Rightwing Calling Cards: Hate Speech, Intolerance, and Brain-dead Right-wing Media

Whatever comparatively gentle terms we use for them, the assemblage of rightwingers, neocons, far-right nuts, and out-and-out fanatics seem to be in general incapable of picking up on their own character flaws. OK, yes, I'm being far too kind, as is my wont, not giving them proper credit for an amazing ability to prevaricate and commit all sorts of outrageous attempts to censor dissent when it benefits them. Being blunt, we face an obstinate cadre of hard-core opponents of the basics of human rights and hence the fundamentals on which this country was founded. When we progressives express ourselves, e.g., with respect to human rights, decency, the right to dissent, and habeas corpus, it is very commonly reviled as heresy, unpatriotic, and downright treason. When they name-call, slander, and profanely issue their standard bigotted racist demagoguery it is just the way these things are done.

I was saddened to hear that the two bloggers hired by the Edwards campaign, after already suffering a tentative firing and then re-hiring after a classic character-assassination by righty thugs, have now resigned. My understanding is that the bile and nastiness they were being subjected to for what I gather secondhand amounted to outre language and aggressive mockery of highly questionable religious ideology in historical posts on their personal blogs was sufficient to force them out of the campaign. That's a damn shame, for them personally, for the Edwards campaign, seemingly more than a little naive in this affair, and for our nation. Intolerance has become almost a major-league sport in this country that used to be called the Melting Pot. But that intolerance has been for a good long time, stretching back perhaps to the '70's decidedly more aggressively practiced by the right than the left.

The gestapo-like tactics and hardcore propaganda machine that the Republican Party has spawned over the past couple decades in their desperation to overcome the infection left behind by their Nixon has taken on a life of its own. Their lust for power, and preferably ultimate power (e.g. Rove famously wanting to permanently crush the Dems), should be enough to send a shudder through anyone who is a genuine patriot with a love for American democracy.

They seemingly have an automatic sensor that kicks in whenever anyone even vaguely middle-of-the-road, never mind independent-minded or - horrors - of a dissident point of view lets an expletive slip in. Yet the hate speech that is the standard parlance of their shocktroops, a la limbaugh and o'reilly et. al. is apparently not only fine with them but also with their craven sheep audience and much of the mainstream media. The latter of course puts QED to prior solid demonstrations that the standard claims of liberal media bias are absolute hokum (being polite). The bias is there alright. But it sure ain't liberal - or progressive or even democratic. Fox, the WSJ, the Washington Times, and more or less all of the broadcast media can be assumed to be cozied up with (hell, owned by) the corporate military-industrial republican machine. And sadly, those not named there, e.g., the NY Times and WA Post, every so often reveal a shocking shoddiness and laxity in standards by publishing crap by folks who are obviously total paid-off hacks who should never be found in the employ of an important representative of the Fourth Estate.

A while back, the Times featured a piece by Michael Gordon that was sub-sophomoric (well, truthfully brain-dead) in merely parroting white house propaganda regarding Iran without any actually thoughtful involvement by the "reporter" being exhibited. Maybe he's jockeying for a job as an ambassador in the twilight years of the bush dynasty or something. This seems to me the journalistic equivalent of a "dirty bomb," as it is both full of unsupported assertions right out of the war-criminally dishonest Bush/Cheney/Rice vocabulary used to foment our invasion of Iraq and also has the potential to lead many newspaper readers to believe that a sentient independent human with critical faculties has actually on behalf of the Times at least vetted the information.

Mr. Gordon reportedly has a history of carrying water for the powers that be, violating his journalistic credo, but that is little solace since the doddering old Gray Lady continues to pick up his tab. It's no wonder the "Internets" and news-blogs seem to be on the rise.

Mr. Greenwald has the honors for the takedown here:

Over the past few weeks, The Los Angeles Times has published several detailed and well-documented articles casting serious doubt on the administration's claims that Iran is fueling the Iraqi insurgency with weapons. A couple of months ago, The Washington Post published a very well-researched article reporting that extensive searches by British military brigades in Southern Iraq -- specifically in the areas where such weapons would almost certainly be transported and maintained -- have turned up nothing. It seemed as though the media was treating the war-inflaming claims of Bush officials against Iran much more skeptically, refusing to simply pass along accusations without first conducting an investigation to determine if those claims were true.

But today, The New York Times does precisely the opposite -- it has published a lengthy, prominent front-page article by Michael Gordon that does nothing, literally, but mindlessly recite administration claims about Iran's weapons-supplying activities without the slightest questioning, investigation, or presentation of ample counter-evidence. The entire article is nothing more than one accusatory claim about Iran after the next, all emanating from the mouths of anonymous military and "intelligence officials" without the slightest verified evidence, and Gordon just mindlessly repeats what he has been told in one provocative paragraph after the next.

Start with the headline: Deadliest Bomb in Iraq is Made by Iran, U.S. Says. That is a proposition that is extremely inflammatory -- it suggests that Iranians bear responsibility for attacks on U.S. troops in Iraq, even though that is a claim for which almost no evidence has been presented and which is very much in dispute. Why should that be the basis for a prominent headline when Gordon's sole basis for it are the uncorroborated assertions of the Bush administration? The very first paragraph following that headline is the most inflammatory:

The most lethal weapon directed against American troops in Iraq is an explosive-packed cylinder that United States intelligence asserts is being supplied by Iran.

Is that extremely provocative claim even true? Gordon never says, and he does not really appear to care. He is in Pravda Spokesman mode throughout the entire article -- offering himself up as a megaphone for administration assertions without the slightest amount of scrutiny, investigation or opposing views.

-clip-

And the Post - well Ms. Toensing is obviously in the competition for the anti-pulitzer with her dumbed-down court-reporter what-me-worry there's-no-check-with-my-name-on-it act. For commentary, I recommend this and this.

But I suspect there is and will be plenty more out there. These two papers in particular used to be counted on to fend off the growing regressive, anti-American program fomented by the reagan/limbaugh/fox/moonie fruitbats and exploited so adroitly by Karl Rove, the American Bigot par excellence. The Times and Post have obviously been stumbling steadily these last few years, for whatever reason, aside from the obvious one that they are part of Big Business, and corporatism and kowtowing to authority are Standard Operating Procedures in that elitist environment.