Disorganized Dems? Or Democracy In Action?

Crossfire from his own party! Key Democrats blast Obama stimulus plan! Political wrangling bogs down economic stimulus plan! At odds! Doubts arise!

Such is the traditional media interpretation of the policy deliberations going on between the incoming Obama administration and members of Congress.

But read deeper into the stories and you don't find evidence of explosive hostility or deep conflict. There is civil debate and discussion, not "crossfire." There is desire to modify aspects of Obama's plan, but not its overarching thrust. Congress is still expected to pass legislation within a month of Obama's swearing-in, which is not exactly getting bogged down, but moving pretty swiftly.

This is the real media bias, a bias towards conflict, which leads towards sensationalism instead of clear-eyed analysis.

On this week's edition of my LiberalOasis Radio Show (which airs Saturdays on WHMP in Western MA), I cautioned against buying into the media's conflict bias. Those of you who like to watch your radio, here's the clip:

The slightest hint of policy disagreement allows the traditional media to revert into the comfortable narrative: Those Disorganized Dems!

And the heightened sense of conflict can make constructive criticism harder to convey and productive discussion difficult.

But hopefully what is actually going on is not Keystone Kop chaos, but healthy democracy in action.

Instead of one-party rule undermining checks and balances and stifling discussion, we may well be seeing how -- when a progressive mandate for action points everyone in the right direction -- a President, a Congress and their constituents can engage in calm debate to refine proposals while still acting in timely fashion.

Granted, it's never wise to assume a best-case scenario. I would urge you again to contact Congress and demand swift passage of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan to the keep pressure on for timely action. And I encourage anyone to express concern about any aspect of the plan one thinks could use improvement.

But know that the media is invested in assuming worst-case scenarios, because breathy conflict is more likely to grab attention than dispassionate analysis.

And don't let those headlines make us get caught up in phony narratives and lose focus on the substantive policy issues that really matter.

Originally posted at OurFuture.org

Comments

[Edzero]

My recommendation.

Avoid the main stream media as a source of valid information.

The corporate owned mass media has no interest in the good
of the country. The sole game is profit regardless of how much
damage is does to democracy.

Make this your basic New Year's Resolution: I will not use
main stream media as an information source.

[loveHP]

Thanks for this post. It's important to keep up the criticism of this medias bias toward conflict,which degrades and distorts the news. The bias was also exploited during the presidential campaign, as the news media gave undue attention to negative campaigning without critique. It's important that we support efforts to improve the quality of news coverage, such as the efforts of CeaseSPIN ( at http://ceasespin.org ).

[harriscrl3]

They are advantages and disadvantages to this after 8 years where dems have been demoralized you have a President who says he welcomes disagreements and inputs so of course when you say that you have to really mean it cause you will then get lots of disagreement an inputs. I think its healthy to have debates and disagreement but hopefully it wont get bogged down so much that it drags out in which case the problem could worsen.

Carol

[SiberianRat]

He's SOOOO right about the sensationalist (and IMO poisonous) nature of corporate media's strategy. I think it has a terrible effect on our society because many people buy into the drama and adopt it as truth. I keep waiting for the day when the majority Americans wake up and see that "freedom" is an illusion in the US and that our oppression by corporate America (which controls nearly everything) is very intense.

[singforpeace]

An excellent point. But, I am not sure I would say only the "mainstream media." I have often been annoyed by the headlines on Huffington Post as well. To be an attention grabber it seems that expressing the news in conflict or sensationalized terms is the norm. The problem with that is that some folks only look at headlines and don't read the rest and come away with only the negative first impression of the sensationalized title!

[MyAudacity]

Thank you! I was beginning to wonder if everyone was going insane. I've been reading too many headlines which did not match the contents of the argument and was confused as to why would they report in this manner...and you answered my question...

Each person is responsible for digging deeper and searching a matter out, before taking a position.

Some websites which I trusted to give me correct information is now doing the same thing. I guess if the news is not exciting enough...they'll just make it exciting....and nothing generates interest like bad news.

[Decipherer]

You wrote: "This is the real media bias, a bias towards conflict, which leads towards sensationalism instead of clear-eyed analysis."

You can't be serious! The media with a "bias towards conflict?" Who knew?

Perhaps you may recall the well-worn newspaper aphorism "if it bleeds, it leads?" Of course, today, that expression could be amended to state that "if it doesn't bleed, by God we'll cut something!"

How can we forget last year's ginned-up PUMA controversy, the non-existent "Bradley Effect," Obama's alleged minister problem, and all the other irrelevant nonsense talked about endlessly, relentlessly, while the economy was in free fall -- right in front of the media's eyes?

Now we have this Blago-Burris non-controversy which has ZERO to do with Barack Obama and all these other faux controversies, "sound and fury, signifying nothing," to keep us distracted.

And don't get me started about Anne Coulter, the biggest self-serving non-story distraction around.

Get a grip, people. Don't fall into the media's stupidity trap.

[toosinbeymen]

Right on, Bill, and the bias is by its nature destructive. The exceptions are the new media outlets like yours, The Young Turks, Rachel Maddow's show, the blogs (largely), and so on, which to me suggests that the media need to respond to what many if not most people want. Duh!

[only1Demvoter]

Bill : Good morning.

You could have posted this blog over on the ' Bush Pushes For Balance of Bailout Billions ' thread and calmed the storm over there !

Reading Comprehension, if any was done at all of the WaPo article, was at an all time low.

Thank You for your continued vigilance and input.


- ralph

[jhamm1]

THanks for the column.

It's amazing how many of us Obama supporters freak out at the prospect of us harboring so much as a difference of opinion.

[BarryChamplain]

Geez, you want to talk about "narratives"?

How about: "Oh, you Lefties are going to ruin it all, because you can't tolerate a DIFFERENCE OF OPINION!"???

Let me 'splain something to all you wide-eyed sycophants: a "difference of opinion" is a disagreement over what course of action would be most effective, in accomplishing a shared ideological goal. No "Lefties" I personally know find that objectionable, in fact.

Telecom immunity; inviting Movement Homophobes to your symbolic celebration of Change; bailing out financial institutions with no regard for their victims; unquestioned support for genocide when committed by our "allies"; and fluffing congressional Republicans by loading a "stimulus" bill with more useless and asinine tax cuts, is NOT a "difference of opinion"... any more than passing a bill outlawing women's choice or gay/lesbian rights would be an acceptable way of "reaching out to Republicans".

Democrats HAVE TO STAND FOR SOMETHING, and that trumps the living bejeezus out of this whole, stupid-ass, fraudulent "bipartisan" kabuki dance.

[ghostNASA]

.

do you have the Barack Obama's "NASA Transition Team" email address?

well, if you have it, please send these four links to the NASA Transition Team:

1. about the NASA Administrator: http://www.ghostnasa.com/posts/043griffin.html

2. about the Direct's BIG LOBBY: http://www.ghostnasa.com/posts/033directstruestory.html

3. about the Space Solar Power: http://www.ghostnasa.com/posts/038sspdebunked.html

4. and about the Space Shuttle: http://www.gaetanomarano.it/spaceShuttle/spaceshuttle.html

they'll be HAPPY to read something of TRUE and RATIONAL about NASA and Space :-)

thanks!

.