Big Lies Repeated Over and Over

Paulie Brading

Some thoughts after Iowa:

"Candidates can continue to say things that are "flatly, grossly, and shamefully untrue," as the Post's E.J. Doinne described it, without fear of retribution. Obama has traveled the world and "apologized for America," says Romney. Except that, no he hasn't. The stimulus "created zero jobs" says Rick Perry. Except it created or saved at least 3 million. Obama is going to "put free enterprise on trial," claims Romney. How does he square that with nearly 3 million private-sector jobs created under Obama policies in the past 20 months? In this media era, he doesn't have to square anything at all." Wise words written by Katrina vanden Heuvel, editor and publisher of the Nation magazine, and weekly columunist for The Post.

Can candidates say whatever they want and never be held to the truth? Why do reporters feel the obligation to balance their reporting when they reveal the Republican big lies by throwing in a Democrat to criticize to "balance" their reporting? I'm tired of this false balancing act by the media.

On to Iowa results:

Iowa is finally over. We learned that the Republicans in Iowa split three ways with Romney winning by 8 votes. Last time he ran for president in Iowa he recieved just 6 less votes than the votes he recieved last night. Thats a great deal of money spent to earn 6 less votes than the last time he campaigned in Iowa.

We are watching a very splintered Republican Party that can't seem to warm up their base to any of their current front runners. What base? Which base?

I'm worried about the 2010 Citizens United ruling that doesn't require disclosure of donors and can throw large chunks of money to support candidates. Romney's supporters flamed Newt Gingrich through their Super Pac.

There wan't any victory last night in Iowa. Iowa was more like a circular firing squad. What do you think Boehner and McConnell were thinking after the results came in?

Your take.

  • (Show?)

    Over the last two decades those who call themselves political journalists have become entertainers instead, the political equivalent of the Hollywood gossip shows like Extra. They want to entertain only and avoid alienating any of their sponsors or viewers, by showing only the horse race aspect of politics. They abdicate any accountability for factual reporting or truth telling by simply stating that political parties "both do it." The media political "reporters" of our day lack any integrity or any accountability. This corruption is responsible for the total cynicism with which Americans hold the political process and politicians. And of course Fox News has abdicated any pretense of political reporting and become a branch of the Republican Party, to the point that they give large sums of money to the GOP. In this environment other media must evolve that does real factual investigation and reporting if we have any hope of an informed citizen electorate.

    Of course the Mitt Romneys of this world repeat lies and get away with it because they can. The George Stephanopolous, the David Gregorys, the Wolf Blitzers of this world are a miserable lot, who nevertheless have job security because the corporate infotainment media wants it this way.

    • (Show?)

      Of course the media owners are largely to blame as well. Why would they want less money being spent on political ads? Why would they want to do anything, or promote any viewpoint that seeks to restrain corporate, union, or large donor super PAC's? So both the reporters turned entertainers, and their bosses have a financial interest in not only stirring the pot, but in keeping the race competitive, encouraging hit ads, and making sure there are no restrictions on campaign spending.

  • (Show?)

    Regarding Iowa and beyond: We should be wondering who is waiting in the wings in case the R's convention breaks down.

  • (Show?)

    It's not just the big lies. It's the false dichotomy. "Well, if one candidate is for the mandatory knifing of everyone over the age of 80, and the other favors medicare... then let's give them both equal air time!"

  • (Show?)

    In an attempt to be fair in a discussion about the media one must first recognize, as most Blue Oregon readers are fully aware, that it was the 1996 Telecommunications Act signed by William J. Clinton that ushered in a new generation of Pravda for America. His other stellar achievments are similarly horrific and were done by a nominal Democrat and yet here we are again.

    My headline would read, "Willard Squeaks Out a Victory by a Whisker" and one other victory is a company formed by Bain Capitol called Cumulus. This Atlanta based firm has bailed out struggling KGO in San Francisco. Although they have been number one in their market for thirty-five years all of the stars were fired, ending Talk Radio for the West coast. Francis Ford Coppala (sp) is making a film based on the life of Ray Taliaferro; he informed more people in his years on KGO than perhaps anyone in history. We learned of Israel's attack on the USS Liberty. And of course of The Project for A New American Century which was written for Bibi Netanyahu. The legacy lives on to this day like a Zombie that will not die with candidates like Santorum and Bachmann. But wait there is no connection between religious ideology and war. Right?

    In addition to KGO Cumulus bought KKOH in Reno and Boise's 670 AM.

    More Rushbo and Levin. A disaster for America.

  • (Show?)

    The real winner in Iowa were the SuperPacs... They took down Newt and raised Santorum up. BIG money talks.

  • (Show?)

    Paulie, thanks, you have put your finger on one big problem -- the substitution of "balance" as a goal for older style "objectivity," which in my own thinking I tend to call "descriptive accuracy."

    The difference is that efforts at objectivity require reference to facts, while balance only requires reference to the opinion to be balanced.

    Sometimes facts come down on one side or another of a debate, often they come down in favor of one description of something over another. Description of course is not the end of the process, facts and accurate descriptions still require interpretation as to their meanings and significance.

    This is slightly different from the spurious moral equivalency problem to which Jason also correctly points.

    I'm skeptical of ever fully achieving objectivity, but I think as a goal striving after it tends to be good for the quality of debate and journalism; seeking descriptive accuracy is also a type of moral discipline I think.

connect with blueoregon