Friday, August 18, 2006
# Posted 2:43 PM by Ariel David Adesnik
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, who was a member of Wal-Mart’s board when she lived in Arkansas, the corporation’s home state, returned a $5,000 campaign contribution from the company last year. Mrs. Clinton said she did so to protest Wal-Mart’s health care benefits, and she has continued to distance herself from the policies of a company she was close to when she was the first lady of Arkansas.You could defend this passage as fairly objective, but it screams "Hypocrite!"
Although 2008 is a long way off, the Hillary Clinton narrative/caricature is already in place. She is an opportunist with no firm principles. What more could conservatives ask for?
Not that I'm complaining. I think the media have basically gotten this one right. But given how often I object to the liberal slant of NYT coverage, how can I account for the fact that they got this one "right"?
First of all, political preferences aside, journalists tend to measure their collective worth by their willingness to criticize those in power. That's why the Clintons caught hell when they ran the White House. For those who have been fortunate enough to read Hillary's autobiography, it's hard not to notice how often she bashes the media.
For those of you with longer memories (or who have written doctoral dissertations on the subject), you may remember how badly journalists abused the Carter administration. Above all, the media are oppositional, even though their personal politics shape how that opposition gets expressed.
The most fertile territory for such opposition is criticism of hypocrisy. Although I don't think they do it very well, the media strive for objectivity. This makes hypocrisy a perfect target, since the standard of judgement used to identify a hypocrite is his or her own words. There is no need to rely on any external standard of judgement derived from the journalist's own principles.
In short, Hillary is in trouble. (5) opinions -- Add your opinion
Your post here is all over the map.
Hillary=politician=self serving hypocrite, and this is new because?
I'd much rather read you tearing a new one for all the public employee union beholden Donk's who deny the facts that WalMart provides products at a price the great unwashed are happy to pay, and WalMart employees are more than
satisfied with their pay/benefits/advancement opportunities.
Not some jerk-off anonymous!
"returned a $5,000 campaign contribution from the company last year. Mrs. Clinton said she did so to protest Wal-Mart’s health care benefits"
I wouldn't be suprised if this works.
Ok so what is it? The liberal media or the media that strives to be objective? The liberal media that bashes Bush or the conservative (?) media that bashed Carter? Perhaps it is the liberal/conservative, uh well um uh geez the (what is it now......., oh hell I forget what they were then) media that published all the nonsense about Clinton? Just what are you arguing here? Well I don't know what you are arguing but I think I know what the reality is, the "liberal" media is a load of crap, a myth, a fantasy served up by opportunists to serve their needs. The media is the media a seedy marketplace of sex, war, police reports, cooking recipies, opinion and just plain BS. No more liberal or conservative than than a pimp selling whores on a street corner. The media serves its marketplace. Everytime I hear "liberal media", I understand the sayer to be either a fool, or a huckster. The first too lazy or ignorant to think for themselves. The second deliberately deceiving to sell a product.
My apologies in advance, Anon 11:14, since you will be forced to judge me a huckster next time I describe the media as liberal.
My point here is that the media's behavior is far too complicated to fit a simple partisan or ideological identity.
The culture of US journalists comprises a wide array of habits and tensions that may result in behavior that benefits liberals or conservatives at a given moment.
The key to understanding journalists is to catalogue as many of those habits and tensions as possible, not to pigeonhole them as liberal or conservative.
Nor should one ever make the terrible mistake of assuming that because the outcome of journalists' behavior isn't strictly liberal or conservative, that journalists are somehow neutral or objective.
They are simply complicated.
David, we get it. You don't like Hillary.Post a Comment
But she was on the Walmart board from 1986-1992. 1992 is 14 years ago. Last year is 1 year ago, and she gave a good reason for the return.
So I don't see how this screams "Hypocrite!" If she had *kept* the money and bashed Walmart, that certainly would have been hypocrisy, but returning the $5000 isn't. Can you clue me in?'