What Is 'Controversial' In MSM World?

[Kathianne]

Very interesting piece:

http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2012/05/12/the-msms-inverted-definition-of-controversy/



The MSM’s Inverted Definition of ‘Controversy’ To the MSM, it’s “controversial (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505267_162-57433170/romney-address-at-liberty-univ-sparks-controversy/)” that Mitt Romney delivers a commencement address as the nation’s largest evangelical university. Protestants are the nation’s largest religious group, and evangelicals are the largest group within that group (http://religions.pewforum.org/reports). Since when is it controversial for a presidential candidate to speak to such a large and mainstream group?


To the same MSM, it’s not controversial — it’s not even worth mentioning — that President Obama borrows his campaign language and imagery directly from socialism. (http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2012/05/01/blatantly-forward/) Shouldn’t the president’s obvious devotion to a failed, non-mainstream, totalitarian ideology merit some coverage?


To the MSM, it’s controversial that Mitt Romney may or may not have given a hippie a haircut 50 years ago.


But to the same MSM, it’s not controversial — it’s not even worth a follow-up report — that President Obama is using the power of the presidency to bully private citizens right now (http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2012/05/11/obama-targets-smears-private-citizen-for-donating-to-romney/).


The same media that praises Obama for “evolving,” makes controversy anytime Mitt Romney even appears to think about changing his mind on anything.


The Tea Party — controversial. Occupy, with its rapes and other crimes — darlings.
The Koch brothers — controversial. George Soros — philanthropist.


We’ll have another “controversy” next week. The MSM will turn up as it has every week since late January, to make a big to-do out of something that’s mostly disconnected to the concerns of average Americans. It’s fun to guess what that “controversy” might be.

(http://hotair.com/archives/2012/05/11/friday-predictions-which-dumb-distraction-will-obamas-campaign-use-next-week-to-avoid-talking-about-jobs/)

We’ve had a war on women. We’ve had a big national race controversy. We’ve had an attack on Romney for being a successful businessman. We’ve had gay marriage. What’s the next “controversy” that most Americans really don’t care about, but will dominate the week?


Whatever that shiny distraction turns out to be, the bottom line is, the so-called mainstream media is every bit as out of touch with mainstream America as the president they’re playing praetorian guard for.

[Trigg]

The agenda right now is for the MSM and the obama administration to talk about anything other than the economy.

They are going to spend the next 5 months trying to pull together every inane news story possible to avoid the elephant in the room. Obama can't talk about his successes, because he has none.

[Kathianne]

Hanson:

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/299655/face-things-come-victor-davis-hanson


The Face of Things to Come (http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/299655/face-things-come-victor-davis-hanson)

By Victor Davis Hanson (http://www.nationalreview.com/author/79836)


May 10, 2012 5:39 P.M. (http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/299655/face-things-come-victor-davis-hanson)

(http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/299655/face-things-come-victor-davis-hanson#comment-bar)




The campaign contour is pretty clear: The Obama reelection team will not make the case for the advantages and popularity of Obamacare, for the Chuian advantages of $4-a-gallon gas, for the dynamism of a 1.7 percent GDP growth rate, for the stimulatory effects of adding $5 trillion in new debt, or for why 8 percent unemployment does not qualify under the old rubric of a “jobless recovery.” Instead we are going to see a) mostly the spike-the-football sloganeering about Osama bin Laden and adherence to the Bush-Petraeus timetable in leaving Iraq, b) the supposed racism (Trayvon Martin–style), sexism (“war on women”) and homophobia of the Right, and c) personal attacks on Romney’s past.


But given that of almost all politicians, left and right, on the national scene, Romney is about the most squeaky clean (indeed, perhaps the squeakiest in a generation of candidates), the fare is going to be pretty paltry — mostly Mormon boilerplate and silly stuff like the Washington Post high-school bullying story that already is starting to unwind or fade.


The notable thing about these surrogate attacks is not just that they are trivial, beneath us, and distractions from a real debate over what to do about debt, joblessness, and the economy, but how quickly they are matched and trumped in equally trivial style. In the women wars, Sandra Fluke was rebutted by the unapologetic misogynist Bill Maher’s $1-million-dollar-gift to the Obama campaign; in the doggy wars, poor Seamus in his windy car-top cage was trumped by Obama’s cynophagia, and now Romney the prep-school purported hair-cutter is seen and raised in Na-na na-na na-na style with Obama the Hawaii preppie stoner, who likewise had been insensitive early in his school days, in his case by pushing a middle-school girl. In other words, the Romney support group is not, in high-minded McCain fashion, going to avoid the silly, trivial, and irrelevant, as was true in 2008. And given that Obama’s past has never really been vetted, at some point I think these Washington Post–like stories will cease, given the inevitable trump to follow. In other words, I don’t think we are going to be reading stories about anything like Romney getting a B- in math in college, or not telling us that on his released medical report that he might have had asthma, or that as a Bain CEO he didn’t publish an annual report, and for obvious reasons . . .