The New Yorker Raises A Toast To Birther Nut Michael Savage

The New Yorker could not have picked a worse time to publish a puff piece about Savage. Arriving on newsstands the same week we learned that 58 percent of Republicans either don't believe or don't know whether Barack Obama was born in America (a rancid conspiracy theory that Savage has peddled for months), and arriving the same week that Fox News' Glenn Beck went on national television and called out the president of the United States a "racist" with a "deep-seated hatred for white people," The New Yorker's soft-pedaling of Savage, as well as the larger unhinged right-wing movement to demonize and dehumanize Obama, was just embarrassing. (By the way, in the same article, The New Yorker described Beck as "deftly channeling the defiance and bewilderment of dissident America." I suppose that's one -- softball -- way of putting it.)

Sorry, but in case The New Yorker hadn't noticed from its lofty, literary perch, there's a not-very-subtle movement within the right-wing media to paint Obama as illegitimate (i.e., the Manchurian Candidate) and as a looming threat to our liberties and freedoms. There's also a burgeoning race-baiting movement afoot. And Savage is helping to lead that charge.

If The New Yorker wants to pretend that Savage is merely "weird" and "fun" to have a beer with (the writer and the radio host had "a great time together" according to Sanneh; Savage confirmed on his show that he "liked" the writer), and that liberals ought to chill out and not get so upset about the sewage that Savage dumps into the mainstream, that's The New Yorker's (elitist) choice. But it certainly represents a glaring case of journalism malpractice.

Read the full Media Matters column here.

Comments

[lgillooly]

Savage, Beck, Limbaugh and Hannity should be tried for treason. Their hatred for the American people is disguised with patriotic propaganda. They have sold their souls to Corporate America while they lie to their audiences about Freedom and individuality and Patriotism.
When Bush was President attacking the Government was un patriotic and treasonous even though we went to war on a lie, illegally wiretapped citizens and soldiers, gave up habeus corpus, broke the Geneva conventions, hired Cheneys friends Blackwater, gave the wealthiest Americans tax cuts during 2 Wars etc etc
Now we have Obama. He inherits a collapsing economy, 2 Wars, huge deficits and a broken healthcare system. Suddenly, these jokers are against the Government. They would rather see health insurance companies profit at the American people's expense. More concerned with Wall St. bonuses than protecting the taxpayers that bailed them out. Scaring people with misinformation and propaganda is not worth the millions they are paid. Obviously, they think differently.

[Nishnabe]

Folks, Had a commute a few years ago in an old plymouth, good motor bad radio, that only got the am talker that had the whole crew; Hannity, Savage, Beck and Boortz. It was abour 45 minutes each way so I got a way good taste of it. In the days of the royal court some jesters were good at criticizing the powers that be and others hacked away in the courts of the lesser kings and nobles. The lesser jesters pandered to those who had little hope of rubbing elbows with the emporer, and so they were the cowards who shouted from the edge of the crowd during market days. Savage is compelling in his delivery of well-reasoned but simple BS answers to the complex questions of the day. He is simply a second rate jester with fewer and fewer stories to tell.

[Virgil Kane]

I doubt many of you have actually listened to Savage's (entire) show. It's way different Limbaugh or any of those other right wing shows who's simple message is....republicans good, democrats bad EVERY DAY. He talks about many different topics such as art, music, war, pop culture, food, or stories from his upbringing, etc. Media matters wants to paint Savage as a racist kook. In fact, there are several times where he rails against George Bush, Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly, and Glenn Beck (he refers to Beck as the hemorrhoid with ears). He's called GW Bush a socialist many times before too. He's been highly critical of Goldman Sachs and the bailouts and how our past few treasury secretaries have come from Goldman. No mention of that ever comes from media matters or anyone on the left. They choose to focus on a few controversial things he's said.

He may go on over the top rants sometimes, but I would compare it to Keith Olbermann's special comments.

[CantStopUsNow]

You're a true idiot. Keith Olbermann wasn't barred from entering the COUNTRY of BRITAIN. Michael Savage was. And for good reason. Here are a thousand examples of the "many different topics" you mentioned that he talks about regularly. This guys a real piece of work. Take a look:

http://mediamatters.org/search/tag/michael_savage

[Virgil Kane]

Savage was banned from Britain for being Jewish and to provide "balance" to the terrorists and murders that are also barred from entering the country. It's truly outrageous that Savage was banned from Britain since he didn't do anything wrong. I don't know why more people haven't come out in defense of free speech. Whether you agree with what he says or not you should defend his right to say it.

Here is the article that reports the reason Savage was banned from Britain:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1202169/US-shock-jock-Savage-targeted-balance-wanted-list.html

I am an idiot for criticizing this post? That's your opinion. I don't agree with everything Savage says, but he's got a right to say it. As Americans, we should all defend and cherish free speech.

[realist12602]

This is the US and everyone is entitled to opinion. But for the author to think that he is in the same league of journalism as the New Yorker is laughable. The New Yorker is a national treasure and Hendrik Hertzberg is simply the best political writer in the country by far. I have not seen the article yet - my New Yorker is always delivered a week late - but perhaps the profile is too subtle for the author to understand.

[abbienormal]

The New Yorker seems to be making some serious missteps since Obama came on the scene.

[thebirdstheword]

anybody who ever picked up the new yorker would know that it is drivel wrapped in a shiny, pseudo-intellectual box.

[oncethere]

Savage spends half his show railing against New York lawyers, the ACLU and frivolous lawsuits---and the other half threatening to sue just about anyone who "attacks" him.

[myzenthing]

So much for the "liberal" media. All the unhinged right-wing nutjobs like Savage, Malkin, Beck, Taitz, etc. get plenty of airtime and column-inches; whereas thoughtful liberals like Dennis Kucinich, Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn and Cornel West are hardly noticed at all.

[Virgil Kane]

So one favorable profile of a conservative in the New Yorker means the media is conservative?

[myzenthing]

Yes, one article in the New Yorker means the media is conservative.

Just keep ignoring all the right-wing TV and radio networks, and the endless supply of right-wing sock puppets who get hours of exposure on major TV networks and seemingly endless column-inches in major newspapers every single day.