Monday, January 28, 2008
Reader Email, Sort Of...
We were bcc'd on this Reader Email to MSNBC, which offers a far more astute take on Bill Clinton's reference to Jesse Jackson's 1988 South Carolina primary win than any in the media -- including neocon Grand Wizard William Kristol -- have offered:
In other words, when she won, it was race, and when she lost -- it was race.
Back in NH, though, the element of race was expressly introduced by the media. There was not one mention of race until after Clinton won; it was introduced by the media -- explicitly -- as a possible reason for her victory. There was no suggestion that any racial politics had been played by the Clintons. When that insult to New Hampshire voters backfired in the polls, the media tweaked their story to blame the introduction of race on the Clintons. So now the story is still all about race -- which is what the media, and the Republican party, has wanted from the beginning -- but now it's all the Clintons' fault.
- To whom it may concern:
I watched MSNBC last night for almost 4 hours and I
couldn't believe my ears. One after another of your
commentators discussed -- endlessly -- the idea the
Clinton campaign had "played the race card" in South
Carolina, yet never gave even one example. They said
it over, and over, and over again; it began nearly
every segment, and ended nearly every segment, yet not
one MSNBC commentator provided even one sound-bite or
transcript quote to support the accusation.
The closest they could come was Congressman Clyburn's
assertion that Clinton was "using code" -- but Clyburn
was never asked what the Clintons supposedly said and
what it was supposedly code for. One would think this
would be important enough to share with viewers, given
the importance it was accorded.
Later they discussed Bill Clinton's remark about Jesse
Jackson's having won South Carolina in 1988 -- which
was clearly meant to mean simply that a Democrat had
won there and didn't win the nomination (Dukakis did)
-- but, incredibly, your commentators took it as yet
another "racist" remark because Jackson happens to be
black.
Clinton's remark was clearly just meant to suggest
that winning in South Carolina isn't winning the
nomination. Yet on MSNBC there was no discussion
WHATSOEVER of the political reality behind the remark:
that he couldn't use 1992 as an example because he
himself had won, thumpingly, in South Carolina in '92,
and went on to be the nominee, that Gore had won in
2000 and went on to be the nominee, and that in 2004
Edwards had won South Carolina but not the nomination
-- but that Clinton was certainly not going to use
Edwards an example because Edwards is running against
Clinton's wife now.
In other words, the real story was the POLITICAL --
not racial -- spin of Clinton's remark, because in
fact, two South Carolina winners had gone on to be the
nominee, and one the VP nominee. Jackson was the
ONLY POSSIBLE EXAMPLE Clinton could use to play down
the importance of last night's primary results. But
that very relevant political point was not on MSNBC's
agenda: only the Clintons' "playing the race card" was
-- to the exclusion of everything else.
Watching MSNBC spin their vitriolic anti-Clinton
fiction all night was very hard to take; frankly it
gave me the creeps to realize they think so little of
their viewers and so highly of themselves that they
believe they can make something up whole-cloth and
make it true by acclamation -- though, sadly, by
maintaining unanimity and preventing any dissenting
views, MSNBC will likely have success enough to
warrant the conceit.
I am so disappointed in Keith Olbermann particularly,
that I will never -- never -- watch Countdown again.
As it stands the only commentator on MSNBC that cares
remotely about the truth is Dan Abrams. The rest have
abandoned it -- and their viewers -- in favor of a
pathological anti-Clinton agenda that is turning a
once-promising addition to the cable news world into a
laughingstock.
Regards,
JB
In other words, when she won, it was race, and when she lost -- it was race.
Back in NH, though, the element of race was expressly introduced by the media. There was not one mention of race until after Clinton won; it was introduced by the media -- explicitly -- as a possible reason for her victory. There was no suggestion that any racial politics had been played by the Clintons. When that insult to New Hampshire voters backfired in the polls, the media tweaked their story to blame the introduction of race on the Clintons. So now the story is still all about race -- which is what the media, and the Republican party, has wanted from the beginning -- but now it's all the Clintons' fault.
