The Corporate Media Experiment: Why Isn't Senator Obama 'One of Us'?

I'm not sure how he continues to be regarded as a very serious Washington pundit given his obvious history of race-baiting, but somehow he skulks his way onto MSNBC almost every day. Pat Buchanan on Hardball Monday night wondered out loud about Senator Obama: "Is he one of us?"

If by "one of us" he means a cranky, elitist, white, corporate media, man-shaped bunion who fashioned his career by demonizing brown people, the answer is a certain 'no'. But we know what Buchanan meant by this. Is Senator Obama with "us" or is he with the uppity blacks? Is he a real American like Senator McCain or is he a Muslim terrorist like those e-mails suggest? Is he too European (GAY!)? Is he like us: white, wealthy, conservative, elite?

During this dark ride of the Bush years, it's no longer surprising or shocking to hear such a bottomless cup of awfulness. This line of questioning has become the dominant theme in the corporate media's political narrative. "Us" has become a baseline which liberals -- regardless of race or gender -- will never achieve because the experiment is stacked against anyone who isn't centrist, moderate, right of center or conservative.

In scientific terms, the left has been tagged by the corporate media as the "experimental group" while the right is the "control group." The Republicans are the Awesome Republicans no matter what. They're constant. They set the tone of the debate. The corporate media accepts their terms, their rules and their frames as a given and the Democrats are expected to jump and dash and explain themselves based upon those givens, irrespective of how ludicrous they happen to be.

Prove to us that you're one of us. Prove to us that you support the troops. Prove to us that you're patriotic. Prove to us that you're not an effete snob. Prove to us that you can talk to a gathering of bumpkins in a diner like a plainspoken Republican can. Prove to us that you're not the enemy. Prove to us that you're not presumptuous.

And the experiment goes on and on with the Democrats (or liberals or progressives) poked and dissected and injected with false arguments, specious claims and disproved quotes (see Dana Milbank's recent column) often manufactured by the right and invariably parroted by the corporate media.

Instead of disregarding high pitched cranks like Buchanan and asking, "What Pat? Seriously -- why are you such a fringe psychonaut?" and discounting such a ridiculous question as beneath reason and credibility, the corporate media instead takes the "one of us" question seriously and more often than not wraps an entire debate around it.

This present week, in particular, has been yet another high water mark for this dynamic.

Senator Obama has been accused of being presumptuous, uppity (literally), against the troops, snobbish, elitist, hubristic, European (GAY!) and, considering the array of both subtle and obvious messages in Senator McCain's laughable Britney & Paris commercial, vacuous, frivolous, loopy, superficial, "Hollywood" and, I don't know, he produces amateur porn videos using night vision. Of course reasonable, professional analysts with ethical guidelines and some degree of integrity would disregard such accusations as the dripping-with-flopsweat acts of a desperate, pathetic McCain campaign. But instead, these accusations are somehow validated, debated and defended by people like Pat Buchanan. Prove to us, Senator Obama, that you're not a tabloid pop star. Prove to us that you're not a bleached blonde heiress or a slack-jawed ex-Mouseketeer.

Thankfully, for the cause of reason and rationality, there are people like Rachel Maddow who, while occupying the unglamorous role of debunking and debating Pat Buchanan, said to Buchanan on Wednesday's Race for the White House with Stretch:

"We have a responsibility to talk about whether [these accusations are] deserved, Pat. I think when John McCain doesn't speak to Pat Buchanan as being presumptuous -- calls himself 'President McCain.' But Barack Obama speaks to you as presumptuous for doing something much less damning... that says much more about you than it does the candidates."

In the menacing world of Pat Buchanan and of the larger barbecue media, Senator Obama is, in fact, presumptuous and all the rest of it, or, if he's not, the onus is on him to prove that he's not. Meanwhile, Senator McCain is simply...not. Senator McCain couldn't possibly be an elitist and out of touch with most Americans (even though he wears $520 shoes and his wife is the heiress to an Anheuser-Busch distributorship fortune) because it just doesn't fit their scientific experiment dynamic -- the script, the narrative. He's just not. Senator McCain couldn't possibly be a "celebrity" even though he's hosted SNL and had a movie-of-the-week made about his Vietnam experiences. He's just not. Senator McCain couldn't possibly be in favor of torture even though he voted against banning it. He's just not. Senator McCain couldn't possibly be out of his depth on foreign policy even though his lies and errors in this arena far outnumber any similar gaffes by Senator Obama. He's just not.

Is it any wonder why the latest polls show a much tighter race? And, thusly, is it any wonder that a tight race is better for ratings? Pat Buchanan, it turns out, is good for business.

Anyone who promotes -- or who doesn't necessarily oppose -- the scientific narrative is good for business regardless of whether they're racists or homophobes or drug-addled hooples. After all, Rush Limbaugh's contract was just reupped for $400 million while Sam Seder isn't even allowed on corporate radio.

So irrespective of what Senator Obama might do or say or what his life story might be, as long as he has a (D) after his name, he'll always be expected by the corporate media to explain himself. To prove himself. Why isn't Senator Obama more like Senator McCain: white, wealthy, conservative, elite? They'll go through this routine until the experiment is finished: either Senator Obama is experimented upon until he becomes more like Senator McCain (or another media-approved "one of us") or he'll lose the election and the actual Senator McCain is the next president. And the experiment continues. That is, unless we can seize the initiative redefine who "us" is. After a long history of white, wealthy, conservative elites running the lab, it's time to shut it down and clear the way for the rest of us.

Bob Cesca's Goddamn Awesome Blog! Go!

CORRECTION: Mrs. McCain is the heiress to an Anheuser-Busch distributorship fortune.

Comments

[realistic2008]

There is no media these days if one considers the strict definition and if one listens to the experts in the talk shows one can conclude that most of them are nothing else but arrogant clowns who believe they have all the answers but before that they have all the insights including but not limited to all the gossips a prerequisite as a reporter, talk show host, political experts,etc.etc to be well versed in them.

[JDWPS]

I agree with you completely.
Pat Buchanan is a disgrace. And he is totally irrelevant.
Actually I am much better off since I stopped watching when he or anyone as senseless as he is comes on my TV. A while back I realized what a horrible waste of time it is to hear what some of those people have to say.
Thankfully there are sources of meaningful information available!

[eagleye]

The Right has been extremely successful in shifting the perception of where the "center" is, and the dimwits who run our corporate media have bought into it whole hog. This dynamic was on full view during the debate over the FISA legislation. Those of us who held to the very traditional and old-fashioned American view that the President and the Congress ought to respect the rule of law and honor the Constitution were dismissed as shrill leftists. We've entered a bizarre new universe, but we're all doing it together, so few people notice.

[editrix66]

Great column! You are absolutely right. MSNBC just wants Pat Buchanan on TV because he is controversial. Think how often he was trotted out after Clinton won West Virginia and Pennsylvania.

[nobozos]

I'm so sick of the idiocy of dumbed down American journalism and the people who watch and quote it I could almost puke. We're very close to becoming the stupidest nation on the planet.

The Buchanans aren't to blame......WE ARE!

For giving credence to such a horse's ass.

[Antacid]

The problem with this column is the focus on Buchanan. It's really the WHOLE MEDIA. If it was just one or two pundits and Fox News, the issue wouldn't be such a canker on the body politic.

[YahYah]

Can anyone tell me why Sam Seder isn't allowed on corporate radio and is rarely on Air America?

[RAStewart]

I'd like to know myself why he is so seldom on Air America. Why he isn't allowed on corporate radio--well, that's self-evident, I think. What puzzles me is why the corporate media allow a strong, articulate liberal voice like Rachel Maddow to have air time.

[adderton]

Dear Bob,

"Senator Obama has been accused of being presumptuous, uppity (literally), against the troops, snobbish, elitist, hubristic..."

Our buddy at 1600 Pensylvania Ave. is GUILTY of the above (to say the least), a dreadful blight on humanity.

Shame on YOU Pat Buchanan -

Respectfully,
Constance

[adderton]

Dear Readers,

Forgive my error, it's spelled Pennsylvania -

Constance

[FindlayDemocrat]

This blog should be the headline. Very well written, conveys what we already knew in simple terms. Thank you!

[BobsNotWorking]

For myself, I'm no longer a "customer". Starting this very Sunday morning I left the TV off. I didn't watch the Sunday morning political talk programs, and I don't intend to return. I don't need my mind to be contaminated by their bias. Unfortunately, I'll have to leave it to Senator Obama and his campaign staff to plot the course past this. I've known for years that the conservatives had concocted a narrative that would take a very intelligent and inspiring leader to penetrate. No matter how nonsensensical it is, their narrative is swallowed hole by the low info masses. I knew instantly, upon hearing Obama's Iowa victory speech that he was the man I've waited forty years for. There isn't anything I can do but provide him with a tiny portion of the money he needs to get the job done. I wish I could do more, but the entirety of the public media is set against his vision of the future (and mine). A new world is starting to coalesce, outside the U.S., around many inevitable progressive ideas. Obama sees that world and appears ready to lead us there. Europe and the Middle East seem hopeful that the U.S. will rise again to lead. If McCain is elected, given his 1950s world view, we are doomed. The world will simply move on leaving us behind. As to why the journalism profession would prefer this to happen (even given their corporate masters) is beyond my understanding.

[clsmithj]

Very true, which is why I believe we need a 6th media outlet (we already have CBS, CNN, ABC, NBC, and Fox) we need a outlet that's independent of media conglomerate control.

A network that will take the other 5 news networks to task.

[HillbillyBob]

Dish tv (satellite carries FreeSpeechTV at channel 9415. Its paid for by donations, I watch it everyday for Democracy Now!, Grit, Global Report, International news report (all have websites too.
It does not cost much more than cable, but you get way more than corpse cable will give you for the same money. Link Tv 9410 is also on dishtv ( echostar the mother corporation is liberal owned) Directtv tho has connections or used to to rupert murdoch news corpse. They also broadcast news from EU, MidEast, and China (cctv9)at 265, Ctv5 at Colours 9407, which shares programing from China, India and the mideast/ Israel
I love it, I can watch the same story in 4 different places aside from msnbc and put togther the whole story.

[bascombe]

This is your best article at Huffpo to date, Mr. Cesca.

You captured the very essence of the media and the false debates they generate on the most specious, concocted issues.

Their willingness to reduce themselves to Pat Buchanan's level is no longer astounding.

The examples you implied:
Gibson, Couric and Williams all asking Obama one question: Isn't the McKeatin5 'surge' the one thing that makes the Iraq occupation a good idea?
The entire media calling Obama's great trip overseas "risky" before and presumptious after, but not the true success that it was. It's as if they were saying: "How dare the world like any American other than a white man?".

Thank you, Mr. Cesca.

[SunnyCA]

Oops “they” have really done it again! But then, lying, deceiving, distracting, and scaring the public to perpetrate their power grab has been the winning by crook signature tactic of the Republicans. Of well…. it’s a party and Rove’s hosting… but not without "McCain's base" campaigning for him.

The most incredible robbery is in motion, right in front of our eyes --- literally! ALL the lines of attack we have seen in the assassination of Obama’s character have originated from the so called corporate media which is supposedly in the business of responsible reporting: Count’em!
1. Messiah complex 2. Great orator with mere soaring rhetoric 3. Presumptuous nominee 4. Celebrity, 5. Emperor with the classic tragic flaw of hubris, and a daily narrative on echo mode, 6. What’s wrong with Obama/ why can’t he close the deal? To which the pundits invariably fill in the answer, Obama is all show and no substance; the voters still don't know what Obama stands for.

This disseminator of falsehoods, the media daily brainwashes the public with blatant lies about Obama’s policy positions. The coverage is often nothing but rumor mongering and gossiping more furiously than a bunch of giddy preteen girls of the phone. “THEY” are determined to ride shotgun in the Republican tank yet again, straight into the people’s house.

[JXJASON]

Which is why I read the Huffingtonpost, The Asia Times, The Nation and other, independent, thinkers.

John McCain is hopeless. McCain is six years older than I am, richer, a US Senator, and incompetent. McCain is one of the many people in the US Congress who are RESPONSIBLE for the problems we have with unaffordable health care, Overspending on war and military budgets, poor infrastructure, ineffective border security, POOR REGULATION of banking, hedge funds and oil speculators and other problems.

Why would anyone want McCain to run the country?

McCain can't "take back our government". He IS the government!

I'm voting for Barack Obama. You should vote for Barack too.

Go to Moveon.org for a FREE OBAMA BUTTON.

OBAMA 08

[bascombe]

and they will be shocked again fate the election when their meme does not hold up, when the republicans lose race after race, even though the voting machines will be rigged for the 8% swing toward the republicans; even though over a million people will be purged from the voter rolls in at least four states; even though survey after survey will say that the race is close.

[libbygirl]

What does Obama have to do to prove that he's a patriotic American? It constantly frustrates me when I keep hearing that we don't know who he is. Unfortunately I know who McCain is and he's definitely not one of "us".

[inluvwkeitholbermann]

i refer to this kind of writing as having a "damn!!" effect.....like, after you read it you're like, "damn!!..that's good!"

nice work, mr. cesca!

[dtd]

You're just taking notice of this?!!! Chris Matthews has been asking that question to his all white panels for months. No amount of protest emails to MSNBC has stopped him. In fact, he recently asked if Michelle Obama had the "personality" to appeal to middle class white women. Would such a question have been asked about a white woman with Michelle Obama's credentials, which include graduate of two Ivey League school, high level executive and wife of a US Senator? HELL NO! But none of his white guests protested or even blinked an eye to such a disparaging question. Not one!