I am irritated this morning at the crap they are feeding us for our media breakfast today.
“The Left, Online and Outraged” —the WAPo paints Maryscott O’Connor as a unhinged, “angry” woman who incites the rest of us unhinged, angry lefties.
“HOWARD DEAN’S MESSIAH COMPLEX” —What else would you expect from The New Republic(an)? I only mention this one because, combined with the others, it adds insult to injury.
CNN: “THE SITUATION ROOM”—Wolf
is off hunting Easter eggs, but his stand-in plays the same game: try to Get Howard.
Howie opinion: Don’t let the media crap on you.
Maryscott O’Conner is one of the most patriotic Americans I know. A woman who genuinely cars about her country.
She’s angry all right, but it is a righteous anger, no matter how the WaPo paints her. She represents a lot of people out there who thought they had no voice and have now found it. People like her and others on blogs got me off my ass and working in the last election.
Thank God for Maryscott.
There are at least two kinds of anger. There is the anger that causes a guy to sit on his front porch and drink himself into oblivion over the real or perceived slights that he has suffered. And then there is the anger that provokes someone who sees or experiences an injustice to do something about it.
It’s that second sort of anger that has led to groups like MADD. It’s that second sort of anger that makes you lean out your window and yell at the top of your voice, “I’m mad as hell and I’m not going to take it anymore!” And it’s that kind of anger that fuels Maryscott and many of the rest of us lefty bloggers. She just happens to be better at it than most of the rest of us.
Absolutely. Praise the Lord for Maryscott. However: Words like “rage” and “scream” and “fury” and the references to smoking and her past drinking: they serve to Swift-Boat and undermine her credibility with an audience who may wonder about bloggers and what they have to offer. The Beltway-type pundits, wherever they are, are lovin’ it. Do you ever wonder why we don’t hear about the personal foibles of the more “mainstream” media types, when we open up the WaPo?
That is one problem I’m not sure how to address, if it can be addressed at all. MSOC, for better or worse, has become a public face for the lefty blogosphere. She appears on Fox News, she’s done radio, she gets profiled in the WaPo . . .
She no doubt finds herself in the same situation as writer Natalie Goldberg. Writing about doing writing workshops for kids in New Mexico in her book Writing Down The Bones, she said something to the effect of “Most of these kids have never seen a Jew before. So if I eat ice cream, to them all Jews eat ice cream.” It’s pretty easy to draw the conclusion from the WaPo article that since MSOC is angry, by extension all left-wing bloggers are wacked-out psychopaths who run screaming through the unregulated corridors of the Internet with virtual machetes.
If you were lazy, that is. Things equal to the same thing are not always equal to each other.
The problem is, offline journalists primarily expose as much of themselves to the public as they want us to see. I have no idea who Mr. Finkl is, or what he does in his spare time, and I have no idea where to look if I were so inclined. Many of us, however, are variations of an open book. We not only write about incidents affecting our personal lives from time to time, but we leave a paper trail so anyone can find those writings later on.
This is a good thing, and it’s a bad thing. Ask Jeff Gannon about how bad it can be.
Still, this allows us to present ourselves to the world, warts and all. And when MSOC goes on Josh Gibson or wherever as a spokesperson for the “loony left,” and then turns out not to act or sound like a harridan with six-inch claws and a permanent bad attitude . . . well, people are going to believe what they see more than what they hear.
Good point, if the hypothetical reader of the WaPo story ever watches Josh Gibson.
I think that statement touches on a key problem with what passes for journalism in this day and age. Journalists seem to have swallowed the idea that there is no such thing as “truth”; there are only “stories,” and “stories” have to have two equally weighted sides in order to be “objective.” Ergo, all the “reporter” has to do is set up a premise, find two people on opposite sides of that premise, and take notes.
Unfortunately, most journalists don’t seem to realize that the very act of setting up the equation is subjective.
In the real world, the existence of a corrupt Republican officeholder does not mean that there has to also exist a corrupt Democratic officeholder. But in the world of the “objective” journalistic equation, if you talk about something bad on the right you also must talk about something bad on the left. Of course, there’s nothing “objective” about pretending that 10=2. Both are even numbers. But they are not equal.
Look at what Anne Coulter has done with a rampant screaming Ophelia Complex! Combining her with a “Bad Howard” theme though is sort of irritating. If only the two items could be wedded into something that could morph into public dislike of the “Left”. So many people are becoming dissatisfied and outraged though that WAPO may have only shown them the doorway to vent and join voices, and so what if Howard has a Messiah complex. Perhaps a Messiah is badly needed right now and perhaps more than a few people firmly believe so.
I’m glad you see a bright side.
Oh, no! Please, MT, no more Messiahs. The Right got theirs & look what happened.
Messiahs are trouble.
Fairly standard Washington Post smear-job. Most of the WaPost readers will never read Ms. O’Connor’s blog and will accept the WaPost frame she is angry, outraged, a raving leftist, & etc. etc. etc and, thus, what ever she writes can be ignored.
Currently the Republicans are conducting a propaganda campaign to reduce Independent/Moderate turn-out in the upcoming elections by saying (1) the Democrats are “just as bad” as Republicans, thus also not worthy of support, and (2) framing the progressive blog-o-sphere, among others (e.g., Gov. Dean,) as ignorable nutbars.
yep, and got to me today.
“Messiah complex” is my favorite. We should have seen it coming when Sy Hersh used the word messianic about george. Oh well, they couldn’t apply it to Hillary and had to set out a strawman enemy.
Anyway, they will use Maryscott as a stand-in for everything they want to throw at Hillary. MSOC will need our support when the smear intensifies. Howard knows the game.
These guys are so damn pitiful. No thanks for sending me to the new republic.
sorry
I don’t know anyone on the so-called “left” who is not angry, and rightly so. Anyone with a functioning, rational mind should be angry at the depredations of the Bush regimeon every level.
The dificulty for us is to develop and implement a successful strategy with which to refocus the dialogue on the things we’re angry about whenever the wingnut propaganda machine trys to divert attention from the substance of the issues by attacking the motives of the opposition and emotionalizing the debate.
If we can’t manage to stop the rightwing extremists from changing the terms of the public debate it won’t matter if we speak with the voice of rage or the voice or reason. We will simply remain ineffective.
I enthusiastically applaud MSOC’s energetic assault on the miscreants who are destroying the country and the world. I’m glad she is getting the attention she’s getting and I hope she will continue to speak out with the force and directness she is so well known for in the future.
We need the “Left” to be angry at what’s going on if the message of the “Left” is to have any credibility in the rational sphere. And we need people like MSOC to express that anger in order to remind the rest of us that anger is a legitimate response to the crimes of the Bush regime.
Unfortunately, given the proper frame, it’s generally true that any anger inspired in those who aren’t already angry will be trained away from those who most deserve it, onto a scapegoat. This is a matter of course, in terms of sociological control via media. This is what it’s for — not to give subversives an effective platform.
In any case, anger is useless — as well as damaging to the individual — until it’s transformed into energy & properly directed.
Give us anger, but also give us channels; otherwise, you’re blowing into the wind.
I agree with your broader points about anger itself having little utility unless it’s transformed and directed along a particular path, and I didn’t mean to suggest above that I thought anger in itself was a legitimate platform upon which to base a strategy for bringing about meaningful and responsible change.
But I do think that we need to accept that “radical” voices, radical expression of outrage does in fact serve an important purpose in political discourse. Such anger and outrage, (when based on facts and reality, unlike most of the rightwing manufactured outrage and bigotry, which is based on delusional thinking, ignorance and denial); such anger grounded in authenticity has the very real benefits of, 1; getting people’s attention, 2; reminding people to not be complacent in the face of egregious transgressions, and 3; providing the impetus for helping people understand that when the mechanisms for holding trangressors accountable for their crimes are broken, calm and measured discourse almost never rallies enough people to support bringing about necesasary changes.
I think a lot of my compatriots on the left are divided into 2 camps, radical and irreverent protest and outrage on the one hand, and those who insist on working through the existing system on the other. But my view is that we always need a measure of both; that any effective and aware political consciousness or movement or philosophy, if it’s going to be sustainable and pro-active going forward, must have it’s voices of alarm as well as it’s voices of measured reason.
Certainly there’s a lot of anger being expressed throughout the blogosphere, and 95% of it is pretty much “venting to the choir” so to speak. But when someone who is angry can well define and articulate the nature of what it is they’re angry about, that can be a good thing, and I think this is the case with MSOC. Whether the level of anger that comes through in her writings is damaging or liberating to her personally I can’t say, but for me her voice embodies the value of the radical component of the left I described above.
damn, you are a wise wilderness wench. tell me/us more.
Just a few thoughts:
I didn’t think WaPo painted MSOC as unhinged. They did paint her as angry and passionate. Our society is freakin afraid of emotion. That’s why the “scream” was so successfully used against Howard Dean. Please, don’t play into their hands by equating strong emotion with instability. We were made with brains and heart.
Also, anger is an emotion that our society defintely thinks “ladies” should not express.
I fully agree. The handwringers who are worried about the ‘image’ are missing the point.
Well, the Left is angry. Let’s face it – that’s true.
I thought it was a great story – a fascinating read by a an award winning journalist… about a complex woman.
About a blogger.
Not about dailykos.
Not about boomantribune.
Not about the ‘leftist Blogistan’.
No.
About Mary Scott O’Conner.
And however flawed you feel the article is – is a reflection of how flawed you feel Mary is.
There are bloggers at DK who are actually pissed off at her because she went on with the interview even though Finkel told her it was going to be about the Angry Left.
As if she should have contacted some handlers from Markos to rush in a ‘selection’ rather than focus on her.
Utterly ridiculous.
RK
So typical to over-analyze everything. MSOC is who she is. She’s interesting enough that a lot of people WILL tune her in for the first time. And her style will resonate with some, and they might stay for a while and learn some things. We need to resist trying to turn the blogworld into the way the real world works. No handlers, no style consultants. If you are interesting, people read. She is a most interesting person. That’s good for us. She’s on the right side.
The rest of it? phhhhft. Get a life.
your “get a life” comment is snide.
Those that dwell on the minutia of her article and its impact beyond the fact that it got eyeballs literally need to step back, take a few breaths, eat some lunch. Take a walk.
I’m not a snide person. Sorry you took it that way.
I just wrote something, which ended up being a lot longer than the quickie post I started out writing, about anger and the hope of Easter. I had thought that I might post it as a diary, but instead I think I would like to take a nap right now. But if anyone’s interested in reading that post, here’s the direct link to it at HEP.
I’m of two minds about the MSC Wash.Post article. Good that a leftwing blog would get coverage on the front page yet pretty pissed off at the general tone of the article.
Here’s a reporter who is a 3 time nominee for a Pulitzer Prize and other numerous awards, who makes a living with his words yet can’t seem to get past designating leftwing blogs as anger filled, rude and crude instead of opting for the more descriptive words of passionate and concerned citizens who are angry over the criminal acts of this administration.
He sets this up in the very first sentence by saying-“In the angry world of MSC….instead of going with the really more apt description probably of saying-“In the world of MSC anger at what she believes to be criminal acts by the administration fuel her passionate writing on her webblog”…or something similar to this. The same with his characterizing how she will write on her blog for that day as ‘what should she scream about today’..as if she sits around being so angry and simply wants to find something/anything to ‘scream’ about.
In a very very narrow sense this article can be construed as true. In another sense it does MSC and all leftwinger bloggers and people who post comments a serious injustice…for me once again MSM missed the fucken boat. Coming from a Pulitzer nominated wordsmith only pisses me off more.
Write a letter. Here’s the address