Tainting the tea party
During the George W. Bush years, the news media were the promoters of protest, the champions of dissent. Denouncing the president as a brain-damaged warmonger was the most patriotic thing you could do (just ask the Dixie Chicks) and it was guaranteed to please the press.
On MSNBC before the Iraq War in 2003, David Shuster elevated the "anti-war" movement as the equivalent of the United States military, only with a higher morality: "The size of the demonstrators, at least here, at least in Europe, seems to underscore that there are now perhaps two world superpowers," he told Chris Matthews. "There's the United States, and then there are those millions of people who took to the streets opposing U.S. policy."
My, how times -- and standards -- change.
On the weekend of the House vote for a massive government intervention in the health-insurance market, these same reporters had a different take. The tea party protesters weren't hailed for their courageous and patriotic use of their free time. They were smeared.
Democrats said racial slurs were used against black politicians on Capitol Hill, and an "anti-gay slur" allegedly was heard around Congressman Barney Frank. It is understandable that Democrats would want this opposition to their power grab to be reduced to absurdity, a spasm of racism and homophobia instead of organized conservative idealism.
It is deplorable that our national "news" media went into overdrive on this Democrat public-relations initiative. To listen to the press, the tea party's presence in Washington was violent, dangerous, uncivil and unprecedented.
In the Iraq War protests of 2003, the leftist protesters were on the wrong side of the polls. In the health "reform" protests of 2010, the protesters represented an angry majority. Since Shuster works for MSNBC, in that parallel universe, the majority had become a dangerous and ugly mob.
The whole smear turned ridiculous when conservative radio host Mark Simone told Shuster that every protest has some overenthusiastic people yelling stupid things. Shuster insisted the left had never behaved in that fashion in the Bush years.
Nobody• Ever• I have a line Mr. Shuster will remember well because his network allowed it to be aired countless times: "Bush lied, thousands died." Maybe not a profanity, but Bush was accused of being a mass murderer.
Shuster wasn't done with Simone: "But the difference is, Mark, that whenever we asked Democratic leaders, 'Look, do you support using a Hitler mustache on a poster of George W. Bush?,' every single time, they said, 'Absolutely not, we do not approve of that. We want, of course, we want people to protest. But not like that.' And you see, it's just like crickets from the Republican side of this stuff, and that's the difference."
The "crickets" claim was even more ridiculous on Shuster's part since nearly every Republican responded to the question by denouncing the abusive remarks reported. Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele and House Minority Leader John Boehner insisted on it on NBC's "Meet the Press."
If anything, conservatives and Republicans are failing to respond to the David Shusters by throwing this dead fish right back. Who on Earth is MSNBC to lecture anyone else about hateful rhetoric• The network where several hosts -- Ed Schultz and Dylan Ratigan -- have said Republicans enthusiastically want to see Americans die, even large segments of the American people?
MSNBC viewers see on-screen graphics like this one: "Crossing the Line: Anti-Reform Protests Take on Malicious Tone." Andrea Mitchell calmly relayed Barney Frank's tea party analogy, "comparing the situation to the Salem witch trials, with health care being burned at the stake." That remark apparently has malice toward none.
Liberal journalists have squandered any credibility they imagine they have as referees of political civility. They not only fail to decry liberal mudslinging, they do it all on their own.
L. Brent Bozell III is president of the Media Research Center.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.