Eric Alterman, "The Assault on Reason": The media's loathing of Al Gore

[DeepModem Mom]

The Nation: June 27, 2007 (July 16, 2007 issue)
The Assault on Reality
Eric Alterman

That Al Gore's 2000 presidential candidacy was treated unconscionably by most members of the mainstream media is not really arguable by sentient beings. The very idea that a candidate like George W. Bush--extremist, incompetent, unprepared for office, addicted to cronyism and incapable of admitting even the simplest human error--could have been held by so many reporters to be a better choice for President than the two-time Vice President, Senator, Representative and environment and nuclear weapons expert, to say nothing of his central role in the Clinton Administration's successful two-term presidency, would be laughable were its consequences less tragic. And yet in that election, the media made Al Gore out to be a liar because so many reporters chose to misreport his remarks or take them out of context. To top it off, they made a joke of their maliciousness, mocking Gore for alleged mendacities that were largely the results of their carelessness and deliberate misrepresentation.

Gore has since moved on to become not only one of America's most powerful progressive voices but also, when it comes to the dangers posed by climate change, something of a secular prophet. An Inconvenient Truth has turned out to be perhaps the most influential political argument by a private citizen since Rachel Carson's Silent Spring. The book version of the movie and his newest tome, The Assault on Reason, are runaway bestsellers. Gore is a contender for this year's Nobel Peace Prize....And yet within the hermetically sealed confines of the American MSM, little has changed. In his new book Gore offers a complicated and depressing indictment of our present predicament, focusing on the dishonesty of our politics and the toothlessness of our tabloid-obsessed media. Resting as it does on reasoning derived from the likes of Jürgen Habermas and other philosophers, environmental scientists and even neuroscientists, the book could not help but trigger the MSM's reflexive anti-intellectualism, to say nothing of their loathing of its author.

Witness the Washington Post, whose reporters in 2000 ran with Republican Party press releases purporting to be Gore's own words. Amazingly, the paper's recent treatment of Gore has been even more nakedly hostile, sometimes bizarrely so....

***

While I have focused on the Post, it's not as if the rest of the media distinguished themselves--or diverged from their circa-2000 scripts. At ABC News, Diane Sawyer badgered Gore about his political ambitions, Jake Tapper compared the book to a Michael Moore missive and Terry Moran portrayed it as an act of vengeance. On the New York Times op-ed page David Brooks mocked Gore as a "Vulcan Utopia(n)," and Maureen Dowd focused, laserlike, on crucial features like Gore's waistline and his author photo while terming the ex-VP a "presidential flirt," a "righteous tease" and a "high-minded scold." And in a sentence that may rival Ferguson's for the Pulitzer Prize for Irresponsible Imagination in the Service of Personal Obsession--were one ever to be established--Dowd wrote that during his Diane Sawyer interview, Gore "almost seems to want to sigh and roll his eyes." Never mind, dear reader, that Al Gore neither sighed nor rolled as much as a single eyelash. To Dowd, writing in the newspaper of record, he "almost seemed to want to," and that's good enough.

So give George W. Bush credit. He may lie about counterproductive wars, destroy our reputation abroad, ignore Katrina victims, approve torture, blow up our balance of payments, ignore scientific evidence, undermine our Constitution and turn the Justice Department over to a collection of ideological hacks... At least he doesn't make Maureen Dowd think he wants to roll his eyes.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070716/alterman

[TwilightGardener]

1. See, I said this yesterday, and was told I was wrong. But I think more of this shit

will happen, if he runs.

[Phredicles]

2. No argument from me. But similar shit will happen no matter who

gets the Democratic nomination. And Al Gore is the best possible choice. Besides, in his case they've trotted this shit out before, and it'll ring especially hollow.

[Mabus]

7. Yeah, good thing the media doesn't do hit jobs on the other possible candidates

:eyes:

Get real. They are doing the same thing to the declared field of Democratic candidates right now. Everything from Edwards' haircut and house to Hillary's marriage and whether she's had plastic surgery to Obama not being American Black and whether he made a homophobic joke, etc. etc. The media dismisses the rest of our declared candidates as being unelectable and then covers them in mostly a negative light.

Remember when Dean was a loose cannon and Kerry was flip-flopper? This isn't anything new and no one should be surprised by it. Here's something from the dailyhowler from 2000.

Sadly, the lack of seriousness of our mainstream press corps has been the campaign story to date, from open cheering for favored candidates to romance-novel coverage built around tales of character. Candidates seem less flesh-and-blood pols than mannequins whom the pundits dress up to tell fables. E. R. Shipp, the Washington Post ombudsman, described the process in a March 5 column. Shipp was addressing a pair of Post stories from December containing serious errors about Vice President Gore. Writing as the primaries reached their climax, she noted that Post election reporting often seems to construct a highly simplified "drama:"

SHIPP: Readers react to roles that The Post seems to have assigned to the actors in this unfolding political drama. Gore is the guy in search of an identity; Bradley is the Zen-like intellectual in search of a political strategy; McCain is the war hero who speaks off the cuff and is, thus, a "maverick;" and Bush is a lightweight with a famous name, and has the blessings of the party establishment and lots of money in his war chest. As a result of this approach, some candidates are whipping boys; others seem to get a free pass.

This, remember, is the Post ombudsman, describing her own paper's coverage. According to Shipp, the Post's bungling about Gore back in December "fits the role the Post seems to have assigned him in Campaign 2000."

In truth, Shipp was restrained in her description of the role assigned Gore in the current campaign. For the past fifteen months, Gore has been aggressively cast, within the press corps, as the guy "who will do and say anything to win." The RNC began the campaign in March 1999 with a set of silly, gimmicked-up stories, in which trivial statements were tortured and spun to reveal insights into Gore's alleged character flaws. The press corps has continued to recite these tales, scripting a "drama" it seems to find pleasing. Gore's character has been questioned again and again, often in plainly fact-averse ways. Serious discussion of serious issues has made way for repetitive talk about earth tones. Simply put, our election has been hijacked by nonsense and spin. In fact, the "character problem" of the election to date has been that of the Washington press corps.
http://www.dailyhowler.com/h071100_3.shtml

[TwilightGardener]

13. You're right, I see hit jobs a-coming no matter who we put up.

However, my biggest reservation with Gore is that what worked against him the last time will be ever-so-easily refreshed THIS time, PLUS new material since 2000. I don't know how much more shit can be brought against Hillary--she has been investigated/oppo'ed to DEATH for many years, and they can't seem to find stuff to stick on her. Obama--just not that much "mockery" material there. There just doesn't seem to be anyone in the media who has the appetite to ridicule or humiliate him. Edwards--that's another story. I can see him getting ripped apart, easy. Hell, they're still doing it with Kerry. For this reason, I still think Obama and Hillary are our strongest bets to win the general. 2000 was just fucking painful--so was 2004--against the BIGGEST ASSHOLE LOSER in the free world. I just don't want a three-peat, against an "R" who WON'T be as clueless and bumbling as Chimpy.

[Mabus]

21. The one thing that Gore has that he didn't in the run up to the 2000 cycle is;

friendly exposure in other media outlets. Think about it. Gore has been introduced to larger friendlier audiences in everything from GQ to the Oscars. People have had the opportunity to see Al and hear what he has to say with the focus on him and his message rather than having it filtered through caricatures the political media paints. Because of AIT there are more people who are willing to listen to what he has to say in TAOR.

The public has a different view of Gore because of his two most recent books, the movie, magazine articles and television appearances. Once the political media tries to dig their claws into him they will be facing a public that has already made up its mind about Gore the man and the intellectual. The old political memes for Gore are biting the dust and Gore has accomplished this almost single-handedly by ignoring the political press and pundits and going directly to the people.

[cui bono]

25. Which is why it's good for him to wait to declare

if he is going to run. He's getting great publicity on his book tour without the baggage of being a candidate.

I met him when he signed my book. I implored him to run. Hope he does.

[Mabus]

26. I agree completely

The longer he waits before making his final decision the more friendly exposure he gets in mass media outlets. There are more people willing to go to the mat and dispute lies the political media tells and to call reporters on their cartoonish coverage of Gore. The people have seen Gore and they've heard him talk and they're waking up to the fact that the media plays favorites.

[cui bono]

30. Yep. And he's more comfortable with himself now.

Or he's just not listening to handlers. He certainly comes off so much better now and not the way people portrayed him before. And he's shown a really good sense of humor over the years.

[The Count]

17. That's why "electable" "likable" "teflon" "velcro" are code for "who we're telling you to vote

or not"

[Mabus]

23. don't forget the fave this cycle: "authentic"

btw, at the Take Back America conference I went to a panel that included Richard Wolffe, Craig Crawford and David Shuster. I asked them, to applause in the room, to quit using words like "authentic" to describe our candidates.

[The Count]

42. It rankles me when DU-ers adopt them: DK is not electable, Edwards is "the most

electable" - that's why MSM is attacking him" (no, silly, that's what MSM is trying to suggest he is, to get you away from DK, Gravel or any genuine anti-war option)

[Skinner]

3. Don't miss this part -- so typical

Next came Post news columnist Dana Milbank. ... With considerable condescension, Milbank added, "Not that you'd doubt Gore on these points, but, just in case, there are 273 endnotes," as if offering readers access to one's sourcing--as any serious nonfiction author save Bob Woodward is expected to do--is another example of what a self-satisfied smartypants we're dealing with.

Not long afterward the Post's Outlook section published yet another assault on Gore, this one by Weekly Standard editor Andrew Ferguson. Astonishingly, Ferguson began his screed by asserting, "You can't really blame Al Gore for not using footnotes in his new book.... It's a sprawling, untidy blast of indignation, and annotating it with footnotes would be like trying to slip rubber bands around a puddle of quicksilver." I say "astonishingly" because, as the annoyed Mr. Milbank pointed out in the same newspaper, the book contains 273 source notes spread across twenty pages right there in the back. So common was the anti-Gore animus that it apparently blinded everyone involved with the piece, thereby allowing Ferguson to humiliate himself as well as the newspaper with an accusation so amateurish it dissipated with a mere glance at the book.

Perhaps Ferguson was making a distinction between footnotes and endnotes. :eyes:

[Uncle Joe]

5. Except for this part.

http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh061207.shtml

"FERGUSON (6/10/07): You can't really blame Al Gore for not using footnotes in his new book, "The Assault on Reason." It's a sprawling, untidy blast of indignation, and annotating it with footnotes would be like trying to slip rubber bands around a puddle of quicksilver. Still, I'd love to know where he found the scary quote from Abraham Lincoln that he uses on page 88.

<snip>

How pitiful has the Post become? Ferguson said he’d love to know where Gore found his Lincoln quote—but, since Gore’s untidy puddle of a book lacks footnotes, he just couldn’t figure it out. But good lord! Gore’s book has twenty pages of end-notes—including an endnote that plainly explains the source of that page 88 Lincoln quote. The quotation comes from The Lincoln Encyclopedia, a 1950 Mcmillan compilation, edited by Archer Shaw. Yes, readers, that’s where Gore “found the quote.” It says so right in his book."

[Skinner]

6. Pathetic.

Just pathetic.

[Uncle Joe]

8. You know Skinner, I have serious doubts,

some if not many of these people ever read the book.

[AtomicKitten]

4. Dana Milbank on Al Gore in 2000:

CNN's Reliable Sources August 10, 2002 was a genuine eye-opener. Guest Josh Marshall, webmaster of Talking Points, stated, "... I think deep down most reporters just have contempt for Al Gore. I don't even think it's dislike. It's more like disdain and contempt." None of the talking heads disagreed. Guest Dana Milbank, White House reporter for the Washington Post offered, "You know what it is? I think that Gore is sanctimonious and that's sort of the worst thing in the eyes of the press. And he has been disliked all along and it was because he gives a sense that he is better than us ... as reporters."

Ugh.

[Mabus]

10. He was just following the playbook that the Ombudsman set for the reporters

and he didn't have enough backbone or sense to tell the truth. He's got to think about his career path.

E. R. Shipp, the Washington Post ombudsman, described the process in a March 5 column. Shipp was addressing a pair of Post stories from December containing serious errors about Vice President Gore. Writing as the primaries reached their climax, she noted that Post election reporting often seems to construct a highly simplified "drama:"

SHIPP: Readers react to roles that The Post seems to have assigned to the actors in this unfolding political drama. Gore is the guy in search of an identity; Bradley is the Zen-like intellectual in search of a political strategy; McCain is the war hero who speaks off the cuff and is, thus, a "maverick;" and Bush is a lightweight with a famous name, and has the blessings of the party establishment and lots of money in his war chest. As a result of this approach, some candidates are whipping boys; others seem to get a free pass.

http://www.dailyhowler.com/h071100_3.shtml

[Coexist]

11. maybe a closer look is in order

a little soul-searching can go a long way.

[Canuckistanian]

12. "...he is better than us ... as reporters"

They're certainly going out of their way to prove that.

[cascadiance]

19. The TRUTH HURTS doesn't it Dana!!!

Time to "clean house" with the media after 2009 when Clinton takes office and we OVERHAUL the FCC and media rules with a new rendition of the Fairness Doctrine then!

[sutz12]

14. He is better than them.

:)

[AtomicKitten]

28. by a long shot

[The Count]

15. An even more damning Millbank utterance - from memory:

Al Gore makes you feel he's better than you, and he is not, while Bush makes you feel he's not better than you - while he clearly is" (also cca 2000)

[Canuckistanian]

24. Yes, they're such GOOD JUDGES of CHARACTER, aren't they?

Dowd, Milbank, Cohen, Klein, Seelye...

As Bob Somerby says, "Will the pundits 'ever' stop their clowning?"

[Mabus]

27. Milbank: President Bush probably is sure that he's better than us -- he's probably right,

Yep, Milbank thinks Bush is a better person and he thinks Bush knows it too. And that's okay with Dana. :banghead:

CNN RELIABLE SOURCES
Is Media Exploiting Missing Children Cases?; Gore Suffers from Bad Image with Media
Aired August 10, 2002 - 18:30 ET

***

MILBANK: You know what it is, Howie, I -- and I think that Gore is sanctimonious and that's sort of the worst thing you can be in the eyes of the press. And he has been disliked all along and it was because he gives a sense that he's better than us - he's better than everybody, for that matter, but the sense that he's better than us as reporters.

Whereas President Bush probably is sure that he's better than us -- he's probably right, but he does not convey that sense. He does not seem to be dripping with contempt when he looks at us, and I think that has something to do with the coverage.

KURTZ: So this seems to suggest, Josh Marshall, that if a candidate or office holder or president, you know, develops a good rapport with the journalist types who cover him, then that's going to be reflected in the coverage, and if a candidate seems aloof, as Gore often did in 2000, then he's going to pay for it in the coverage.

MARSHALL: Yes, I think there's no question about that, and I certainly wouldn't agree with all of what Dana just said, but that's certainly the dominant press impression and to a certain extent it doesn't even matter if it's correct or incorrect. It's just a reality and Gore was up against that in 2000, and he'll be up against it in 2004, if he runs again.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0208/10/rs.00.html

[The Count]

38. Thanks so much for the exact quote! Sums up what's wrong with the MSM, really.

These are the people "advising" the Dem pundits & strategerists too on "electability" and "making nice"- they should figure it out already!

[Uncle Joe]

29. Well if that's the case

thank God/Goddess, we don't have a President Milbank!

[Uncle Joe]

22. I will believe until my dying breath, their disdain

was/is based in large measure precisely because Al Gore empowered us by championing the Internet, thereby threatening their monopoly on information. This is the real source of the motivation for their vindictiveness. It's just logic, Exxon and some of the energy corporations hate him because he speaks the truth about the looming catastrophe of global warming climate change, which they view as a threat against their profits. The same dynamic holds true for the mass corporate media, who could challenge them if we had no Internet? They would have total sway over everything the American People see, hear and read. That's a lot of power and influence, and I believe this is directly related to the skyrocketing cost of running for political office.

[shireen]

9. they are paying for it ...

- circulation for newspapers and periodicals are dropping
- the most credible sources of news in the broadcast industry: Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert (Gore referred to Stewart as "genius" in his book!)
- the only people who take Sunday talk show talking heads seriously are other Sunday talk show talking heads and self-proclaimed pundits inside the DC beltway. Everyone else sees those shows as talking head comedy.
- people are starting to rely more and more on blogs, away from MSM and talk radio. They may not believe everything they read, so they're finally starting to think for themselves!

Let the talking heads/opinion columnists chatter; more and more, they're only talking to each other.

[The Count]

16. Not nearly enough...They should be dying in Iraq, NOLA, WTC - or have their

phones tapped and be sent to Gitmo and tortured. Until then, they'll still think they are above all of us and entitled to "shape our opinions" for fun.

[blm]

36. Actually, the talking heads are PROFITTING from the demise of real journalism

because they are paid highly to promote the narrative for the fascists who write their checks.

[shimmergal]

44. They STILL do a lot of harm,

because their "bon mots" are picked up by right-wing wackos, who have little wit of their own, and magnified enormously by the RW noise machine.

I'd say some character attacks on the reporters and pundits themselves are in order. Certainly Ferguson's goof should be shouted about "What's the matter, Mr. Ferguson? Too lazy to turn to the back of the book?" etc. And a few "catches" from among their ranks, like Larry Flynt is aiming to do with govt. officials and congresspeople, might give a blow to their future credibility (and maybe stop some others in their tracks before they write more...)

Bloggers, have at it!!!

[The Count]

18. Even "saintly" Bill Maher asked Bernie Sanders if Gore doesn't hurt the message

on Global warming (by being Gore, how else?) and that's why we don't get action in congress. (Sanders: no, it's corporate interests that hurt the message)

point is, that even the somewhat more lucid media members can't shake the bad habit they caught in 2000 - thanks in great part to Nader - who was - ironically - the "cool" alternative to Gore.

[stellanoir]

20. "Sigh. . ." Am not mocking him at all. Quite to the contrary. . .

that is a tribute to the triviality with which the media mercilessly roasted him in '00.

I refer to him as the Patron Saint of DU because of the "shaking the (DU) sign" incident at *'s 1st "ignore your nation" (formerly known as an inauguration.)

My head is still spinning from '00 when the media blathered on about how he "created the internet "(which he never frigging said,) "wore earth tones" (egads,) was investigated for raising money at a Buddhist temple (so what-see *'s affiliations with Bob Jones Univ, Regent U, and the Moonies for ref)

Then they went on and on about the desirability of having a beer with an alleged dry drunk, never examining Ivan's and Hightower's dire warnings of how * had trashed Texas on many levels, stole a family farm to build a Baseball stadium, executed droves of questionably guilty people, violated SEC regulations with his Harken Energy corp. stock transactions in a way that makes Martha Stewart's transgressions pale by comparison, and couldn't find oil in Texas with his Saudi funded failure of Arbusto.

It's just plain absurd.

Still having endured a process which is thoroughly unimaginable to most of us, he's seems to have been transformed. I hope he is happy and feels fulfilled.

And I really, really, really, hope he knows about this. . .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yA1t-nyA0v4

www.firethegrid.com

[CRH]

31. The corporate mass media is very afraid of Al Gore, ...

thus the continued marginalization of the man and his accomplishments.

He is a very big threat to the powers of the media to control the message of the politics, and control the possible winners of the contests. The corporate media right now is promoting their two darlings in the democratic party, and if either wins, it will be business as usual for corporate america. Al Gore breaks that mold, and no one is quite sure to what degree he would change in mid stream or the future, to promote solutions that would ease global warming and climate change. No one is sure to what degree he would impact the corporate economy, in this quest.

Right now the corporate media fears what Gore is capable of doing, that is, replacing one of their two top tier candidates. This would mean a democratic party victory would not be a safe choice for corporate america. They can not rely on his 'old' DLC position to predict his future actions. He has stated, he no longer cares for old style politics, and he exudes that new style political solutions, are needed, NOW. For this, they fear him, and what he represents.

Their loss of control, over the political process.

[Gabi Hayes]

32. how ironic....they got what they asked for. sigh

http://clinton4.nara.gov/WH/EOP/OP/telecom/summary.html

[CRH]

33. It is ironic, I don't think after his forced sabbatical from politics,

the corporate media can count on Gore to sing the DLC song anymore. The consolidation of the media's power to present an election of their choice, is now perhaps at risk of one of its original champions. We shall see as time tells.

[Uncle Joe]

34. I believe this is the part they didn't want, it's a matter of give and take.

"Universal Service

The President and Vice President want to ensure that all Americans have access to the benefits of the information superhighway. The Act ensures that schools, libraries, hospitals and clinics have access to advanced telecommunications services, and calls for them to be connected to the information superhighway by the year 2000. It will help connect every school child in every classroom in America to the information superhighway -- opening up worlds of knowledge and opportunities in rural and low-income areas."

[otohara]

39. In 2000, They Were "Tired" of Covering Clinton/Gore

another reason why they ushered in the incompetent warmonger Bush. Their bosses were also wanting more media consolidation and knew Bush would give it to them in a heartbeat. One of the worse things Clinton signed into law during his term was 1996 Telecommunications Act.

Thanks to Al Gore for inventing the Internet(s) - we are forever grateful to you on this matter and many more.

[xchrom]

35. the coordinated discrediting of gore in the media

is purposeful and guided.

no i don't necessarily think it's a campaign -- but i do think it's a mutually agreed upon role.

after all it's not like ALL of these people don't know each other and know each other well.

they attend each others graduations of their sons and daughters -- they attend each others important weddings and funerals -- travel frequently between new york, washington dc and la in each others company.

they are not strangers to the candidates, ceos, etc.

our MSM reporters are simply not disinterested creatures -- they are VERY interested.

[WCGreen]

37. All those people who purport to be journalists, regular guys and

gals, are truly a part of the elite and will do what ever they can to protect their precious tax cuts...

I'm convinced that is why so many of the national reporters are downright snarky...

And they have been branded so long as being liberal that they bend over backward not to appear in the least bit centrist or, dare we say it, to the left...

But that's okay, the whole press corp and the national media can have their beer with George W in hell...

[Douglas Carpenter]

40. excellent article -- a must read

I suppose I will go to my grave wondering what is it in reporting that leads journalist into repeating the the most ludicrous nonsense without the slightest shred of evidence or a single second of rational reflection.

I assume its not some grand conspiracy or not willful lying.

But one finds this throughout the whole world of reporting where the gap between repeated assumptions and the world of reality is just so enormous.

The media's treatment of Mr. Gore is a classic example. Perhaps one could write about legitimate political disagreements with Mr. Gore. Why the need to cook up a bunch of snake oil that only diverts from any rational discussion?

link to full article:

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070716/alterman

.

[gulliver]

41. Human nature. Gore has it just about down.

Try to play the great man, people look for your flaws. Try to play the idiot, people look for your virtues.

Most people feel their way through life. They believe what they want to believe first. Then a few think about whether their beliefs are actually believable. They are promptly institutionalized.

Gore just about has the right balance of humor and huggable-ness to counterbalance his pedantry. I'm reading his book and finding it brilliant and insightful. However it still has a few peanut M&M's of pedantry and loopiness, just like Gore himself.

He would make a really good president, IMO, as would Clark. I can only dream about it at this point, because it looks like the Dems are hurtling toward another Kerry-like wrong messenger. The GOP is busy choosing another front man.

[Sparkly]

43. Wish I'd seen this in time to nominate

It's infuriating and inexplicable!!! I've always thought it's got to be about more than these "journalists'" inferiority complexes, more than just a perpetuation of "common wisdom," more than anything I can think of because it's SO bizarre and so blatant!!!

I'd thought after the disasters of the Bush administration, they'd feel apologetic for all their well-propagated lies about Gore. Hah! Was I wrong!! :mad:

[R_M]

45. Al Gore is right on the big issues. That's why he is hated so much.

As a woman, I will say that I prefer a strong, tried, tested, and proven intellectual over some low life red neck cowboy anyday! I don't care what Fred Thompson's former girlfriends say, they know nothing about what a real man is!

:kick: