comments he made regarding Muslims. And I say they were right in doing so.

But while a publicly funded company has to take into consideration all of those that help them stay in business, conservatives are using this as proof that this is nothing more than PC culture run amok.

The standard conservative defense was implemented from the start: it's all about "context".

Does watching an entire segment and hearing remarks in context also conflict with NPR’s editorial standards and practices? The Right Scoop has the entire six-minute-plus segment, and do what NPR failed to do — watch the whole thing

OK, let's watch.....



It's pretty clear what Williams is doing, which is precisely what he always does when he appears on Fox"News" - play both sides against the middle. He's being quite clear and up front with how he feels and then plays the "balance" roll in saying that people should act completely opposite from how he does in order to resolve a particular situation.

He's done this for years and I've always known that this was bound to happen.

But conservatives didn't stop there. Michelle Malkin George Soros into the "debate" in hopes to further the narrative that this was somehow his doing:

Reminder of George Soros’s NPR cash infusion this week:

NPR has received a $1.8 million grant from the Open Society Foundations to begin a project called Impact of Government that is intended to add at least 100 journalists at NPR member radio stations in all 50 states over the next three years.

Anyone can see that the initiatives that Open Society takes up are indeed contrary to those of the modern conservatives movement. After all, ensuring that the playing field is leveled for people all around the world, that health, wellness, and equal justice are benefits we all can enjoy simply doesn't blend well with the conservative narrative of "I before we". I suppose that "We the people...." only operates in certain instances. But I'm getting off track here.

Malkin also goes on to tie in an incident that had nothing to do with NPR:

Worth noting: NPR affiliate employee Sarah Spitz at public radio station KCRW wishes death on Rush Limbaugh…not a firing offense.

And while Sarah Spitz's comments towards Limbaugh do nothing but make her look like the multitude of conservatives that wish ill of Barack Obama, she was never in the employ of NPR.

....Spitz has never been an NPR employee. For many years, she has worked for KCRW, a public radio station in Santa Monica, California, as a producer and publicist.

KCRW is one of some 900 independently-operated public radio stations across the country that air NPR's news, talk and entertainment programming. Like network TV affiliates, they air national programming but act autonomously.

Not to delve too deeply into the "what if..." realm that conservatives all too often live in, but had this decision been made by a private company, it's likely that this would have been a much smaller story about who did the firing and more about the white-washing of Islamaphobia and the victimhood status of a Fox"News" employee.

The spin has been going full steam since news broke that Williams was terminated.



I'm guessing that Bill O'Reilly doesn't listen to NPR, based on his characterization of the organization. What Bill is really saying is that since NPR isn't like Fox"News" that that is what makes them an evil, liberal, propaganda outfit.

One last "what if...." point of reference that should put this into perspective.

What Williams did is essentially the same as saying that when you go to grocery store and see a black family, you're immediately going to assume that they are going to buy up all the watermelon and chicken and pay for it with food stamps. It's the same thing, and it's just as wrong.

To reiterate, NPR is an organization that is funded by people all over America and the world. They have to take into consideration their entire donor base when presenting news stories and allowing all voices to be heard. If you take just a few hours each week to listen to NPR, you're going to hear more "balance" to their programming than Fox could even pretend to muster over an entire year.

I don't feel sorry for Williams in the least. He is an example of what "accountability" is all about. I'm sure that he will be able to churn out at least one other book and lots of airtime on Fox"News" to milk and contort this story so that the modern conservative movement can further demonize anyone that doesn't follow Fox's narrative about what America is and isn't.

And I Was Only Joking Earlier

Either Rush is that predictable ( which I'm fully aware that he normally is ) or my blog is being monitored by certain members of Rush's production team and high-level conservative bloggers.

From my blog earlier this morning:

Should Limbaugh have a chance at owning a team, owning anything? Of course. He had his chance with the NFL and he lost not because of come liberal conspiracy, not because of fabricated quotations, not because George Soros spoke some cryptic incantation from an ancient tome, it was because of his own ideological and personal follies that he lost.

This was posted on HotAir today:

Was George Soros Involved In The Rams Bid Too

Is Bloomberg merely saying that Soros has partnered with Checketts before and therefore might be involved this time or are they saying he is involved and they know it for a fact? Hard to tell. If it’s the latter then it’s exceedingly odd that Checketts never mentioned it to Rush in order to feel him out on whether he was okay with partnering with Soros. It’s also odd that Soros wouldn’t have used his influence on the left to call off the media dogs this week against Limbaugh: Now that they’ve purged Rush, conservatives will demand that Soros be purged too and Georgie boy surely knows it. Which is why I suspect that he’s not involved in the bid (and, needless to say, won’t be involved going forward).

Sure, Allahpundit attempts to spin away from his original thesis with the last sentence, but the seed has already been planted.

So, a prediction or merely stating the obvious? I wonder what I can predict for tomorrow.

Michelle Malkin runs into the street, strips down, and starts to rub her own shit on her face perhaps?

Malkin Thinks That Entering A Contest Will Hurt Her Book Sales

Previously, I have spoken at length about the real reason that conservative books are consistantly on the top of the NY Times Best-Seller List. And it certainly isn't due to the fact that these books are well written, accurately researched, remotely factual, or have even the most minute bearing on where the real-world is at the particular time that the book(s) is published.

That being said, enter Michelle "Mouth WIDE Open" Malkin.

One of her latest posts begins as such:

The national media doesn’t want to talk about the dominance of conservative books atop the New York Times best-seller list and other national lists.

But it’s clearly getting under the Left’s skin.

Of course the media isn't talking about it, considering that the NY Times list considers bulk orders by retailers as "sales" and places like Townhall.com and various other conservative websites, think-tanks, and businesses buy up clap-trap such as yours to give away when eager conservatives feed at their slop jars. The game is fixed from day 1.

At HuffPo, a Soros-tied co-author has launched a bid to dislodge conservative authors — and he’s asking for help from every last nutroots activist out there.

Are the conservatives ever going the stop with the "Soros owns everything" meme? Sure, the man has billions to throw around, but there are many people with billions and billions to hand over to publishing houses, political candidates, networks, magazines, websites, and businesses. But, is she complaining because there isn't a Soros equal in the conservative camp? Actually, there is, just as there are many "Soros' that donate to Democratic causes. Soros has as much control over the Democratic party as any other philanthropist with cash to throw away. The meme is more a falicy that conservatives are willing to claim.

But Malkin's primary beef with this book, there's a prize for those that submit their original thoughts on how to better America. HOLY SHIT!!!!!!!!!!

It's just like any other competition. From school writing programs, to contests shown on TV commercials from everywhere like Bass Pro Shop to cosmetic businesses, on down to sending off box tops from Hannah Montana cereal boxes, there are places EVERYWHERE where people can win big prizes as long as you buy their product. It seems that Malkin has her knickers in a twists because she didn't think of this first so that her readers could win a cruise with Hugh Hewitt or something.

In essence, Malkin is creating something out of nothing. But this is nothing new.

Limbaugh Is The Real Soros

The lunatic-fringe Right are continually attempting to convince people that George Soros runs the Democratic party. It's a rather poorly constructed and ultimately laughable meme. Take Bill O'Reilly's "chart" for example.

And like O'Reilly, conservative pundits, bloggers, authors, politicians, and Fox"News" will continue to shout from their hay-bales they have constructed into a moutain that George Soros is a danger to America.

One of their latest nuggets of joy they have been clinging to, along with their irrational fear that Obama is going to take away their guns and silence their religion, is that Soros is "having a good crisis".

While you are not likely to hear Soros pontificate on how the Democratic party can maintain power, how liberals and progressives can reshape American and its image abroad, you do hear one voice on the opposite end of the political spectrum.

Rush Limbaugh.

But during all this growth I haven’t lost any audience. I’ve never had financially a down year. There’s supposedly a recession, but we’ve got - what is this May? Back in February we already had 102% of 2008 overbooked for 2009. [applause] So I always believed that if we’re going to have a recession, just don’t participate.

More from Think Progress

Yep, seems that Rush is having a rather nice crisis as well. And his audience seems to think it's just hilarious that this current recession is hiting people other than him.

What makes the argument that Limbaugh has as much control over the Republican party as the fringe-right thinks Soros has over the Democrats has played out in crystal clear segements for everyone to see.

How often do you see Democratic politicians talking about how wonderful George Soros is? For that matter, how often do see or hear anyone within the Democratic party praise Soros? You know why you don't? Because he's just a billionaire philanthropist. He "owns" as much of the Democratic party as any other billionaire or corporation or special interest "owns" any political party.

If MSNBC is such a "far left" news outlet, then why aren't we seeing Keith Olbermann and Racheal Maddow kowtowning to Soros on a virtually non-stop basis. I mean, one has to but glance over at Fox"News" you'll surely see Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Neil Cavuto, Doocy, Kilmeade, and Carlson and just about everyone else there praising and defending Limbaugh.

The Right will say that Soros isn't mentioned on MSNBC because they are "afraid" of him. But, judging from how many politicians have tucked-tail and ran to Limbaugh and practically begged for his blessing and forgiveness, who are the ones that are afraid?

The "Far Left Smear Machine"

Bill O'Reilly is fueling up the paranoia-express with his special brand of high-octane nonsense.

*click image to play video*



If the graphic in Bill's "Talking Points Memo" looks oddly familiar, then you're probably thinking of this:



It's interesting to note that, within the confines of O'Reilly's laughable notion that George Soros has ultimate control over the nation's media, he is perpetrating the same thing that he is decrying - though his boogeyman theory is more paranoia than fact.

And while we're on the subject, who exactly is in the "far-left" catagory anyway?

When taking into consideration the mass of people that O'Reilly has labeled as "far-left", one could conceiveably find their grandmothers in such a catagory. Also, you have to take a look at the source of these statements.

Despite the clap-trap that O'Reilly is dishing out as "fact", it's easy for anyone to see the effect that Limbaugh has on the GOP. What more proof do you need when the man that was chosen as a "leader" can't even stand his own ground against a radio-show host?