It’s the 21st Century, Stupid!

When I heard about ABC’s new show, Eli Stone, I thought it sounded like an interesting premise that could be fun to watch so I tuned in for the premier the other night. But as the New York Times notes today the case that attorney Stone finds himself switching sides on is a really bad example to use when it comes to representing the underdog as justice for the average person over the large corporation. It’s so bad I couldn’t bring myself to watch the whole show because they are pushing an idea that has been disproven multiple times. The case involves a woman convinced that the mercury in the preservative of the vaccine that her son received is responsible for his autism. This idea has been researched to death and not, as happens in some cases, purely by the manufacturer. Some of the most prestigious health care organizations in the world don’t agree with this belief. In fact, as the NYT piece points out, the rate of autism has continued to increase even as vaccine manufacturers have phased out the use of mercury in childhood vaccines. But the writers and producers of the show ignored facts, ignored logic and chose to fan the flames of finger pointing that has lost any connection to reality. I just don’t know if I can reward that kind of bad taste by ever watching their show.

Via Making Light comes this interesting article from The Nation about the below the radar smear machine of the right. I’ve seen a couple of these e-mails sent to myself and other people. One question that occurs to me is to wonder what kind of person would really want something as important as the Presidency of the United States to be decided by this kind of trash. And of course there is the question of why so many people are willing to believe anything they get in their in box. I think it’s basically the fruit of the years long smearing of mainstream news by the American right wing. They know they are correct on every issue and there cannot be any compromise with any other viewpoint. Since they cannot be wrong and the mainstream news doesn’t report things that agree with them it has to be liberal bias. It obviously can’t be that they are wrong about anything. So repeat the mantra over and over again that the MSM is liberal and it lies about everything. Never let up. Lie over and over again. Then it will be believed by enough people so that when something is claimed that is blatantly false so the MSM doesn’t report on it you have a base of people who will believe your version because they know that the MSM will never report the truth.

Thus is born the credibility of dishonest e-mail chain smears. It’s very sad that so many Americans are willing to buy into this and never think to actually research the claim. Everyone should know about web sites like Snopes and how to dig through search results and dismiss blatantly biased sites. But then, of course, they’ve been conditioned to believe in the veracity of the more biased sites, haven’t they?

The constant refrain from political conservatives in this country is that the MSM, as they like to call it, is hopelessly, invariably, slanted towards liberals, liberalism and the Democrats. I’ve never believed it and Vanity Fair has a piece that is pretty devastating towards the idea that reviews how the press smeared Al Gore in 2000. They misquoted, they focused on meaningless trivia instead of the issues and had a relentless drumbeat of negativity towards Gore while being charmed by Bush’s “common folk” projection. After reading this piece would you ever believe anything by the reporters they cite?

Soon after seeing the article on the people who have left the Bush administration and their reflections I read this one from the Washington Post on how the news anchors for the major networks’ nightly news shows feel about how news coverage of Iraq has gone and how it has evolved. It makes for some interesting reading. Those who would condemn them as just representatives of the evil MSM, determined to make the President and the war look bad probably won’t learn anything because they don’t want to but anyone else should find a reminder of their humanity in the thoughts they had to have when considering travelling to Iraq for their jobs. Also, like many people, at first they were not completely against the war although they had their questions about it.

OK…so the big back and forth about Rush Limbaugh and what soldiers he said or didn’t say were phony moved to the floor of the Senate. Rush has lots of defenders like this guy at the National Ledger. He’s really upset with Senator Reid wanting to silence Rush. He praises the Republican who put forth a resolution commending Rush (This guy of course has appeared on Rush’s show.). Want to bet he was cheering on the Republicans who were just as critical if not more so of the ad placed by MoveOn and never once claiming that the Republicans wanted to silence MoveOn? The right wing blogosphere defends Rush full bore claiming that he was just talking about a specific incident where there was indeed someone who falsely claimed to have been a soldier. But I read the full transcript. That case wasn’t mentioned in Rush’s rant until much later. Initially Rush was just agreeing with the caller who said that the MSM wasn’t talking to real soldiers because they were all supportive of the war.

And in related news who do “right-of-center” bloggers admire most on the right? A completely non-scientific survey says….Rush Limbaugh and his fellow attack dogs and flame throwers. Ah, yes. Sweet reason. We all have our temper issues that sometimes the internet doesn’t help us control but the top three on this list have generated more than their share of vitriol towards their political opponents. I don’t know who I respect less, them or the ones who emulate their attitudes and accept anything they say at face value.