Turns out the New York Times is worried about the future of the Republican Party. So concerned, in fact, it has dedicated more than 6,000 words in this week’s magazine to explore, as the title puts it, “Can The Republicans Be Saved From Obsolescence?” Indeed, the folks at The Times seem extremely concerned that which they hate might not survive. And by “concerned” I mean they’re hoping.
That The Times would seek to harm Republicans, and more specifically conservatives, is about as shocking as Piers Morgan doing a special episode on the need for gun control. But that so many, or even any, conservatives would happily participate in perpetrating this harm for the benefit and profit of that company is something I simply don’t understand.
News stories and profiles I understand participating in; like it or not The Times still can drive a news cycle. But this was neither. This was an opportunity to make the ideology look adrift, rudderless in a sea of outdated gray flannel suits and bowties. This was the media creating a story, not news.
The media drools over conservative infighting and too many of the conservatives described favorably in those 6,000-plus words were all too happy to volunteer to feed that fetish. Attacks on Karl Rove, however justified, and Rush Limbaugh are not made to advance the conservative cause; they’re made to hurt it. They’ll get you ink, but what price notoriety?
Even if you disagree with everything Rush says, the question isn’t asked to get your opinion; it’s done to further a meme. “Conservatives in disarray” is a story most “journalists” already have in their saved file waiting for a money quote or two to plug in and print.
Why are Republicans always asked about things other Republicans have said? It’s the same reason Democrats are rarely asked about things other Democrats, and in many cases those Democrats themselves, say - bias. Republicans and conservatives are held to account for the words of anyone who has self-declared membership in that party or claims kinship with that ideology, Democrats aren’t held responsible for the things they themselves say.
When Todd Akin made his incredibly stupid comment about a woman’s body being able to magically avoid becoming pregnant as a result of rape, Akin was rightly called out by the media. But so was everyone with an (R) after their name. Candidates across the country, many of whom had never heard of, let alone met Todd Akin, were painted as women-hating monsters, foot soldiers in the made up “War on Women.”
Hypocrisy Alert: That Time Sen. Clinton Said The Bush Administration Might Have ‘Something To Hide’ By Refusing To Turn Over Documents | Matt Vespa