Let's have a little fun today. Today we're going to take a look at a conservative hit piece in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel and we're going to dissect it. We're going to take it apart and examine it much in the same way you might examine a frog in Science class. Why do we examine frogs in science class? Why, to learn from them, of course! So it goes with this particular editorial. We're going to learn about it so we can more readily identify hit pieces in the future (and there are a LOT of hit pieces out there). This is going to be a great time.

First, read this editorial by Al Smith.

Fun, isn't it? Before we delve into things, we need to create our first rule. This is an important rule because it will distinguish Hit Pieces from other editorials.

Rule #1: Hit Pieces generally target positive groups, like environmentalism.

Next, we're going to take a look at the wording. This piece is filled with negative words, and they're all aimed at the environmentalism movement.Radicals, zealots, criminal selfishness ... all of these words have one goal in mind: to demonize environmentalism to the reader will not identify with it. The more Smith demonizes them, the less the reader is likely to say, "Hey! I'm an environmentalist!" No reader is going to say that if the environmentalists are radical zealots bent on shutting down all of our electricity, right? Well, few would, at least. But the goal, obviously, is to put the reader on Smith's side. The more he can negatiely portray the environmental movement, the more he's free to ridicule it, and the more he's free to ridicule it, the more readers will identify with his position. The environmental movement exists as "factions," and its attempts at creating awareness are little more than "spectacles" at best. You get the picture. So let's create another rule:

Rule #2: Hit Pieces rely on negative words to ensure readers do not identify with the target (in this case, environmentalism)

Now let's take a look at the imagery. The world according to Al Smith is a scary place, and the environmental movement is only making things worse. Images of empty cars and streets, the "Dark Ages," empty factories ... this piece has it all. If you're an environmentalist, says Smith, then you obviously want to destroy our very way of life. Powerful stuff, and these images are peppered throughout (and usually associated with the negative words we looked at before). Smith even goes so far as to quote a diplomat from World War I, and this is not unintentional. Smith is conjuring up powerful images without explicitly mentioning it. When we think of World War I, the words "Senseless" and "violence" have a tendency to come to mind, and it's no mistake that he's using this World War I quote. His goal is to ensure readers are relating the "senselessness" of the environmental movement with the senselessness of World War I, as well as all the violent imagery that goes along with it. Let's make another rule:

Rule #3: Hit Pieces use negative, scary and oftentimes violent imagery to demonize their target

 There is more at work here. In order to make his point more succinct, Smith attempts to group environmentalists together by suggesting NOTHING is good enough for them except complete abandonment of electricity in general. No solution works, only MORE government, MORE regulation. He also relies heavily on the old tirades of the conservatives, including the evils of government, the loss of "Freedom" and of course those pesky new light bulbs that are just too efficient. There's only one problem with this argument: the entire point of Earth Hour was to make a very specific statement:

Human beings are willing to regulate themselves.

That was the point, wasn't it? Smith even mentions this early on in his piece, that the idea was that human beings are not so indentured to technology that they can't turn out a light for an hour, the idea that human beings can make a BIG difference without government help. Sure, it would be nice if our government enforced basic environmental regulations, But under the Bush administration, that's not going to happen. They believe in market-based regulation, and while it's a noble ideal, it just isn't going to happen. As Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz says, the free market is incapable of controlling pollution, so there HAS to be government involvement.

Events like Earth Hour frighten Smith because they show him that he's in an extreme minority. While others are attempting to solve the problems facing our generation and future generation, Smith is unwilling to offer solutions himself, relying instead on attacking everyone else. He's takes solace in knowing the Irish pubs and the Chinese are on his side (as if this is truly something to be bragging about: the Chinese government also sides with the Sudanese government, right?), and attempts to demonize environmentalists much in the same way conservatives have been doing so largely since Rush Limbaugh made his debut.

All right, enough ranting. I think you get the picture. Hopefully, by carefully examining this, you'll be able to spot these pieces in the future. Learn from them. As wrong as they may be, they're a powerful method being used by the modern conservative movement and deserve attention.

 
Yours,

Ken Brosky
 

Congratulations, Wisconsin, on choosing Barack Obama. It's good to see that Hillary Clinton's recent populist rhetoric isn't sucking too many people in ...

Don't get me wrong, though. Clinton is definitely not a bad candidate, but her insistence that she's an economic populist is an entirely new thing, and it's beginning to show. No matter who wins, it'll be easy to support either candidate against John McCain. Speaking of which, why don't we take a look at some homework readings for the weekend?

John McCain's lobbyist connections -- In case you haven't noticed, there's a lot of brew-ha-ha regarding McCain's cozy connections with one very pretty lobbyist, as well as others. When even HIS aides are getting nervous, there's definitely some substance to the story. Don't be fooled by Fox News ... McCain's lobbyist connections have existed for a long, long time. Whether more evidence surfaces or not ... we'll see. Keep an open mind.

Rick Renzi (R-AZ) indicted --  Yes, he does have connections to John McCain. Muckraker has more.

"A Trade Transformation" by David Sirota -- Read about Hillary Clinton's history on NAFTA.

 Turkish Troops in Iraq -- Following Kurdish separatist rebels, and of course this is making things a little sketchy in northern Iraq.

Al-Sadr will extend his ceasefire -- Do you still honestly think the "Surge" quelled the violence in Baghdad? Or was it the fact that the leader of the largest militia in the country called for a ceasefire? He's now calling for an extension to the ceasefire, which will make the "Surge" look even more successful. By the way, for those of you who remember Bush saying there was going to be a troop drawdown, that's not happening anymore, either.
 

The Senate has now officially passed a bill for retroactive telecom immunity. Why do the telecommunication companies need immunity? Because they helped the Bush administration break the law. They broke the law by spying on the American people without a warrant. This is an impeachable offense for the president and vice president. For the telecoms, this is a clear example of corporations breaking the law and violating our Constitutional rights to privacy. This immunity was accomplished with the help of the Democratic Party, which is led by a man by the name of Harry Reid who seems to have the backbone of a one-celled organism.

Who fights for us? Apparently, the only two senators in Congress who actually care about our rights are Christ Dodd and Russ Feingold. They're the only ones who have gone out an actually attempted to stop this ridiculous deal for companies that have clearly violated the law. And where does it end? Exactly where are the other members of Congress willing to draw the line? How many laws MUST BE BROKEN BEFORE THIS CONGRESS DOES WHAT IT IS SUPPOSED TO DO? How many laws must be broken by the Bush Administration and its loyalists before something is actually done?

Retroactive immunity is an attempt to prevent President Bush from continuing using fear tactics to scare the American people, plain and simple. The problem is we are quickly becoming immune the very fear tactics that have destroyed this country over the past seven years. Congress is caving to pressure from the Bush administration because the Democrats are being led by a coward who is unable to stand up to fear mongers who are now shoving an authoritarian policy down our throats.

The FCC will not investigate because it's stacked with Bush loyalists. The telecoms refuse to comply because they know they broke the law. This should OUTRAGE you. 

Click here to watch Keith Olbermann's special comment.

Click here to visit CallCongress. Find your member of Congress and call them and tell them this is wrong. Or call Russ Feingold, and tell him to continue fighting on the side of law. 

 Here's the scariest part of the 2008 elections:

This young man could determine the Democratic presidential candidate.

That's right, Jason Rae's vote counts more than yours. In our democratic process, his vote--and the votes of other super delegates--has more sway over who gets elected than yours. It's all a part of complicated system designed by the Democratic party during the middle of the twentieth century in an attempt to make things a little more fair. The problem is, now these super delegates are the make-or-break votes in a close primary process. Barack Obama has more votes and  has won more states than Hillary, but she has more support from super delegates whose votes count more than the delegates that Obama is winning through the popular vote.

Is this fair? The worst part, in my opinion, is that a lot of super delegates have already pledge support for Hillary Clinton regardless of how the state votes. That means even in states where Barack Obama won a significant majority, there may be a handful of super delegates casting their votes for Clinton. This is not a representative democracy. What's the point in voting if there are others who carry more sway and can shift the entire election?

The governor of Maine has chosen a more democratic option: he will cast his vote for whoever wins the Maine caucuses (it ended up to be Obama). That's right--he actually plans on representing his citizens. But this isn't always the case.

For more information, read here at the Nation.

Contact your representative and tell them to vote democratically. 

 
Yours,

Ken Brosky
 

In honor of our local conservative radio hosts, I thought I would pass along this little story that I originally found on Media Matters. Read it, because I'll comment more below:

 "A DAY IN THE LIFE OF JOE REPUBLICAN"

Joe gets up at 6 a.m. and fills his coffeepot with water to prepare his morning coffee. The water is clean and good because some tree-hugging liberal fought for minimum water-quality standards. With his first swallow of water, he takes his daily medication. His medications are safe to take because some stupid commie liberal fought to ensure their safety and that they work as advertised.

All but $10 of his medications are paid for by his employer's medical plan because some liberal union workers fought their employers for paid medical insurance - now Joe gets it too.

He prepares his morning breakfast, bacon and eggs. Joe's bacon is safe to eat because some girly-man liberal fought for laws to regulate the meat packing industry.

In the morning shower, Joe reaches for his shampoo. His bottle is properly labeled with each ingredient and its amount in the total contents because some crybaby liberal fought for his right to know what he was putting on his body and how much it contained.

Joe dresses, walks outside and takes a deep breath. The air he breathes is clean because some environmentalist wacko liberal fought for the laws to stop industries from polluting our air.

He walks on the government-provided sidewalk to subway station for his government-subsidized ride to work. It saves him considerable money in parking and transportation fees because some fancy-pants liberal fought for affordable public transportation, which gives everyone the opportunity to be a contributor.

Joe begins his work day. He has a good job with excellent pay, medical benefits, retirement, paid holidays and vacation because some lazy liberal union members fought and died for these working standards. Joe's employer pays these standards because Joe's employer doesn't want his employees to call the union.

If Joe is hurt on the job or becomes unemployed, he'll get a worker compensation or unemployment check because some stupid liberal didn't think he should lose his home because of his temporary misfortune.

It is noontime and Joe needs to make a bank deposit so he can pay some bills. Joe's deposit is federally insured by the FSLIC because some godless liberal wanted to protect Joe's money from unscrupulous bankers who ruined the banking system before the Great Depression.

Joe has to pay his Fannie Mae-underwritten mortgage and his below-market federal student loan because some elitist liberal decided that Joe and the government would be better off if he was educated and earned more money over his lifetime. Joe also forgets that his in addition to his federally subsidized student loans, he attended a state funded university.

Joe is home from work. He plans to visit his father this evening at his farm home in the country. He gets in his car for the drive. His car is among the safest in the world because some America-hating liberal fought for car safety standards to go along with the tax-payer funded roads.

He arrives at his boyhood home. His was the third generation to live in the house financed by Farmers' Home Administration because bankers didn't want to make rural loans.

The house didn't have electricity until some big-government liberal stuck his nose where it didn't belong and demanded rural electrification.

He is happy to see his father, who is now retired. His father lives on Social Security and a union pension because some wine-drinking, cheese-eating liberal made sure he could take care of himself so Joe wouldn't have to.

Joe gets back in his car for the ride home, and turns on a radio talk show. The radio host keeps saying that liberals are bad and conservatives are good. He doesn't mention that the beloved Republicans have fought against every protection and benefit Joe enjoys throughout his day. Joe agrees: "We don't need those big-government liberals ruining our lives! After all, I'm a self-made man who believes everyone should take care of themselves, just like I have."
 

Obviously, it's a little one-sided. That's the point. But what interested me more were the responses by conservatives to this particular post. Some argued that, obviously, it was one-sided and typical liberal junk. Another person--much to the joy of the conservative bloggers--attempted to create a conservative-friendly version called "Joe Democrat." The problem is the story didn't work in the same way. Rather than show how Joe Democrat's life has been made better by Conservative-based "Free Market" policies, instead it's based almost entirely on myths and hearsay, the typical fodder that "Joe Republican" makes a point of using for satire. Phrases like "post-traumatic slavery disorder" and suggesting inner-city students are capable only when it comes to fitting on condoms.

Some of the arguments aren't even plausible! Besides outright inaccuracies applied to liberals that could just as easily be applied to conservative politicians, he suggest liberals are behind the classification of alcohol as a disease (they're actually called scientists, in this case). Rural electrification is considered evil in this case, since Joe Democrat's life was easier when he was "living off the land." A lot of this is based on the classic privileged white man's concept of freedom, and how much of it the big bad government takes. But how free, truly, we rural citizens when private power companies refused to provide them with electricity because it wasn't profitable? Something for another time, perhaps.

Almost all of the arguments are based on stereotypes, some proven entirely wrong, some barely credible even in this form. "Joe Democract" even manages to outright slander John Kerry's war record (Kerry served in the Navy for four years, hardly the type of behavior from a "draft dodger"). But the point is that this rebuttal offers relatively no examples of how conservative ideology has helped the average American. Because most of the time they don't. But the Republican Party can't say that, because then it would never win elections. So it relies on rallying its supporters with cries of "freedom!" and convincing regular Joe's that the government is evil.

Yours,

Ken Brosky