Over at Atrios there’s a thread that raises a challenging question:
How can Democrats get across the idea that the mainstream media knew way ahead of time that there was going to be a war with Iraq, but they didn’t tell us they knew that, and now, when that information does come out, the media not only ignore the story, but they have the gall to defend themselves by saying, “Hey, that’s old news.”
I can think of real-world ways to get the idea across. That’s what this diary is for: to practice explaining stuff in ordinary language (remember how politicians used to be able to tell colorful stories?) that gets a point across.
For instance. . .
Let’s say that on cable tv news, a Democrat complains that the American media failed to pick up the story about the Downing Street Minutes.
The cable host protests, “Why should we? That’s old news!”
Here’s one answer that anybody can understand. . .
“Yeah, that’s old news just like if I knew a year ahead of time that somebody was going to kill your dog. But I didn’t warn you, because, hey, it was a sure thing, he was definitely going to kill your dog, so what was the point of telling you?
“So a year goes by and suddenly the guy starts raising a fuss, accusing you of having a vicious dog. I’m thinking, ‘here we go, now he’s going to kill the dog, just like I knew he would.’ Everybody in the neighborhood thinks this is a crises, that you’ve suddenly got a mad dog that’s going to break loose and eat the children. Now, privately, I know this fuss is just about giving the guy the excuse he needs to kill your dog, but I don’t say anything. I don’t tell anybody that he’s been planning this as far back as a year ago.
“And sure enough, he kills your dog.
“A couple of years later, you find out that he’d been planning to do it all along, and that he invented a crises, and that I knew all this and I didn’t tell you.
“You’re furious with me! You storm over to my house and you scream, ‘Why didn’t you tell me he was planning to kill my dog?’
“And I shrug and say, ‘Hey, that’s old news.'”
____________
God knows, that’s no sound bite. But in the right circumstances, it might be a way to turn somebody’s thinking around. Probably because I write fiction, I think there’s nothing like the power of a story to get a point across. And, frequently, the best stories (I’m not saying that one is!)are simple ones that work well as analogies because they operate at basic emotional levels.
Want to play this game?
Everybody’s an editor, right? 🙂
Improve my story.
Write one of your own that you could comfortably use with the neighbors. If there’s some other topic that drives you crazy because Dems don’t seem to be able to express it, write a story about it.
Maybe we’ll give Democrats some Mark Twainian ideas for how to talk to people in ways that make light bulbs go on over their heads.
p.s. I should confess I didn’t read the Atrios thread. It had more than 400 comments. I skimmed it and didn’t see anything like this, so I stole the question and brought it over here.
Oh, dear, I used the Extended Copy, but it doesn’t seem to have worked. Sorry! If it’s a problem for anybody, I’ll try to figure out what I did wrong and see if I can fix it. Thanks.
There’s nothing wrong with it. In the diaries page you only see your first paragraph and the indication that there’s more. When you click on that you get your full diary.
Great diary. One small niggle: crises is the plural of crisis. : )
Thanks! You saved me from a crisis 🙂 of conscience.
I have read comments by “journalists” about how annoyed they are by group efforts to bring a story to their attention. That always makes me write them two or three more times. Really, who do they think they are? Isn’t an organized effort just evidence that a lot of people care about the issue?
The media is right wing or they are lazy and complicit. Either way, being nice to them is not going to change anything.
“Who do they think they are?” is a really good question. Keepers of Secrets, apparently, instead of distributors of the news. It blows my mind when they don’t even appear to understand that they withheld news. As you say, lazy or complicit. Stupid is also a possibility. As is arrogant. Why should they tell us what they know? They know. That’s all that matters.
My opinion is that the cable news stations should all have their rights to our airspace revoked. If media is not responsible to the citizenship, why should they be allowed to continue?
And, of course, it’s not just cable. I stopped watching local news years ago. After the election I stopped watching national news on either network or cable. I rarely open my local paper. There isn’t a single mass print magazine I trust for general news anymore. At this point I get 99% of my news from the web because I can always check the blogs to find out what elements are either missing from the mainstream stories, or wrong. I don’t know how we knew anything before blogs. Seriously.
I think lazy is a big part of it. He said-she said “journalism” is easy. Investigative reporting is hard work.
It’s been 30 years since I was in journalism school, but I doubt that the professors have caught up with the concept of the Internet. Hell, when I was in school they were still coming to grips with the concept of radio and television. Herd mentality “reporters” are used to just having to keep up with each other–I’m sure they’re not loving the idea that they’ve lost the keys to the information gate.
Also, it’s entirely too easy for a beat reporter to become way too comfy with sources, especially government bigwig sources. When I was a reporter in a state capital, the job ladder ran either out of town to a bigger market or (the more common route) into a flack position with a state agency.
I gave up journalism when I realized that I wasn’t thick-skinned enough. To be effective, reporters need to be assertive and unafraid of confrontation. I think too many so-called journalists have decided that they don’t care to rock the boat, and they don’t have the good grace to admit that boat-rocking is a necessary part of the job.
Raging, that’s exactly why I gave it up, too.
It’s short sweet and to the point.
“It may be old news to you, but it’s not not old news the American people. It’s not even news, because you media folks forgot to tell them.”
Recordkeeper, you may have just come up with the best sound bite anybody has thought of yet. I wish it could be pasted on the inside of the eyelids of all Dem politicians.
If we had both stories and sound bites we’d have people’s attention.
Agree with kansas,
Recordkeeper – that’s a beauty.
A minor suggestion, if I may (towards the end):
“…because you media folks neglected to tell them.”
They did not forget, it was more odious than that.
How can Democrats get across the idea that the mainstream media knew way ahead of time that there was going to be a war with Iraq, but they didn’t tell us they knew that,…”
By becoming clueful. The entire “story” of the DSM is but one element adding to the facts now in evidence that the administration planned the war as far back as the first meeting of the PNAC group. How does that fit into what policy change, or action, by whom?
The MSM is not the problem here. The lack of a unified opposition voice is. Dean sez, Biden sez, Feinstein sez, fer crissake they all say something. The net effect being no message save negative “bad, bad, President” – again.
Here’s your excercise for today: go to the place that should have the demand for coverage – the DNC website. Just a click away. After you look at the destructively negative content, the lack of any public welcome, and the heinous picture of that son-of-a-bitch Dee-Lay greeting you right after breakfast, tell me again why you think the “MSM” is the problem here.
Bullshit.
I hadn’t been to the DNC site in a long time and now I remember why. I can’t tell you how happy it makes me to read your opinion on it as I have that same opinion. And lately it feel as if I can’t seem to get my simple message across (perhaps due to my semi-literate writing).
My new plan is to follow behind you and say “Yeah! What rba said.” That’ll save me hours of writing semi-coherent posts. Thanks!
You’re welcome, and it’s actually worse than just the website. The party also has a state-of-the-art (apparently unused) media center:
QRS DNC project description.
I probably wasn’t clear. I don’t think the MSM is THE problem here, but I do think the lack of an investigative press and a truth telling press is part of the problem, and that Dems can speak to that in ways that make people understand better. And that it’s in everybody’s best interest for us to do so.
I went the DNC website and had the same reaction to it that you did.
I wasn’t clear either. I believe the press is publishing the DSM information, but in context of the larger issue of sorting fact from fiction. Regarding advanced war planning, the DSM is but one additional document set to point to as evidence.
I place most of the blame for lack of coverage on most issues squarely at the feet of the democrats in congress and party headquarters. Like my dad said: “You don’t sell Chevy’s by slammin’ Ford.” (Yeah, I say that too much.) What’s the positive message underlying the push for the investigation?
We were wrong to support this war, and we apologize to the American people for not demanding answers before we allowed this President to send our people into harm’s way. We didn’t listen when Paul O’Neill told us that the advanced planning for this war began when this administration took office.
We believed, as you did, that all the President’s men – and women – were telling us the truth: about WMD, about terrorists in the Northeast corner of Iraq, about secret weapons facilities.
Well, we now have proof of the advanced planning Paul O’Neill told us about almost three years ago. Verified by what have been called the “Downing Street Memos”. We also have proof that each and every justification for this war was based on false information, and outright lies. We pledge today to act on the information we now have, and place those responsible on notice they will be held accountable by the American people.
And we are not alone in this effort. We are joined by members from the other side of the aisle who, like us, feel at least disappointed, at worst betrayed. All of us, working together, will generate a plan that finally allows our people to come home, and returns true power to the people of Iraq.
We ask for your patience, and once again for your support in our efforts to find the truth.
Simple, straightforward, no bullshit. If I can write it, and you can write it, why can’t those high-paid geniuses in D.C. write it? And more importantly, why haven’t they?
That is a great statement. Actually, saying that it is great doesn’t do it justice.
Thank you. Yes.
I get queasy whenever I read something that suggests that all of us believed, since a lot of us didn’t, so your statement wouldn’t actually be “no bullshit” for some of us to say it. But for the majority of Dems, what you have written is probably an accurate statement from start to finish. Personally, I’d be happy with that. I don’t have to have my doubts and suspicions acknowledged. What you wrote certainly beats anything we’ve got out there now.
I hope you get this kansas. (off the list now). The context is those democrats who voted in that 77-23 authorization. That said, following the O’Neill line, I’d add: “And we didn’t listen to our own people who tried to warn us.” Or words to that effect. The point is that an apology is necessary to get past that vote. You and I may not need an acknowledgment, but I think the country does. I believe not apologizing contributed heavily to Kerry’s loss.
And next time I’ll leave off the “colorful language”. <grin>
So glad you added this! I couldn’t (colorful language) agree more that while any one of us may be able to go on without the apology, the country really needs it. And, hell, I’d like it, too. The way you phrased that. . .”And we didn’t listen to our own people who tried to warn us”. . . feels really good.
Don’t feel you have to take the time to respond to this next question, but have you ever diaried something along these lines? If you have, I’m sorry I missed it. If you haven’t, it would be great for other people to get to see your sample “statement.”
I recommended this diary after reading rba’s sample statement as I thought it would be a shame if others didn’t see it. Perhaps just keeping a diary of such statements and retorts to talking points that anyone can use without credit to the author might encourage some of our pundits (I call them ours very loosely) to speak more coherently. The republicans have a number they call for their talking points perhaps our should be available as well.
I also agree that there will come a time where the acknowledgment of other’s actions should be addressed. Those who knew what was happening and tried to stop it (such as yourself) as well as those who should have known and did not (Congress and the press).
Thanks to both of you, and no I haven’t diaried the idea of generating statements from the ‘roots upward. Posted the edited statement over on susan’s diary. There are those here, mostly women (just a fact), who are willing to listen and work for something, and a much larger group who only seem interested in cursing the darkness.
Frustrating.
I didn’t read the original thread on Atrios, but am I missing something? Why do we want the media to confess about knowing the war with Iraq was coming? Why do we want to attack the media at all?
I’ll explain my thinking so I don’t come off as a troublemaker. 😀
Every time you hold the media responsible for Iraq you’ve missed an opportunity to hold the White House responsible. You’ve also set out a precedent that those who believed in the war and agreed with it are equally responsible. If you are attempting to change the minds of people, you don’t want to build obstacles for them to change their minds, but rather reasons as to why they can.
So if you clearly state that we are ALL victims of an Administration that used our shared anger and grief over 9/11 to further their own goals that would allow people several things they like – a sense of a larger group (victims), the classic us (victims) vs them (White House), a reason why they weren’t wrong but rather misled.
Maybe you’re not missing anything at all, but what I am missing is the follow up to my own thoughts.
I think the natural follow up to stories like the one I told is that then it then becomes easier, not harder, to pin things on the White House. This isn’t, actually, about blaming the messenger. It’s about getting the messengers to see/admit that they weren’t telling the whole story and to tell that story NOW. The thing is, they’re resisting even telling it now. Telling it now, even several years late, puts the blame on the White House, where it belongs, at last.
Or so it seems to me.
Please note comment further down that I meant to attach here. Thanks.
It’s about getting the messengers to see/admit that they weren’t telling the whole story and to tell that story NOW.
Here’s our point of separation. I agree that it’s important to get them to tell the whole story now. But I don’t think it’s a prerequisite to get them to see/admit they weren’t telling the whole story then. In fact, I think trying to make them admit past mistakes will encourage them to keep making the same mistake.
Because you then link the 2 acts together – you aren’t covering this story now just like you didn’t cover it then. At that point covering the story now means admitting to not having covered it then. Whereas if you don’t link the acts they could cover the story now without having to admit they didn’t cover the story in the past.
I realize I failed to answer the other part of your diary. How to respond to the “old news” meme. I’ll throw out some quick ideas just for brainstorming purposes.
“I believe the family of (name of most recently KIA solider) who died yesterday (or whenever they died) would disagree that this is old news.”
“There is no statue of limitations on lying to the American people.”
“Whenever we ask brave men and women of this great nation to make the ultimate sacrifice we have an obligation, a sacred duty, to thoroughly examine the causations of the war.”
“In a government of the people, by the people, for the people when you lie to the people, at some point you must answer to the people.”
“Old news? Maybe to those involved, but most of us are just finding out we’ve been lied to.”
Those are absolutely great responses, imo.
Thanks for taking the time to express your thoughts about where we differ. I’m thinking about it. (One of the great things about doing diaries, I’m discovering, is that it can expand the diarist’s thoughts most of all. It seems almost selfish that way!)
but I cannot shrug off the culpability of the media in this disaster. It’s one of the most glaring elements to me, in the architecture of deceit we’ve been subjected to. There are individual journalists who have been doing a bang-up job, but overall, the media completely dropped the ball on this one. John Stewart is right. The majority of, particularly the electronic media, are “hurting America,” and they need to be called on it. I’m going to be completely queer and quote myself from another post to another diary. I feel that strongly about this:
I don’t think we should shrug off their culpability either. I simply think that we should prioritize our goals so that their culpability comes after we get people to recognize the culpability of the White House.
In other words, while you may want to take on the press and the White House simultaneously, I think we should take them on sequentially. Once the White House is dealt with (or at least when we get to the point the majority of the people accept what really made us go to Iraq) then we deal with the press. At that point, people will have accepted that the White House lied and then need only address the press’s lack of reporting or investigation.
I suck at clarity so excuse my repetition as I’m just trying to make my point clear. Right now you have to convince Joe Public that the press didn’t and isn’t reporting the facts and the facts show the White House lied. The press can respond that the White House didn’t lie and that’s why it wasn’t reported. Joe Public thinks the White House didn’t lie, after all he supported the war and the press also thinks the White House didn’t lie (providing him a assurance of what he already knows). Joe Public, not being a conspiracy type of guy, thinks that the liberal press wouldn’t possibly do something to cover for the Republican White House. So obviously the people talking about the press not doing their job are wrong and if they are wrong about one thing chances are they are wrong about the White House.
I simply think that we should prioritize our goals so that their culpability comes after we get people to recognize the culpability of the White House.
How do we do that without the media? I don’t mean to understate the value of blogs and other internet organs, but they only reach a certain segment of the populace. Over the past several years I’ve seen a number of stories that never would have seen the light of day without the public pressure that was exerted on the media. There have been a number of success stories, in terms of the public shaming various press organs into doing their jobs. What FAIR does. What MediaMatters does. This stuff is critical, to getting vital information to the people. I can post to message boards, send emails, stand on my corner with leaflets, write my congress-people, etc, ’til I’m blue in the face. If none of it results in some media coverage, I’m spitting in the wind.
Thinking about what you and rba said, I went back to Recordkeeper’s suggestion:
“It may be old news to you, but it’s not not old news to the American people. It’s not even news, because you media folks forgot to tell them.”
The second step of that is for the person who says that to then say, “And the facts you forget to tell were then, and still are today. . .”
And then, bam, bam, bam, there’s the chance to list the facts that implicate the White House.