This is one of those situations where the only thing new I have to offer is an awesome headline. I hereby coin the term “Tapper Derangement Syndrome,” and any and all rights to it.
I talked a little yesterday about the latest Jake Tapper post to garner froth from the wingers of both latitudes. While most of the Tapper-mania comes from the left these days, the right is quick to attack him when it suits them. Both sides ought to be aware that the guy is pretty good with a zinger.This happens to me all the time. Although I make no bones about being a liberal, I am a writer first, and I often find myself at odds with people on the left. This often leads to the comical accusation that I’m a “neo-con” or worse. The impulse is borne of intellectual laziness. If you can’t argue the merits, attack the messenger.
Nowhere is this phenomenon more evident than in the case of Meghan McCain. The most common attack on her is that she’s “not really a Republican.” None of them ever address the unassailable logic of her main point: how is the party supposed to grow by narrowing it’s (already narrow) ideology? Calling Meg a Democrat (or worse) might end the argument, but it doesn’t create any new republicans.
Likewise, claiming that a reporter is “in the tank,” or a “right wing tool,” might get a laugh at your Drinking Liberally meeting, but it doesn’t change the facts reported.
That’s not to say that reporters don’t make mistakes. Sometimes, a reporter asks a question with a shaky source. I won’t point fingers, so I’ll give you an example of my own. I asked about a report that I knew was shaky, but with the purpose of debunking it. Even so, a question with shaky sourcing can give the impression that a story exists, even when it doesn’t.
Media watchdogging is the big bloodsport these days, because it’s so easy to do now. With a little help from Rush Limbaugh, Jake Tapper has been cast as the prize in this new game. I’ve just given it a name.
4 Comments
Comments RSS TrackBack Identifier URI
Daily Dose 
“None of them ever address the unassailable logic of her main point: how is the party supposed to grow by narrowing it’s (already narrow) ideology?”
Bah, I’ve actually addressed that with you before. Dem Light cannot create a bigger base for Republicans. Don’t you remember how New Coke fell flat? Why have Dem Light when you can have the real thing. You can like Meg Mac’s position on gay marriage, but don’t pretend it will broaden the parties appeal. Single issue voters are rare and those who make gay marriage their one issue will never go Republican given that other policies do not play into identity politics. We create a broader base by actually living up to the principles many Republicans only play lip service to. The best shot the Republican Party has is to provide a clear alternative to President Obama and the Democrats. If we shift left and Barack & the Dem’s remain popular nothing changes. If we shift left and Barack & the Dem’s become less popular nothing changes, because we don’t offer a clear alternative. We offer simply more of the same. If we return to a set of core principles and Barack and the Dem’s remain popular nothing changes. But if we return to a set of core principles and Barack and the Dem’s become less popular, things change and they benefit the Republican Party. It should be obvious to even the casual observer.
The Dem’s didn’t take back Congress in 2006 by moving to the center. They relied on the poor popularity of President Bush and the War in Iraq. If Republicans wish to succeed they need to focus on raising the profile of political opponents like Nancy Pelosi so that Congressional candidates can run against her. That’s their only option given that the media won’t assist them like they do them Dem’s. If you question that assistance just look at how little coverage the media is providing to Iraq and Afghanistan. Obama is getting a free ride, while Bush suffered years of around the clock negative media coverage. If that’s not bias I don’t know what is ..
I responded to you last night when you made a comment alluding to this and said that this was precisely why I followed and watched him. That was the truth.
“Media watchdogging is the big bloodsport these days, because it’s so easy to do now. With a little help from Rush Limbaugh, Jake Tapper has been cast as the prize in this new game. I’ve just given it a name.”
If that is true, I’m sorry I was so flip. Although I do tend to lean more conservative than liberal these days, I sincerely value a reporter who provides both sides of an issue and except when explicitly stated, doesn’t inject personal opinion (or omit facts to support their opinion by omission) into their reportage. They are few and far between nowadays.
Although I have followed ABC News for my generic news for years, it was really during the last election that Jake’s abilities stood out. The reporting surrounding this past election was nauseating! It saddened me to see just how severely biased all facets of media had become. I expect that kind of nonsense from the buffoons on both sides of the aisle, like Keith, Chris, Rush and Bill. But, I like to read a paper or watch a news show and not feel as if I am being brainwashed.
GMA is my morning show of choice simply because I find the personalities the easiest to take early in the morning. But, the reporting done by Diane, Robin, and George was so far OTT I found myself literally yelling at my TV screen. It didn’t go well with my tea and cereal! Jake’s reports were a breath of fresh air when they appeared there or on World News.
We need MORE print and broadcast journalists who remember what their job really should be. If I choose to seek out an openly conservative or liberal point of view on any topic, it is extemely easy to find. I am often desperately searching objectivity. It seems to me that Jake is more than capable of standing up for himself, but I would so much rather see him being praised for trying as hard as he does to tell the complete story. He certainly deserves it – even if I do disagree with him a lot! 🙂
[…] brings me to the subject of a traditional journalist who really gets this whole “blogging” thing, Jake Tapper. He realizes that it’s not enough to put a newspaper article or TV transcript into the series […]
[…] day. The MSM is going to need to follow the examples of its members who “get it,” (Jake Tapper is a notable example), or be left eating more dust. Possibly related posts: (automatically […]