The Latest Proof that the Karl Rove Playbook Has Become the MSM's Bible

One of the main themes of my new book, Right Is Wrong, is the role the media have played in allowing the lunatic fringe now in control of the Republican Party -- the people who believe in torture but don't believe in evolution -- to hijack our democracy. I document how the real problem comes not from Fox News or the likes of Limbaugh and O'Reilly, but from a mainstream media that has so internalized the Right's framing and messages they have now become a part of its DNA.

And the media seem intent on confirming this point again and again and again.

The first of the latest round of exhibits proving that the Karl Rove playbook has become the MSM's bible was offered into evidence during last week's ABC debate. The uproar that followed made it seem as if this kind of behavior was an aberration but, in fact, this has been going on for years -- only in a less concentrated form.

Next came a double-whammy in Sunday's New York Times. First up was David Barstow's epic revelation of the unseemly complicity between the Pentagon and the mainstream media in delivering the Bush administration's talking points on Iraq via "a kind of Trojan media horse" -- Pentagon-approved, prepped, and financially-enriched "military analysts" dutifully parroting the Bush party line, with nary a raised eyebrow from the TV stations and newspapers offering these highly-decorated sock puppets their prestigious platforms.

It was -- and, indeed, continues to be -- a propagandists' field day. And while the moral bankruptcy of the "military analysts" -- many of whom now admit to promoting "facts" they knew to be untrue -- is astounding, it is more than matched by the bankrupt behavior of the media mavens who enabled the Pentagon disinformation campaign. Barstow paints a picture of TV and newspaper execs turning a blind eye to the conflicts of interest their analysts were drowning in. And now they are going mute: many of the news organizations Barstow contacted for his story -- including CBS, Fox, and NBC -- refused to comment, while others offered up half-hearted mea culpas. "We did not ask ... the follow up questions we should have," said CNN.

As David Bromwich put it in an email to me: "The cavalier attitude of the networks is astonishing. No system but despotism can survive when so many high up do such things without embarrassment."

The second blow delivered to the media in Sunday's Times was the article about how American military commanders in Afghanistan have been urging a widening of the war to include going after terrorists in the tribal regions of Pakistan. But they have been rebuffed by the Bush administration, despite the fact that these terrorists, including members of al Qaeda, present, in the words of CIA director Michael Hayden, "clear and present danger to Afghanistan, to Pakistan and to the West in general, and to the United States in particular." So much for Bush's endless bleating about listening to his commanders in the field. Once again, the White House's obsession with Iraq has caused it to take its eye off the real threats facing America.

But where is the hue and cry from the rest of the media? Just as the media gave Bush a free pass and allowed Afghanistan to fall off the radar screen, it is shockingly silent on this latest outrage. Too busy thinking up the next lapel pin or Weather Underground gotcha? Will we look back on this after the next terrorist attack and hear the inevitable milquetoast admission: "We did not ask the follow up questions we should have."

And while we are on Afghanistan and the lack of follow up questions, it will be interesting to see if the media allow Hillary Clinton to get away with refusing to explain what she meant when she said (on a tape obtained by HuffPost) that she didn't agree with MoveOn.org's positions on foreign policy and national security. Our Sam Stein tried to get her campaign to elaborate on her comments, but they refused. They also refused to comment on why Hillary had repeated the lie -- articulated most notably by Karl Rove -- that MoveOn was against intervention in Afghanistan after 9/11.

So it's not only the media that have internalized the Right's framing and messages -- but also many of the leaders of the Democratic Party. More on that tomorrow here...

UPDATE:

The Toxic Thinking of the Right Infects the Body Politic

Follow Arianna Huffington on Twitter: www.twitter.com/ariannahuff

Comments

[TheCult]

Do on search on "Operation Mockingbird" and things will become clearer on why the MSM acts the way it does. The reality is that long ago political theorists theorized that controlling a country's media is necessary if you want to control a country. In a dictatorship it is easy. In a democratic republic it is not so easy. So the idea by the American elite back some many years ago was to control the MSM by either buying it out, co-opting the owners, or planting agents in the media organizations. It was very successfull and that is why the MSM seems to generally be a branch of government rather then independent. It is clear that a shift occured on the treatment of Obama, the controllers of the MSM have decided to take him down at this point because they fear the power he has over people. Obama is more powerful then they realize and cannot be taken down no matter what they do. He will be our next president and there will be a major shift in the world unlike any in American history. Do a search on "Rama Rajya"

[josephjsalas]

Rove (worm-tongue) tactics dominating MSM is like Foreign Policy infecting our Constitution (Law)!

[DotsieD]

The media is so lackadaisical these days. I was a practicing member in the 70s and 80s but when I wasw asked to start turning a blind eye to government antics I quit my job and became a nurse. There is no nobility in being a journalist any more. We used to go out and hunt a story down. We INVESTIGAT­ED.We researched and studied and we got an angle, whether it was favorable or not. I remember that in December of 2001, just before the U.N. Weapons Inspectors were asked to leave Iraq for the last time because of Dubya, they reoprted there were NO weapons of mass destruction. In January, that was all was heard about from Dubya and all the major news outlets. WHAT???? Nobody can say they were lied to. The U.N. report was THERE. We CANNOT say we were lied to. That IS the lie. I am gald, once again, to not be a journalist. How distorted things got in just one month!

[fightorleave2]

Remember when the iconic image of a journalist was of a pushy person sticking the microphone in someone's face asking a potentially embarrassing question? That never happens any more.

[furelise]

This is a very interesting article by Ms. Huffington. I am reminded of a Bible verse,"Pluck the mote from your own eye before removing the beam from your brother's.­" No one would accuse you of being objective, Ms. Huffington. Moveon has three thousand members and the organizations itself is "non-partisan" or so they say. I was ,in fact, a member until the day the organization endorsed Sen. Obama.
There was a petition from Moveon urging military restraint in reprisals for 9/11.If you want to parse words, Ms. Huffington, go right ahead, but it makes any attack you made on the rest of the media meaningless. Your arrogance has made you blind to the damage you do with your lies and it leads one to believe you have forgotten your own past. Your animosity toward the Clinton's began years before this campaign and, as someone who purports to lead the cause of truth and justice, you should rec use yourself from any comments about Hillary Clinton. You have refused to list the lies of her opponent and have even censured discussion about Tony Rezko and Nadhim Auchi. I, however, will not concern myself with your censorship for the truth will come out and you will find yourself out of favor with honest readers who want nothing but the truth.

[AxelDC]

If MoveOn's main motivation is ending the war in Iraq, how could they possibly support someone who voted to attack Iran?

Since when did Dr. Strangelove become the model for our foreign policy?

[furelise]

That is a little melodramatic and it's better to keep this conversation real. First, moveone would have to assume Sen. Obama would have voted against the resolution and there is no evidence that is so. On the contrary, he has voted to continue funding the war. He voted for the Patriot Act, so it is reasonable to assume he perceived some threat from terrorist organizations or in a way he saw as politically advantageous. He was absent for the vote on Iran, therefore moveon has no idea how he would have voted or if it was politically advantageous to miss the vote. Moveon has never examined Sen. Obama's character because they chose not to do so. Democrats have no real idea who he is because every legitimate question is answered with a charge of racism or misconduct on behalf of Sen. Clinton even if she is not asking the questions. Moveon was too precipitous in endorsing and they may repent at leisure. The Republicans will not be squeamish in their attacks and John McCain will protest too much. Some Democrats have made a grave mistake in pushing too hard for Sen. Obama. There could have been sixteen years of Democratic presidencies. Sen. Obama would be fully vetted after eight years. Instead, we are facing voter's remorse.

[alyceclover]

"...out of favor with honest readers who want nothing but the truth." Truth is Obama was not in Congress when the Iran Resolution was voted upon. Hillary voted yes. She defended her vote calling Iran a "non-issue". She said her vote was "lies" told by her "enemies" and in her speech~as she got applause said we (candidates) should stick with real issues, not "fantasize" and "make-up". (Jan. 2008) I re-watched the debate footage 3 times, months later. When Gravel called her out for her Iran yes vote, I thought he had said Iraq. Probably because debates bore me and I had not been listening carefully at the time it first aired.

Obama (and a House member) both wrote counter Iran Resolutions to "slow down" a rush into Iran. You can read it yourself and not rely on media reports. Go to Library of Congress, Thomas online.

And lawd, furelise, if you want "nothing but the truth" you are a sad person for trusting the habitual liars: the Clintons. If Bill Clinton says: fairy tale; you say fairy tale; if he says the press is picking on the girl; you say.... Sleep deprived and senior moments? She told her Bosnia tall tale a number of times. Pathological liar, she looks like to me. Bill is just used to lying about everything.

[THINKB4USPEAK]

Having thought, now I will "speak". First let's get the ass-kissing out of the way. I LOVE this site, Although I see an obvious Obama bias here, you do offer a forum for other opinions, Thank you for that; it's rare these days. But to the issue of the moment, is the media ****ed up, or what?Both, I think. I fear my society has become one in which people are afraid to repeat the TRUTH, due to fear of death, or worse. This strongarm tactic is nothing new in politics. (The night of the long knives springs to mind). I fear that we are indeed a suicidal people on a suicidal course. As I mispoke earlier, I believe that "bubba" will determine the new boss, same as the old boss,

[Trueheart]

Silence is golden. Very clever.

[TheOldSchool]

Oddly enough, the television media was nearly completely mute on Barstow's page one story in Sunday's Times.

Equally strange, Barstow made only a one sentence reference (buried well into the three and a half page story) to the fact that the Times itself had printed nine editorials written by these same military analysts/war profiteers.

And what of the others -- non-military, but ex-government officials who were used as experts by tv and print media as experts, analysts, commentators, and editorial writers -- that were promulgating their views while also receiving payments from defense contractors? I remember in the run-up to the Iraq invasion reading an editorial column in the NYT, written by former Secretary of State, George Shultz, which stridently outlined the necessity of the war. At the time, I googled Shultz, and learned that he was serving on the board of Bechtel, a company that stood to profit mightily from Iraqi reconstruction projects. There was no mention of this conflict of interest in the Times author bio at the bottom of the piece.

[Tulka2]

"Follow the money." Never better advice when dealing with knots in the body politic. The media has interests that are entirely removed from what is best for the Democratic party or even the Republic. For instance..­..? The media has done its upmost to keep the Obama/Clinton thing a horse race (and will continue to kick a dead horse) because this public fight is a bonanza for advertising dollars. Better than any other reality show they have come up with. The networks and cable have completely betrayed the public trust. Congress has every right and the legal means to take any network's license away. The airwaves belong to us!

[furelise]

The radio, cable news, newspapers and the Internet are controlled by corporations and their numbers grow smaller everyday. It is the duty of the people to separate the chaff from the wheat and this takes effort. There was a public hearing a few months ago where citizens were allowed to express their opinion of a FCC ruling to, in effect, create monopolies of the newspapers in every major city in the USA. Few were even aware such a meeting was taking place . Approximately one thousand attended the meeting while the rest of us slept. I have to disagree with you that the media would like to see the primary season continue. They have anointed their chosen one for the most part and are ready to see the end of voting. Some have even said, without the least chagrin or hesitation, that one candidate should leave the race with millions of votes still uncounted . To risk dissent at this point is to face accusations of racism and other dastardly and evil intentions. The Democratic party is not the party is was. All one needs to do is look at the principles of the Party and they will see a section on Voting Rights . Now there is another effort underway to force an end to the democratic process . I am filled with pride that there is a woman who will not be bullied and will not back down.

[realistic2008]

Ans speaking of the media and for that matter the pundits, why has no one commented to the fact that McCain's wife will not release her tax return? if I remember correctly they screamed for the Clintons and the Kerrys to do it. What a travesty indeed.

[Ironfox]

Edward Bernays, Edward bernays, Edward Bernays...­>

[furelise]

Joseph Goebbels: "If you tell a lie big enough , and keep repeating it, eventually people will come to believe it.

[moderationsmuse]

An expurgated comment

Why is "belief" in evolution now a political issue? How does it relate to all these other issues you raise? Certainly you are not talking about science. Since when has belief got anything to do with science? Science is about replicable experiment and falsifiable theory.
The "belief" to which you allude comes from a different sphere of influence, from an undercurrent whose source is not scientific but propogandistic.
Well, "belief" in reality does reality no benefit since reality will have its own way. And disbelief in reality does reality no harm because reality isn't dependent upon human will. So, in what sphere does belief matter? And what kind of belief matters?
The destiny of man is not measured by material computation. When great forces are on the move in the world, we learn we are spirits--not animals. There is something going on in time and space, and beyond time and space, which, whether we like it or not, spells duty.
When the media attempt to corrupt the public, it undermines the very foundation of democracy. Democracy is government “by the people” and if the public becomes corrupt there is not another authority to which one can seek a remedy.

[Judyjjbod]

I was listening to MSNBC but just turned it off, I will wait another hour until the polls close and tune into the BBC and PBS news shows.
I tuned in hoping to watch the election coverage, but all I was hearing was garbage about Hillary. I have nothing against Obama, and I will vote for him if he is the Dem. nominee.. but I do have plenty against what the MSM has done to influence the voters to vote for Obama. In my opinion we have been living under a quasi dictatorship for over 7 yrs., and for a year MSNBC and other so called news shows have turned into unofficial but very influencial Obama headquarters. I am saddened to think that true democracy is not cherished and protected against such actions In the past two Presidential elections we had big oil money, Rove and the Swiftboaters to deal with that resulted in a travisty of horrors ...and now the overtly biased media. America is in trouble because of horrible dishonest and greedy leadership, yet our media has all but forgotten that, focusing instead on getting Obama elected...­Why ?? someone please tell me.
In. Jan. when Obama is inaugurated president.­..he should thank MSNBC , and offer Chris Mathews a position on his team in Washinton for getting him elected with out spending a dime of his campaign funds.

[Trueheart]

I agree with you about Chris Matthews. My admiration for his style had been heading south, but it went right down the poop chute when he totally wrote John Edwards out of the race and ignored him. In the days after the last debate Edwards participated in (where he absolutely outshone the other two), all Matthews would talk about was the spit and scratch session between Clinton and Obama. Like something momentus had happened. Not one bloody word about Edwards. Not one bloody word about issues or policy.

And I think you are correct that his admiration for Obama is right out front. Can you imagine Rather, Cronkite, Huntley, Brinkley, McNeil, Lehrer losing their objectivity--or at least the appearance of objectivity in this way?

[alyceclover]

Judyjjbod: I do not watch television. But lawd do I read about it on the internet. I watch footage of controversial programs and debates~in the beginning~bored with them after the first 10~with the ads filtered out. If I really want truth, I will find the transcript and read it myself.

This shows me the media is in no way biased in favor of Obama, but the exact opposite. That people think this is so, shows they are believing yet more of the Clinton propaganda. Flag lapel pins is debate material? Google search both Bush's, both Clintons, and McCain~for starters. Keep your eye on the lack of flag lapel pins. Is their patriotism questioned? Is the press not allowed to report Bill Clinton saying that two of the candidates running love their country? (implying Obama does not)

Bosnia, Bosnia, Bosnia. Is that the press trying to promote Obama or telling the facts of the situation?

This article is one of the best I have read during this campaign cycle. It tells a truth, us old people know. Thank goodness for the internet!

[treetracker]

MSNBC is not favoring Obama - at times Mathews seems to favor Hillary - at others Obama, but who he obviously favors is McCain - his program is not Hardball, but Softball. When McCain appeared on the College Tour and made the statement about "America does not torture" do you think he was asked "Why then, did you vote against the legislation that would have required EVERYONE in our goverrnment to abide by the Army's Manual on torture?" Mathews passed.

Olbermann was for Hillary early on - until she played the fear card which he had railed against time and again at Bush. She lost him then to a great degree. Then when she started her current tatics of tearing Obama down at the expense of the party, that did it. He's done with her.

And, if MSNBC was for Obama, then would air or provide the complete content of Rev. Wright's sermons, rather than the sound bites they hype. The sermons tell the truth behind the clips they repeat again and again.

Face it folks, the MSN is now owned by the very few rich and we are on the road to losing our Republic because they are failing us. The only thing that will save us is the Internet to get to the truth, because the MSN will not provide it any longer. There interest may be on ratings, but I fear it is more nefarious.

[websmith]

What did you expect? The MSM special interest groups are owned and operated by people who build weapons, want to finance war, protect their oil interests, bring in cheap illegal labor, or support Israel.

Really. What did you expect?

[AlligatorShuz]

Well,well I knew the media was being duped because the Sean Hannity's, Pat & Bay Buchanans were on every major networks spewing Carl Rove and Dick Chaney's messages.. Wolf Blitzer and the idiots like Tucker Carlson was following leads.....­.

[charlesrfd2003]

Sorry, but Bush's policy is as American as apple pie. He has tapped into the rotten core that exists in American culture. This is Manifest Destiny all over again. Back then Americans were trying to take over the countries touching the Gulf of Mexico. We got a huge chunk of Mexico and there many who wanted the rest of that country. You need to publish all of our the military adventures in Latin America including private armies, CIA adventures as well as the US Army and Navy attacks.

Today instead of Manifest Destiny we have the New World Order with the USA calling the shots. Look for a major war with many fronts if he bombs Iran.

By the way does anyone know who belongs to the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO)? Major media seems to overlook what is going on in Central Asia but if we go deeper into Asia, we will learn the hard way.

[bfraser55]

I think it is time to light a fire under the asses of MSM. How many comments and letters to the networks must we write to get some action?? It is nausseating how the MSM has bowed to this administration (& beyond) Any suggestions????