A Media Double-Standard On Foolishness And Lunacy

The New Editor catches Bill Maher making the claim that the Democratic Party is the one with almost no "nuts" in it. (It should be noted that his definition of "nuts" is largely concerned with whether or not someone believes in a real, tangible God or not.)

TNE contrasts this with the Rasmussen poll the media has entirely embargoed, finding that 61% of self-identifying Democrats either believe George Bush knew of the 9/11 attacks in advance or are not sure if he did or not.

The media is very, very big on highlighting the misconceptions -- or alleged misconceptions -- of conservative-leaning Americans. They never tire of telling us that x percentage of conservatives (or FoxNews viewers, or whatever) mistakenly believe that Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9/11.

.....

The media considers it crazy to believe that Saddam Hussein, President of Iraq, had something to do with 9/11, and fights this insanity with every tool at its disposal, including outright deception.

On the other hand, the media does not apparently consider it particularly hard to believe that George Bush, President of the United States, had something to do with 9/11. If they did consider such a notion beyond the pale, one would imagine they'd publicize (and implicity mock) those crazed liberals believing that our own President aided and abetted Osama bin Ladin.

But of course they don't. Because it's simply not possible for a reasonble person to believe a sworn enemy of the US, known to have at least some ties with Al Qaeda, could have had a hand in the attacks, but a reasonable person could, according to the MSM, believe that a US President with no ties to Al Qaeda helped facillitate and perhaps even carry out the attacks.

Commentary by Jeff Goldstein abou the Gatekeeper's Gambit.

In the course of my proddings over the last few years, I’ve extracted, from the likes of Greenwald(s) and Mona, confessions that they, and many of their supporters in the ranks of “true conservatives” (read: progressives who started out in the blogosphere as cutout conservatives in order to claim a convenient political epiphany), are willing to do anything and everything—including lying (which they would reframe as finessing the narrative)—to achieve their ends.

That is, they have stated in no uncertain terms that lying in the service of larger truths is not a political sin—and in fact, it is, in the perverse logic of arrogant, presumptuous, illiberal hacks, something of a badge of honor. Muddying the narrative waters, obstructing progress, keeping their political opponents constantly on the defensive: these are the tactics of “progressivism,” and are geared toward forcing their opponents to surrender the fight for wont of being able to elevate their own voices above the din.

So while I share Ace’s jaundiced view of the MSM, I’ve come to think of them as less gullible than opportunistic, and far more cynical than simply credulous or blinded by hatred alone.

Because to be sure, they are blinded by ideological hatred; but they have taken to channeling that hatred into a willful attempt to control the electorate and shape public debate in a way that rises to the level of intentional advocacy.