Media: Angry right-wingers are important; angry libs are annoying

http://mediamatters.org/columns/200908250002

August 25, 2009 8:21 am ET

I guess Howard Dean was just ahead of his time.

When the liberal anti-war candidate ran for the White House in 2003 and 2004, the Beltway press was uniformly clear that Dean had an "anger" issue. When Dean launched his campaign and gave voice to the hundreds of thousands of activists who had marched and protested against the Iraq war, the media elites did not approve.

As early as June 2003, The New York Times was fretting over whether Dean's "angry message" would be his downfall. "All the Rage," read a Newsweek headline on a Dean profile.

And in two features in the summer of 2003, The Washington Post described Dean as "abrasive," "flinty," "cranky," "arrogant," "disrespectful," "fiery," "red-faced," a "hothead," "testy," "short-fused," "angry," "worked up," and "fired up." And trust me, none of those adjectives was used in a complimentary way. In fact, the Post took pains to distinguish Dean's anger from that of then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, whom the paper termed "brilliantly cranky."

Bad luck for Dean, because back during the Bush years, there was really no worse crime, at least in the eyes of the Beltway press, than being "angry." (Especially being an angry Democrat.) It was practically a deal breaker. Serious people simply didn't conduct themselves that way in American politics. They didn't let their runaway partisan emotions get the best of them.

But oh my, how times have changed! Suddenly this summer, as right-wing mini-mobs turn health care forums into free-for-alls, as unhinged political rage flows in the streets, and as the Nazi and Hitler rhetoric flies, anger is in. Suddenly anger is good. It's authentic. It's newsworthy. Reading and watching the mini-mob news coverage, the media message seems clear: Angry speaks to the masses.

Instead of being turned off by the displays of passion the way they had been when liberal protesters took to the streets prior to the Iraq war, media elites have been touting the mini-mob trend as a "phenomenon" (USA Today) staffed by a "citizen army" (Bloomberg News).

*sigh*

it's a laugh when people try to justify right-wing bullshit by saying both sides do it.

we do not. we only get frustrated by right-wing treacherous and stupid acts.

They do this kind of flip flop all the time but thinking about the particular Dean example is instructive. I'd forgotten the "sincere" discussion of his "anger problem."

media happily helps enforce those double standards. :(

Liberals and progressives were angry about real things, and we were actually right; conservawhackos are angry about a bunch of patent falsehoods they've been fed by industrial concerns, and they are actually wrong.

But it makes for a jolly little game to be played by the Elites of the Media Village, so they castigate the dirty fucking hippies and showcase the spittle-flecked tea-baggers.

we are all slaves.

How many anti-war protesters were interviewed by the media? How many people marched in the US and the world to stop an unnecessary war? The only anti war voice on cable,Phil Donahue's , was cancelled. I can't believe how much air play the right wing nuts are given.