McConnell is whining

Here's something from Media Matters that I found especially interesting.

(Now before I start, I should say that I am well aware that Media Matters has its critics. Some people think that Media Matters should not have tax-exempt status. That has no relevance to the accuracy of its reporting, however. Since Media Matters targets only the conservative media, others consider them biased and therefore don't respect their research. But the fact that Media Matters targets only conservative media does not show that their research isn't worthy of respect. This blog focuses on the conservative media, but I have what I take to be very good criticisms of my targets and they must be judged on their own merits.)

Oliver Willis quotes Sen. Mitch McConnell's speech at the American Enterprise Institute yesterday as follows:

Last June I stood here and warned of a grave and growing threat to the First Amendment. That threat has not let up at all. Our ability to freely engage in civic life and organize in defense of our beliefs is still under coordinated assault from groups on the left that don't like the idea of anyone criticizing their aims. And from a White House that appears determined to shut up anybody who disagrees with it. Now on the outside there is a well-documented effort by a number of left wing groups like Media Matters to harass and to intimidate conservatives with the goal of scaring them off the political playing field and off the airwaves as well. An internal Media Matters memo from January 2010 showed the extent to which these tactics have been turned, literally, into a science. In it, we learned of the group's plan to conduct opposition research into the lives of on-air news personalities and other key decision makers over at Fox News. And to coordinate with 100 or so partner groups to pressure the network's advertisers and shareholders to, get this, by the threat of actual boycotts, rallies, demonstrations, shame, embarrassment and other tactics on a variety of issues important to the progressive agenda.

Willis writes that, in response to McConnell, Media Matters president Bradley Beychok said, "Mitch McConnell seems to be implying there is something underhanded or sinister about what Media Matters does. That is not the case. We monitor and correct conservative misinformation in the media." I have been reading Media Matters long enough to know that Beychok's assertion is generally true. And that, by the way, is good enough: absolute perfection in the pursuit of one's goal is too much to ask.

Let's think carefully about what McConnell said, granting, at least for the sake of argument, that Media Matters' mission is exactly what Beychok says it is.

McConnell complains that organizations like Media Matters are trying to "harass and intimidate conservatives" with the intention of "scaring them off the political playing field." How are they doing this? By using "boycotts, rallies, demonstrations, shame, [and] embarrassment" to apply pressure to Fox News advertisers and shareholders. Why? Because they disapprove of criticism of their liberal agenda. At stake is the freedom of conservatives to "engage in civic life and organize in defense of [their] beliefs."

Now, think about that, and ask yourself, what really is wrong with any of this? I know for a fact that there is much misinformation in the conservative media. Correcting it does not necessarily imply or require a political agenda. None of my criticisms of Lori Ziganto's anti-abortion posts, for example, took issue with her position; rather, I criticized her bad arguments and misinformation in support of her position. But suppose that Media Matters has a political agenda. Again, what is wrong with this? Fox News has a political agenda. Mitch McConnell has a political agenda. Shouldn't conservatives disapprove of criticism of their agenda? Why wouldn't they? Would there be anything wrong with conservatives using boycotts, rallies, demonstrations, and so on, to apply pressure to, say, MSNBC advertisers and shareholders? No. No activity McConnell mentions is against the law. And freedom of speech does not protect anyone from having to confront those who disagree with them. Rather, the "grave and growing threat to the First Amendment" is represented by those like McConnell who believe that they have a right not to be challenged in the marketplace of ideas. Seriously, who is a bigger threat to the First Amendment: those who protest against Fox News, or those who have a problem with such protests? And McConnell's claim that conservatives' freedoms are endangered is ludicrous. Conservatives have all the freedoms everyone else has. But conservatives also have to face the consequences of exercising those freedoms, just like everyone else. If you want to broadcast the crazy shit one is apt to find on Fox News, people are going to get upset. And by the way, isn't that what you're counting on? You want your own people to get upset so that they'll write those checks, right?

What's really going on here is that McConnell is whining. Never have I heard as much whining and moaning from Republicans as I've heard since Obama was elected in 2008. They complain about NPR because NPR refuses to lean to the right and consequently they want to defund the CPB. (You might think that NPR has a liberal bias. I listen to NPR every day, and I can tell you that you are wrong.) Broadcasting should be privately funded, they surely believe, especially tea party types. Well, if Fox News has to compete in the marketplace with everyone else, then they will have to put up with consumers, some of whom are well organized, who don't like them.

Now, you might say that my reasoning is good, but the assumption that I began with is false: Media Matters' mission is not what Beychok says it is, but is in fact some other sinister thing. My challenge to you is this: show me that you're right. Show me your evidence. Make a case for your point of view. I am open-minded enough to consider good arguments, and I have in the past gone where the evidence has taken me and changed my mind. (Once, I thought that the death penalty is morally justified. How wrong I was about that!)

Doubleplusungood

Yesterday, I wrote about RedState's incredible claim that Harry Reid was to blame for Sen. Bunning's repeated objections to unanimous consent to pass a bill that would, among other things, extend unemployment benefits.

Fortunately for RedState, it appears that attention has been diverted from that incredible claim and focused on what is, upon closer inspection, a trivial tangent.

RedState's hogan is telling everyone who will listen that Bunning's stunt is not a filibuster:

[A]s is increasingly well known to those who actually are capable of comprehension, Senator Jim Bunning - for the simple reason he wishes it to be paid for - is objecting to a repeated unanimous consent request by Senate Democrats to call up and pass a bill that would temporarily extend unemployment benefits, transportation funding, medicare reimbursement, COBRA subsidies and other expenditures to the tune of another $10 billion or so. . . . A filibuster is one of two things. One, an actual filibuster where a Senator gets control of the Senate floor and will yield only for a question while continuing to speak, thereby delaying consideration of a measure. . . . Two, a “filibuster” under Rule 22 of the Standing Rules of the Senate whereby debate is continuous unless “cloture” is filed to shut off debate on a measure under consideration and the vote is 3/5ths or more of the Senate.

Bunning's maneuver, therefore, is clearly not a filibuster, according to hogan.

Media Matters' Ben Dimiero, however, claims to have caught the bloggers at RedState in a contradiction:

An hour ago, I published a post pointing out that a RedState blogger attacked media outlets referring to Sen. Jim Bunning's (R-KY) move to block legislation that would extend unemployment benefits as a "filibuster." The blogger -- Hogan -- called them "freaking idiots" not "capable of comprehension" and lacking "rudimentary understanding of the U.S. Senate." Only problem is, RedState Editor Erick Erickson made the "filibuster" claim at least twice.

So, the bloggers at RedState have attached different terms to Bunning's maneuver, even though they are abusing their liberal opponents for calling it a filibuster. Now, here's my question for Dimiero: why should I give a shit?

Maybe Dimiero thinks he has to care about this because RedState appears to care about it. But what difference does it make what this thing is called? For all intents and purposes, Bunning's little maneuver had the same effect as a filibuster, so does it really matter whether we call it a filibuster or not?

Perhaps the folks at RedState care about this because conservatives, like the leaders of the totalitarian state of Oceania in George Orwell's 1984, know the power of language. Fox "News" knows. They call reconciliation "the nuclear option" even when it plainly is not, because they know, as the propaganda arm of the Republican party, that what you call something can effect what people think about it. So perhaps RedState bloggers believe that the allegedly liberal media is calling this a filibuster because they want to turn people against it, as if cutting off innocent peoples' unemployment benefits wasn't already a good enough reason to be against it.

But I think RedState has other motives. Think about it. This issue not only diverts attention away from their ridiculous attempt to blame Sen. Reid and helps them wage their Newspeak-style propaganda campaign, it also gives them an excuse to abuse those who disagree with them and thus throw more red meat to their ravenous readers. Feeding at the trough, indeed.

If you want to combat organizations like RedState and Fox "News," it is a good idea to focus on the things that matter and not be distracted by all the trivial nonsense they'd like you to waste your time discussing.

Doubleplusungood, Media Matters. Focus your energy on the important stuff.