ONE year ago Matthew Yglesias, a blogger, left the Atlantic Monthly to join the Center for American Progress, a powerful liberal think-tank created to counter powerful conservative think-tanks such as the Heritage Foundation. Today, worrying that the media has been devoting too much coverage to right-wing outbursts at town halls, Mr Yglesias seemed to criticise his own institution.
[T]o take a bit of a self-critical look at things, this dynamic wasn’t helped by the rise of a left-wing mass media (blogs, Rachel Maddow, etc.) that was more interested in poking fun at the nuttiest voices on the right than in trying to amplify the concerns of pro-reform voters.
One branch of that "mass media" that seems interested in "poking fun" is ThinkProgress, one of the other Center for American Progress blogs, which usually fact-checks and mocks famous and obscure conservatives like Michele Bachmann ("Bachmann: We should 'make a covenant, to slit our wrists, be blood brothers' against health care reform") and Steven Anderson ("Radical Arizona preacher hopes 'God strikes Obama with brain cancer so he can die like Ted Kennedy.'").
This isn't isolated to ThinkProgress. Talking Points Memo, an award-winning liberal news site that played a major role in exposing a scandal in the firing of some of George Bush's US attorneys, is often given over to coverage of the same thing. One top story reports that "Tea Baggers" have accused a Republican senator of "treason". One of the top stories at the Huffington Post consists of several Republican strategists answering a ridiculous question—should Dick Cheney (who has a pacemaker and will be 71 at the next election) run for president?
But the biggest piece of evidence on Mr Yglesias's side is the coverage that liberal blogs and MSNBC gave Sarah Palin's Facebook post—not even a speech—that alleged a health-care reform bill would include "death panels". Greg Sargent, a blogger for a Washington Post offshoot who relentlessly asked Republicans whether they agreed with Mrs Palin, now wonders whether all that coverage forced the White House off stride.
The basic problem for liberals is time. There are only so many hours of news to fill; every minute spent talking about a conservative outrage is a minute not spent talking about, say, whether unions would walk away from the table if the White House didn't include a public option in the health-care bill. The latter story is about Democratic power; the former is about Democratic weakness. How low must the self-confidence of the majority party be if it can't take some ribbing from powerless conservatives?
The second problem is tone. Like it or not, liberalism is the ideology of the big cities. When liberal interest-groups mock conservatives, they often sound like Noel Coward characters making fun of the rubes.
The final problem is, ironically, the market. Wonkish writing about the Democratic agenda does not sell. Mockery does. (That silly Dick Cheney story at the Huffington Post is on its way to 2000 comments from readers.) There's an impetus for members of the new liberal media to be the first with a particularly juicy right-wing attack. And that's ironic, because the internet has provided them with unlimited space to cover whatever they want. There's not really any need to package the most salacious story for the front page. Those stories simply provide a more immediate reward—links, traffic, possibly an obscure Republican backing down—and the effect of crowding out the liberal agenda is too delayed to notice.
Readers' comments
The Economist welcomes your views. Please stay on topic and be respectful of other readers. Review our comments policy.
Sort:
Pure chutzpah. This comes close to warranting a charge of disingenuousness against the Economist.
Your publication did not hesitate from taking part in the hawk consensus before the Iraq war in which marginal weak-kneed hippies were in opposition and tough-minded grown-ups were in favor. While ignoring the obvious-at-the-time shifting rationales, the US yanking the UN out - you approved of this, and you did your duty and fell in line behind the conservatives like good libertarians do.
Where do you get off criticizing the left for straw-man-ing the right? Heck, I live smack in the middle of liberal America and I personally know many of the right-wing nutballs we hear about in the press. Hippies in 2004 were almost mythological, but you let yourselves get sucked right in by that meme, because it's what you wanted to believe.
Can we get a Steinglass retort to this crap?
Right, liberalism is the ideology of bourgeoisie. So what the hell is wrong wit the US system where the "left" is liberal and the right hardcore conservative. Where is labour?
To be fair, it's not really right to describe Sarah Palin (former VP candidate and 1/2 term Gov of Alaska), Newt Gingrich (former Speaker of the House), Churck Grassley (Senator and member of Gang of 6 working on healthcare) and Michael Steele (head of GOP) as merely "infamous or obscure."
The feeling that such people shouldn't be given prominence in this debate is shared by me. However, for better or for worse the GOP has either officially (Steele and Grassley) or unofficially (Palin and Gingrich) made them the Republican point-men in this debate.
This strikes me as simply the state of affairs for our politics.
I don't think Bush was greatly helped by conservative pundits either. A Coulter might vilify liberals to the glee of the right, but I'm guessing it had a cost among right leaning moderates who would prefer not to be associated with the emerging brand.
The comparison isn't exact, but the result is the same. The noise from the wings is a problem with which both parties are having difficulty dealing. It contributes to the alienation of independents and further control by the parties least helpful parts.
I don't know much about fanatically-liberal blogging/journalism. If Matthew Yglesias is critical, it could be an indication that something is rotten in the State of Denmark.
It isn't too hard to be "too clever by half" when the opposition calls you a facist, a communist, and a killer for attempting to reform health care.
And while some papers carry this news to drive sales, I think that this is a serious issue that needs to be covered. When the citizenry appears to be coming down with rabies, I want to know about it.
The degeneration of news into entertainment over the last generation has been universal, an affliction that transcends mere partisanship. Much of the stupidity we are exposed to happens only because it will attract media attention.
Edgus, exactly right. I only want to hear about Palin if she says something intelligent.
More navel gazing ought to help.
How ironic that the left-wing-dominated media has shot itself in the foot by continually mocking and attacking right-wingers rather than doing the boring but hard work of scrutinizing government policies. Too clever by half, these slick leftie journalists, as they used to say. Now that's karma.
Democracy in America can be implicated in this as well. Looking back the last month there has been a lot more "Look at the stupid Republican/Conservative" posts than a beaten minority party/movement should ellict. Some bloggers here can't seem to help themselves but comment in smug fashion on Palin this or Ignorant Protesters that. If the supposedly moderate Economist's staff falls prey to this, how can liberal bloggers not do the same?
Oh, but pointing out what's wrong with The Other is so incredibly gratifying.
This is a common trap for people who view their political opponents as evil, rather than simply wrong.