While Harry Shearer is best known as one of the more prolific voices on The Simpsons and as a member of Spinal Tap, he has also been an insightful commentator on many things over the years on his radio show and in print. Here’s a short item that’s right on the mark, unfortunately.
UPDATE: Mister Justin found an editorial from a father who lost his son in the war and blames it the money politicians (on both sides) court and the journalists pretty much ignore.
Harry Shearer: A Challenge to Political Journalists: Tell Us What We Need To Know
In the 2000 Presidential election, George W. Bush ran as a “compassionate conservative”, and political journalists, mining his history as Texas governor for relevant examples, tended to take him at his word. When, after the debacle of the election, Bush took office as a minority-popular vote President, it was possible to believe–I was one of those believers–that the conditions of his elevation to the Presidency would dictate a consensus-seeking, middle-of-the-road Republican presidency. To quote weapons inspector David Kay, we were all wrong. What’s clear now is that Bush and his self-chosen running mate entered office with a strong and clear agenda–most prominently, to vastly increase the power of the executive branch–and took every opportunity to advance that agenda. The millions of words reported before the election prepared us in no way for that reality.
Now we’re at the (highly premature) beginning of a new presidential campaign. In the light of recent events, it would seem incumbent on political journalists to bend every effort to tell us not only what we don’t know but what we need to know, about the agendas and goals that lie beneath and behind the speeches and ads and polls. We should now be in no doubt about the consequences of our journalists’ failure to do so. It’s not too strong a statement to say that this job, not reporting on the doings of the Lohans and Hiltons, is why they enjoy the protection of the First Amendment.
Any bets on how well they’ll do this time?
One of the problems with the “MSM” is not that they are too liberal (as the “RWM” claims” but that they are too balanced.
Balance is OK, if an issue has two equal sides but, often, an issue doesn’t.
Take the Swift Boat “scandal” as an example: this was clearly a big lie, cynically manufactured to demean John Kerry’s veteran status.
Yet, the MSM covered it as if it was a real issue, rather than as the shameless mud slinging it was.
Name some things the Swift Boat Veterans (They were vets too you know) lied about. No hyperbole, no namecalling, just come up with a list of the lies and where I can find proof that they are lies.
Governments are very good at covering up lies.
It comes down to one thing – this president simply has the power that WE gave him. From the news media that gave up any pretense of credibility in order to advance it own agenda (right or left), to an opposition Party that is so incompetent it only just won the last election, to an electorate so fat and stupid that it bought the lines that “I can’t do anything so why bother” & the “government is evil” – all the while forgetting civics 101 – “WE ARE THE GOVERNMENT”.
All nations fall – if you want to stop it, VOTE what you believe.
@Malren: Such as Van O’Dell, who stated about Mr. Kerry’s Bronze Star award:
O’Dell insists “there was no fire” at the time, adding: “I did not hear any shots, nor did any hostile fire hit any boats” other than his own
Larry Thurlow who says he commanded a third Swift Boat that day, says “Kerry fled while we stayed to fight,” and returned only later “after no return fire occurred.”
Until you take a look at Thurlow’s account written shortly after the event:
Thurlow’s citation – which the Post said it obtained under the Freedom of Information Act – says that “all units began receiving enemy small arms and automatic weapons fire from the river banks” after the first explosion. The citation describes Thurlow as leaping aboard the damaged PCF-3 and rendering aid “while still under enemy fire,” and adds: “His actions and courage in the face of enemy fire . . . were in keeping with the highest traditions of the United States Naval Service.”
So wait – did Kerry run away after his boat was damaged by a mine and not come back, or did he stay during enemy fire, fire in which another person won the Bronze Star (Thurlow) for jumping onto Kerry’s boat to assist while under attack?
Sounds like an odd contradiction. If you got the Bronze Star for bravery for jumping onto Kerry’s boat while it was under fire, how could you have gotten it if Kerry ran away and came back after the shooting was over? Or is there a case of selective memory here?
There are others, but I’ll stop there, because if you were actually interested in facts, you would have looked them up yourself. The Swift Boat Veterans stories are full of more holes than a boat that’s run into a mine under enemy fire – which, if you’re a “Swift Boat Veteran for Truth”, you can’t seem to remember 40 years later getting an award for being shot on.
If the MSM were to go after the corruption of any one of Nancy Pelosi, Tom Murtha or Harry Reid the same way they went after Tom Delay I’d believe there was some hope of balance.
The real question is why worry about it? No matter who gets elected, from either party, we’re going to get screwed somehow. You just pick the particular issue you want to be screwed on.
If you treat it all as entertainment, you’re stress level will be a lot healthier.
In that spirit I still want to see Jesse Jackson/Al Sharpton vs Pat Buchanon/Pat Robertson. What a hoot that would be.
The chances of the MSM covering anything of substance and value in this campaign? About the same as Catherine Zeta-Jones stopping by today to use my shower.
It’s several centuries too late, but a Parliamentary government with a Prime Minister is probably safer. Even with that you get entrenched parties, that gave Blair a ten year run. The power of the executive branch have always waxed and waned a bit over the years. There was a serious push to give FDR dictatorial powers in the early years of the Great Depression.
#8 What you are asking for is not balance. Tom Delay’s scandal involved bribery, black mail, influence peddling, and obstruction of justice. He was involved in both Enron and Jack Abramoff scandals.
The democrats are not corruption free (Rep. William Jefferson), but they have not even come close to the brazen corruption that is almost institutional in the Republican party. I’d say the MSM is actually guilty of not giving the scandals the coverage they deserve.
Hey malren heard of Google? Or thinking? Or are you being paid?
There is going to be a new republican to promote in 2008.. Lets have some fair and well financed Rove backed assassination of his opponent, just like the last two elections.
#2 Name some things the Swift Boat Veterans (They were vets too you know) lied about. No hyperbole, no namecalling, just come up with a list of the lies and where I can find proof that they are lies.
No problem:
http://tinyurl.com/38ebdh
And here is the money trail that leads to Karl Rove and Bush:
http://tinyurl.com/4v489
But here is my point again — the problem with the MSM is not that they are too liberal, as is so often charged, but that they are too balanced!
Fair is fair but most issues are not balanced.
Global Warming, for example, is not a “she said, he said” debate: there is real science showing that is is happening and being caused by humans.
The dangers of smoking would be another example. Just because big oil and the tobacco companies pay some pseudo-scientists to make claims, does not give them equal weight as real scientists.
Another example is Florida 2000: the two sides of that conflict did not act the same; Bush and the GOP played scorched-democracy politics far far more than the Gore and the Democrats did.
its all wishful thinking.
reporting of any kind here in the states is pure garbage. any and all major news agencies gave up what little (if any) credibility that had when they became more concerned about ratings,cronyism, and sponsor monies than “pure unadulterated truth”
if someone created a news cast that showed both sides of a story, pro and con, -and without petty bickering, mudslinging and the like, maybe i might pay attention..
as for the politicos, basically, find a group of people from both sides *that can see and acknowledge the good points of their opponent and the bad points of their own without yelling, spinning half-truths (or lies) etc. and i bet you’d get to have your “pristine ratings* you care so much about, plus
real, truthful, balanced viewpoints and reporting..
to put the nail that coffin… make both sides come to the table with documented proof for all arguments, pro and con.
-yeah i know its a pipe dream, but is it really that hard?
afaik, i’ve never seen anyone even allowed on the air with such qualities. -most likely because it would be mostly devoid
of sensational arguments..-but more importantly, it would probably end up showing that BOTH candidates don’t deserve to be elected… *shrug*
i would like to think people would appreciate this, however, i feel that most Americans have been carefully programed via the media to despise such honesty. -and the ones that do appreciate it know better than to believe anything they see or hear from major media.. *shrug*
-soundwash
edit:
(actually, know that i think about it, SNL’s “Weekend Update”
(with the original cast) probably was the closest we’ll ever get
to truthful reporting.. go figure…
I think if Harry Shearer was a bigger star his words would hold more “truth” instead of just being self-serving. Isn’t that the way it works?
RBG
When local TV news in major markets reports about their network’s reality shows as news, you know that TV news is f**ked.
The hype on both sides is getting more and more shrill for a good reason. The American economy is about to collapse worse than the great depression. There will be food riots in the streets. Crime rates will soar. The government will shift into despotism “for the duration of the emergency.”
Which do you want: a Stalinist regime under Hillary or a conservative dictatorship under Bush?
It’s interesting to see the Swift Boat VETERANS get attacked using the same techniques that the same people doing the attacking are saying are inherently wrong when used against Kerry. Weird. One would suppose they were not veterans of that very same war, many of whom served far longer, in far greater peril and with far greater distinction than Kerry, and with far fewer medals to show for it.
I agree that some of the things they said have holes you could drive a swift boat through. I also see that some don’t. As it usually is with the truth – it generally lies somewhere between the two extremes that claim to represent it.
#19 – When local TV news in major markets reports about their network’s reality shows as news, you know that TV news is f**ked.
Comment by hhopper — 5/29/2007 @ 10:46 am
I agree. And when random home video clips from YouTube are more popular among Internet users and bloggers, then you know the market for real news is equally “f**ked” 🙂
#13 – Harry Shearer is a great voice talent, and a tremendous comedian, and he should stick to his strengths.
What are your strengths? Because if I judge your words based on whether of not I agree with you, then I’d have to give you the same advice. I just don’t know what you are good at. That is, aside from being a southern conservative with an atypical talent for using proper grammar (which you should be commended for).
What you have said above is just another way of saying “famous people who are not Republicans should shut up.”
And that is just another way of saying, “Conservatives aren’t really Constitutional purists, because conservatives don’t like letting people they don’t agree with have freedom of speech.”
I don’t think what I just wrote is actually true about most of what I call “real” conservatives, but it sure seems true when one reads comments like what you wrote about Shearer.
#20 – Which do you want: a Stalinist regime under Hillary or a conservative dictatorship under Bush?
Comment by Timbo — 5/29/2007 @ 11:00 am
Well, that’s a bullshit choice that says more about your political stripes than it does about the options in your unlikely scenerio. Senator Clinton is hardly a Stalinist, and aside from a few manic depressive college dropouts who hand out leaflets at “L” stops, there aren’t really any Stalinists left in the world.
On the other hand, President Bush is hardly a conservative. He may not tax like your fantasty stereotype liberal, but he sure spends like one. And a real conservative would have a healthy respect for the Bill of Rights and the Seperation of Powers.
But we aren’t reverting to Despotism because reality is not a 24 hour marathon of Sid Meier’s Civilization.
malren, who in the hell started the mudslinging? If the Swift Boat Veterans can’t stand rocks being thrown at them, a) they shouldn’t have started throwing rocks themselves, and b) they shouldn’t live in such glass houses.
When people started asking that their name be taken off something like that, that has to be telling.
#21 – Malren… if you were honest, you’d say was Kevin Willis said… Willis didn’t vote for Kerry because Willis didn’t agree with Kerry. But you don’t like the left and you want the Swift Boat Smear to be true and you want the left to be villians… and they aren’t and he wasn’t.
Kerry is a war hero who served with honor. He is remarkably well educated. He is very successful and obviously competent. He was and is consistant in his voting record over history. He was a legimate and clearly qualified candidate, and he lost by only an absurdly narrow margin, and if the evidence about Ohio is true (and I don’t know) then he actually won.
The only way to bring don’t Kerry was to smear him with lies and back it up with fear laced slogans about democrats being pussies (which any student of history can tell you is bullshit).
It’s okay if you think he isn’t right. Vote for the guy who you agree with. But its cowardly and stupid to just smear the guy because you lack the character and the ideas to compete with Kerry – which is what Bush did.