The Lincoln Plawg - the blog with footnotes

Politics and law from a British perspective (hence Politics LAW BloG): ''People who like this sort of thing...'' as the Great Man said

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?
Thursday, June 23, 2005
 

Another media double-standard! Yeah, really...


A day or two back, lefties were all of a doo-dah about that gosh-darn Dana Milbank of the Post taking the piss out of John Conyers' confab on the Downing Street Memo(s) (June 19).

Now, it happens that the public-spirited citizens at Crooks and Liars post a clip of Jon Stewart (who's the new Walter Cronkite, of course) ripping Bush and his British poodle on the DSM. Thus far, par for the course.

Except the kicker, as it were, to Stewart's piece is a segment on - the Conyers' confab. As he shows it (it's edited - duh!), it was pretty much Amateur Hour. It looked like those meetings of the British Labour Party Conference in the 1970s: no concessions made to TV or TV viewers, no style, rambling, horrible.

How Conyers ever expected to make an impact with that shambles, I don't know. (Of course, that may have been The Daily Show tricksy editing. They do that. But, in this case, my hunch is that it was bad before they started.)

Funny thing: Conyers (June 19 piece above) went off the deep end at the Post about Milbank's piss-take. His dudgeon was of the highest. As was that of a goodly section of lefty bloggers, so far as I could tell.

But, with Stewart and his piss-take? Cue FX of crickets. Nada. Complete radio silence. (Or, at least, nothing like the pasting that Milbank's piece got.) It's as if, if the Post does a thing, then it's reprehensible. But if Stewart does that same thing - not so much.

Quick question: poll any key demo you like for name recognition of Stewart and Milbank. Can you think of any of which more would identify Milbank than Stewart? Even if that demo was subscribers to the Post! And, also, how many watched the TDS segment and how many read Milbank's column on the Conyers' meeting. Multiple of the former over the latter: ten times? Twenty times?

(Happy to be proved wrong. Wouldn't be the first time...)

Besides, don't lefties think Stewart is our guy! (Which they've never thought about Milbank, surely.) So, mustn't the betrayal by Stewart be all the bitterer?

Or are they just suck-ups?


|
free website counter Weblog Commenting and Trackback by HaloScan.com