Political scientists Tom Mann and Norm Ornstein -- celebrated and respected figures of the Washington establishment -- recently argued in an impressive op-ed, "Let's just say it: The Republicans are the problem." It seemed like the kind of piece that would spur some debate within the political establishment. That hasn't quite happened.
For Mann and Ornstein, blaming "both sides" for what ails Washington is no longer accurate, and only exacerbates the problems posed by the radicalization of today's Republican Party. "When one party moves this far from the mainstream," they argued, "it makes it nearly impossible for the political system to deal constructively with the country's challenges."
Mann and Ornstein added, "The GOP has become an insurgent outlier in American politics. It is ideologically extreme; scornful of compromise; unmoved by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition."
It's a rarely-seen thesis, which seemed likely to generate widespread discussion. But Media Matters prepared a fascinating report on the ways in which the Mann/Ornstein argument "has been largely ignored, with the top five national newspapers writing a total of zero news articles on their thesis." The report included this chart:
Media Matters
Remember, Mann and Ornstein aren't just two random political scientists with a provocative op-ed. Mann and Ornstein enjoy almost unparalleled credibility with the Beltway establishment, and are generally accepted as centrist observers, not ideologues or partisan bomb-throwers. For years, these two have been quoted constantly as objective experts.
This context matters. When Paul Krugman or Eugene Robinson says the radicalization of the Republican Party drives the dysfunction of our politics in the 21st century, they're correct, but the impact of perspective is limited. When Mann, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, and Ornstein, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, present the same argument, it carries added weight because of their reputation as non-partisan, apolitical observers.
Or at least, it's supposed to.
So, what's the problem? Why are Mann and Ornstein missing from the major Sunday shows? Where's the debate? There are competing explanations for this, though I continue to think much of this is the result of "rules" that dominate much of the establishment's discourse.
As we discussed a month ago, when it comes to the establishment discussing what ails the American system, the rules dictate that "both sides" are always to blame for everything in all instances. Even if reality clearly shows one party more responsible than the other, no one's allowed to say so -- to assign responsibility to those who deserve it is to be biased and irresponsible.
And these two violated the rules.
Worse, they chastised those who wrote the rules:
"Both sides do it" or "There is plenty of blame to go around" are the traditional refuges for an American news media intent on proving its lack of bias, while political scientists prefer generality and neutrality when discussing partisan polarization. Many self-styled bipartisan groups, in their search for common ground, propose solutions that move both sides to the center, a strategy that is simply untenable when one side is so far out of reach.
If the right or establishment types disagree, fine, but let's at least have the debate, rather than pretending the Mann/Ornstein thesis was unimportant and never published.
Leave a Comment:
Pathetic, but not surprising. The media hates it when anyone points out how @!$%#ing awful they are at their jobs.
There's another reason the media isn't picking this up. As soon as rightful blame for government dysfunction is assigned to radicalized, non-compromising conservatives, the immediate Rove-ian response will be to deflect that accusation on the "Vast Liberal Media Conspiracy".
That will be the accusation that gains traction. And that's not a battle the Media wants nor has the testicular fortitude to win.
Yes...we can't talk anything substantive...let's just talk more about Mittens and BAIN and how wonderful it is when people supress your right to SPEAK.
The fact this has been (deliberately) ignored by media editors is primae facie proof positive of false equivalence. That is, if you were actually unobservant enough to need it.
Otto Man
Naw, I think you're mistaken about what "their jobs" are; they aren't journalists in the traditional sense of professional people who try to honestly elucidate the world. Instead, they're there partly to garner eyeballs for their advertisers, but mostly to put across propaganda pleasing to the monied interests that run their world.
To citizens attempting to discover what's going on in politics, they are worse than useless. But people like that aren't the ones they work for. Their audience is their product. They peddle eyeballs, not information.
we should coin this as the "Politi-facting" of the news.
Where are the questions about Right-wingers attempting to cut legitimate, legal spending to cover up illegitimate, criminal spending ?
Hillary Clinton: This is — the great story here for anybody willing to find it and write about it and explain it is this vast right-wing conspiracy that has been conspiring against my husband since the day he announced for president.
Psst, Hillary. Matt Lauer was part of the conspiracy. Still is. And your husband isn't the only target.
it's been interesting - seeing the response to the obviousness of their article.
plus, the mass denial by the MSM of the book that tells that the GOP had decided to commit ECONOMIC TREASON against this country - THE NIGHT OF THE PRESIDENT'S INAUGURATION.
that coming out, pointing out that the President's negotiating in good faith was nothing but an exercise in utter futility...
interesting how the MSM just ignores that.
I'd love to get one of the big voices in news coverage on the spot and ask, for the record, what it would take to justify pointing the finger exclusively at one party.
The lack of coverage is unsurprising for at least two reasons: 1) the op-ed is critical of the media for failing to do their job 2) reasonable discourse and argument does not sell...no selling, no advertisers, no profits...in an industry already struggling to survive. (Print media, that is)
The lack of interest generally is because the gentlemen are essentially saying and proving what everyone already knows. If I was a famous scientist and put out an article proving that the sky is blue, would anyone pay attention? No, of course not. It's so patently obvious that there is no point in discussing it.
amen.. The infotainment industry is non-plussed with the material..
Such articles will be banned once the far right takes over. For now they just rely on their co-conspirators-the corporate owned media-to distract and confuse.
Think there's two problems here. One, the Repubs have been so successful screaming 'gotcha journalism' that journalists are afraid to ask the meaty question or expand the debate. Anyone who doesn't agree with the 'Republican of the day' and forward soft-ball questions, doesn't get that Repub on his/her show. Rachel's show is a good example as she struggles to get Repubs on her show to actually discuss issues with her. If you aren't in their court, they aren't going to come by for a visit.
The previous issue plays into the second issue: journalists need to court the newsmakers to get them to talk to them. It creates a symbiotic relationship: the newsmaker has something to say, reach out to the journalist who likes him. The journalist needs a story, reach out to the newsmaker that will talk to her. It's hard to ask the tough question when you're sitting across from your 'friend'. Especially when so many of the newsmakers and journalists are both shallow and uninformed people.
Before anybody screams at me, yes, I know I'm making a generalization here and I know that not everybody fits that bill. I find the discourse on Rachel's show and related properties quite intelligent and engaging. The 'Team Rachel' can also be apologetic and correcting when required. And, there are other news outlets I enjoy and find enlightening.
Unfortunately, you don't have to be bright to be elected or on TV. You just have to make money.
I have been saying the same things. And what is interesting is that the politicians need the media, not the other way around. The news media has the upper hand.
They would have been on the Sunday talk shows, but their spots already got given away to Mitch and Paul
Fortunately, most people do not watch the Sunday talk shows. It would be nice if those shows were meaningful in their content but they haven't been for quite a long time.
After paying $35 for a 20 word classified add that ran for 2 days in my local newspaper, I wonder if the cost of advertiseing has gone up dramatically?, causing a real drag on the economy?
I'd bet the nightlife (billiards, danceing, etc.) could become 20% of the economy if encouraged (cheaper advertising venues). Promote beer over the hard stuff and pull folks over for drunk driveing when they are swerveing, running lights, etc as proved by a cruiser camera. I read the real cause of dangerous drunken driveing is when the driver is also sleepy (a story we'll never see again).
My conservative friends send me anti-Obama e-mail lies which, when I ask them how does sending these obvious lies help your cause? They tell me that both sides lie, which is another way to call me a liar because I caught them lying. I think they are trolling with those lies to find some moron to assasinate the President.
When someone lies in a public forum, they should be prosecuted for damages in a civil court.
Google "Fox News Okay To Lie". Apparently "news" doesn't have to be based on fact.
The liberal/progressive community yawns at the blindingly obvious.
The conservative/fundamental Christian community covers their ears in the face of blasphemy.
Agreed. But not only the it's not only the media that has not read or is ignoring the report and all the other data pointing to the Republicans as the cause of the stalemate. Will someone please brief the Mayor of Newark, NJ on this issue because apparently he has not gotten the word! (Yes, I know he pulled his foot out of his mouth this morning, but when your own people are shooting at you - WRONGFULLY- it is really hard to stay on message.
Someone is surprised that "the press is free to he who owns one," and that the MSM is largely owned by right wingers, which means the otherwise-unemployables masquerading as "reporters" know which side of their corporate toast has the butter on it?
My frustration is with "independents" who decided 20 years ago that "both sides lie" and therefore don't want to hear about what the Republicans are doing this year.
Maybe 20 years ago there was some equivalency. That's long gone now. And the answer now cannot be to lie, cheat, and distort in kind, to "get down in the mud with them." The answer MUST be to expose the lies. If anyone will listen.
When The Daily Show and The Colbert Report on a comedy channel have harder hitting reporting than most MSN is pathetic. I have no idea how much they are edited but the news with the comedic sting of truth sticks with me longer than CNN or Meet the Press.
The media have abandoned all sense of responsible journalism.
He said, she said is a false equivalency narrative. Someone says B & someone counters saying no its A is not balanced reporting nor is it objective reporting. The audience left to their own devices, without context or explanation, will simply interpret rather than weigh the facts. That is irresponsible.
It is absolutely stunning that extremist GOP 2012 candidates, like Michelle Bachmann, for instance, are treated by MSN as legitimate, respectable "mainstream" candidates, but Mann & Ornstein, 2 legitimately authentic respectable Washington establishment guys, are not even given the time of day. Hell they won't even call Mitt Romney on his lies. There is no question about it responsible journalism is dead.
Without an informed citizenry democracy cannot survive. Ultimately it, too, will die.
This institution of journalism educators must set up a an entity separate from corporate hood , we already have a few independent media outlets and we can use those to expand on , but we also have to make it available to everyone some how , I remember reading The Nation Magazine and Mother Jones for the 1st time at the public library after a few years out of high school , they blew my mind and opened my eyes , and still do