|image via TPM|
It you wanted to paint Hillary Clinton in an unflattering light, this is the
perfect photo to use.
While the guy who talked about Clinton “pimping” out her daughter
gets a big, broad smile. What a good guy! Love that David Shuster.
On the other hand, Hillary Clinton is the woman whose daughter was maligned,
and she was called a pimp, but she’s the one who’s wrong.
This photo was on the front page of TPM late last night. Classic hit job. It’s exactly the same technique that Kathleen Hall Jamieson talked about with Bill Moyers:
KATHLEEN HALL JAMIESON: … .. One of the things I think that happens with many of these visual depictions is that the people who are producing them are trying to attach what scholars call negative affect to Hillary Clinton. And I know that’s an odd concept for non-academics.
BILL MOYERS: Negative?
KATHLEEN HALL JAMIESON: Affect. To the extent that you have negative feelings, have basic affect when you see something. If I can attach that to something, I can make you feel uneasy about it. I can increase the likelihood that you’re going to vote against Hillary Clinton. So we know, for example, that if I show you a picture of someone who’s smiling and feels comfortable … ..
BILL MOYERS: Right.
KATHLEEN HALL JAMIESON: You think more positively of the person, even if you don’t know who the person is. Then I show you a scary picture, an off-putting picture. You react negatively. You respond negatively. I can increase the likelihood that you’ll say you’ll vote against that person even if you know nothing about them. … ..
excerpt from the letter Clinton sent to NBC head Steve Capus, which prompted the TPM photo creation.
… .. Nothing justifies the kind of debasing language that David Shuster used and
no temporary suspension or half-hearted apology is sufficient.
I would urge you to look at the pattern of behavior on your network that
seems to repeatedly lead to this sort of degrading language.
The headline on the New York Daily News article, which offers Clinton’s letter, is: Hillary
Wants Shuster Fired.
So of course, TPM sucks it up through a straw, then blasts it on their homepage. Get your regurgitated analysis here!
I won’t even try to explain the journalistic (not to be confused with actual
journalism) dissembling on this one. I’ll let Big
Tent Democrat do it for me. After all, he’s a male, so maybe he’ll be able
to make a dent.
At this point, it simply can not be denied, TPM is choosing to ignore NBC’s
egregious pattern of sexism. That is very bad of TPM and Josh Marshall. This
is part of a pattern of malign acceptance of sexism that we must all fight
Update [2008-2-9 22:10:28 by Big Tent Democrat]: After its egregious journalism
on this story, TPM NOW compounds it by simply lying. Yes, I am calling TPM
liars. Their LATEST headline Says “Clinton Backs Off Firing Demand.”
They NEVER demanded it. ONLY TPM said FALSELY they demanded it. Shame on TPM.
Shame on Josh Marshall. Disgraceful work.
This is so refreshing it’s hard to know how to react, because it’s also so rare.
What TPM is offering is quite possibly the worst analytical assessment of a major media insult that could possibly
be written, backed up by a classic Clinton photographic hit job that rivals work of the New York Post. But their regurgitation of the New York Daily News headline also brings them trouble. So they neatly follow it up with these sub-headlines: Shuster’s Original
Offense, And Apology; His Second Apology; Clinton Camp Backing Off Firing Demand?
“Clinton Camp Backing Off Firing Demand?”
There’s only one problem for TPM. Clinton never asked for Shuster to be fired. Clinton’s
letter to Steve Capus was about a broader message to MSNBC because of the pattern
of sexism that runs rampant at the network, which has been seen by just about everyone except TPM’s males. It’s the New York Daily News who claimed the firing, which TPM swallowed hook, link and sinker. Suckers.
There’s also Shuster’s emails, which prove that he never intended to apologize; didn’t want to; was made to.
TPM has simply become the “progressive” version of Drudge regarding anything having to do with Hillary Clinton.
Hey, but maybe it will get the boss invited back on “Countdown.”
As we’re now learning, he’s got a lot in common with the boys over at MSNBC.