Will “Liberal” Media Cover Netroots Nation?

Dear Corporate Media:

Remember how you guys showed up in Nashville last February for the National Tea Party Convention at a rate of one reporter for every three Tea Partiers? For an event that drew 600 people? Yeah that was so fun!

And remember how we got daily reports from the event, nightly news coverage on cable and the major networks, and Sunday morning bobblehead panels devoted to the event? Again, all for an event that drew 600 people?

Yeah, we haven’t forgotten the barrage of news coverage for this gathering of wackos in tri-corner hats whose only message seemed to be they hated the President. So I’m sure you’re all going to descend on Las Vegas this week for Netroots Nation, right? Right?

I mean, a lot of progressives are really angry at the President right now, too. Not for being a socialist, of course, but for being not socialist enough. So it might be really fun for you guys. Nancy Pelosi will be there, and you might get to watch her booed by some DFH lefties. I smell an Emmy!

Plus, there are going to be panels on climate change, healthcare reform, social networking, gay marriage, immigration, the culture wars … you know, all the stuff you guys devote so many gallons of ink and hours and hours of airtime to. So this should be a no-brainer. Especially since the event draws around 2,000 progressives.

So, Corporate Media, If you cover this event to the same degree you covered the National Tea Party Convention, I would expect over 650 reporters to be registered. Sadly, that doesn’t appear to be the case. Still, I understand CNN’s Tarryl Clark is there. [Pardon the brain fart: Tarryl Clark is a candidate for congress, not affiliated with CNN. More coffee please.] Of course all the lefty blogs and cable folks are there. But will we get the national narrative of a “popular progressive uprising”? Don’t be silly.

I wonder how many media folks were planning to attend Judson Phillips’ July Tea Party Convention in Las Vegas, now cancelled because of the heat (not lack of interest, they swear):

Judson Phillips, the founder of Tea Party Nation, said the group will try to reschedule the convention in October. He said many activists were interested in attending, but many also said they would not be able to come in July, when Las Vegas is likely to be baking in 100-degree-plus weather. (On Tuesday, Vegas was expected to hit a high of 106 degrees. But remember, it’s a dry heat!)

Phillips would not say how many people signed up to attend the convention, to which he’d hoped to attract as many as 2,000 participants. He said it would be inaccurate to say that the convention was being canceled due to lack of interest. Among the speakers who had been booked for the event were Andrew Breitbart, Lou Dobbs, Sharron Angle, Laura Ingraham and Tom Tancredo.

Weenies. What kind of patriot wilts in a little heat? Think it didn’t get hot back in 1776?

I don’t for the life of me understand why the media is infatuated with the Tea Party but ignores liberals. If it’s an attempt to appear “not liberal,” it’s not going to work: last week I saw a car with a bumper sticker that read, “I Don’t Believe The Liberal Media.” You will never convince these folks otherwise and good riddance. One would hope in the wake of the media’s latest Andrew Breitbart fail that they’d finally learn a lesson, but let’s be real: all Andrew Bretibart’s partisan ratfucking will do is get him a slot as a CNN “special correspondent.”

Here’s what I love: the media’s endless musing over “what the Tea Party means” and “who the Tea Party is.” C’mon. I’ll tell you who the Tea Party is. It’s the same 25% who gave George W. Bush high approval ratings at the end of his failed presidency, the conservative holdouts who believe climate change is fake, abstinence-only education works, evolution is a con, Saddam’s WMDs were real, “trickle down” is a legitimate economic theory, and the only thing separating America from the Soviet Union is your insurance company’s right to deny you benefits because of your pre-existing condition. It’s the same far-right fringe we’ve always had, and attempts to dress up this pig in silk pajamas is the perfect demonstration of how thoroughly broken our national news media is.

C’mon, Corporate Media. Quit ignoring liberal voices. We’re not going away.

13 Comments

Filed under media, Netroots Nation, Tea Party

13 responses to “Will “Liberal” Media Cover Netroots Nation?

  1. >You kinda answered your own question there at the end. It's "Corporate Media", not the people's media, not national media, not independent media, it's their media and Netroots Nation, which is relatively tame politically if the truth were known, is just not something corporations want to cover. I often tell people that if the demonstration they attend is covered by the corporate media, it was because corporations funded it, and they love it. The Tea Party finds a few hundred people to show up carrying signs displaying their ignorance, they are interviewed ad nauseum. Several hundred thousand show up to protest the war or the G-20 and no interviews at all, only scenes of destructions caused by the agents provocateurs. If you get no coverage in the corporate media, you are involved in something real and important.

  2. >Where to start, where to start.How about "gathering of wackos in tri-corner hats whose only message seemed to be they hated the PresidentNice distortion of the movement — which is about limited government and not about the President.Not for being a socialist, of course, but for being not socialist enough.Glad people are starting to come out and admit that Obama is a socialist.Let me put two quotes together to make a point.first you say –"there are going to be panels on climate change, healthcare reform, social networking, gay marriage, immigration, the culture wars … you know, all the stuff you guys devote so many gallons of ink and hours and hours of airtime to,/i>Then you say ",i>I would expect over 650 reporters to be registered. Sadly, that doesn’t appear to be the case.Why should they send 650 reporters to cover something they are already devoting so many gallons of ink and hours of airtime to, eh?The media is already covering the liberal agenda….heck they are actively working to further the liberal agenda aka the JournoList.I don’t for the life of me understand why the media is infatuated with the Tea Party but ignores liberals. What are you reading where the liberals aren't covered?Are you seriously trying to claim the liberals are being ignored by the media???The media itself leans left of centerOf the 20 major media outlets studied, 18 scored left of center, with CBS' "Evening News," The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times ranking second, third and fourth most liberal behind the news pages of The Wall Street Journal.http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/Media-Bias-Is-Real-Finds-UCLA-6664.aspx

  3. >Of the 20 major media outlets studied, 18 scored left of center…What does that have to do with the fact that they descended en mass to cover a fringe movement of wackos whose only unifying message has been that they hate the president (sorry dude, but that's it. None of these assholes were protesting small government when Bush was president and you damn well know it).

  4. >Sobeale,Do you have reading comprehension issues?I said — why should they descend on a liberal convocation when the media is already covering the liberal agenda?The fact is the liberal agenda is not only being covered by the majority of the media — it is being actively pushed by the media Ever hear of the JournoList issue?unifying message has been that they hate the president (sorry dude, but that's it.Wow, didn't realize that once Sobeale pronounces something as TRUTH there was no need to provide evidence or anything.What a crock of fertilizer!!None of these assholes were protesting small government when Bush was president and you damn well know it)Wrong, wrong wrong and you darn well know it too.While the Tea Party movement wasn't as large, it actually got it start because of what Bush & Congress did. Let's not put all this on the shoulders of the Presidency — Congress passes the laws.People started realizing what was going on, started getting active during the Bush administration.It did take the prospect of someone so much further out there then other candidates to push it into the open, push it into the main stream but it started long before Obama.Slant and curse and ignore the facts all you want, doesn't change reality Sobeale.I'll ask again — what item on the liberal agenda is the media NOT covering?

  5. >I'm not the one with reading comprehension issues. You cite a survey on media and politics, already widely debunked I might add, and conclude that the "liberal media" is already covering the "liberal agenda" thus they don't need to cover a progressive conference.Yet the fact that the media descended on the comparatively minor Tea Party convention at a rate of one reporter for every three conventioneers contradicts your assertion. If the media had a liberal bias then wouldn't they have ignored the small gathering of Teanuts in Nashville, and descended en masse on the progressive conference, which draws three times as many people?

  6. >Sobeale,First, The media's liberal bias isn't based on one study. Second, no the media wouldn't ignore the Tea Party because the simple reason is they did to destroy or minimize the Tea Party Movement and they could not do that without covering the event.I'm sorry that rational thinking seems to elude you on the subject but if you try hard, you might understand the concept.Third, while there is a liberal bias in the media is debatable there is no debating the fact that the media must make a profit. Ignoring a wide spread, populous and popular movement would not achieve that goal.You keep focusing on one individual tea party event, yet there are hundreds of them happening, with hundreds of thousand of people attending. When there is that much focus on one movement, then the media covers associated events. Sorry if that concept also seems to elude you.This can be borne out by seeing what people are talking about on the internet.A google search for "Netroot Nation" generated a measly 10,300 hits while "National Tea Party Convention Nasheville" generated 557,000.Now are you going to try to claim that all 557K hits are the media talking about it ?Or is it perhaps that more people are interested in the Tea Party Movement then are interested in hearing about the same tired,trite cliches spouted at NetRoot Nation?

  7. >You keep focusing on one individual tea party event, yet there are hundreds of them happening, with hundreds of thousand of people attending.That's rich! Like this one? Oops, sorry that wasn’t it. This one? Ooops, not that one either.If it weren't for endless flogging by the right-wing Fox News you wouldn't have a movement at all. Even then, your attendance numbers have been inflated, and when busted for falsifying the size of your so-called "grassroots" movement the error is falsely attributed to ABC News by Freedomworks, the corporate shills leading these sheep to do their bidding.Hundreds of thousands? Not even in your wildest dreams. Sorry, you guys aren’t the mob. You’re just a handful of pissed off old white guys facing your own cultural irrelevance.You know who drew hundreds of thousands? The anti war rallies that the media never covered. And you frauds called us liberals "unpatriotic" and said we weren't supporting the troops because we didn't want to send them into a Treasury-robbing, budget-busting war of choice for fabricated reasons.

  8. >Sobeale, Thanks for putting Bob S in his place. And thanks for an excellent characterization of the TP… your paragraph on that was perfect.

  9. >let's look at your links Sobeale.From one of themABCNews.com reported an approximate figure of 60,000 to 70,000 protesters, From anotherThe tea party protests continued last week, as Congresswoman Michele Bachmann held an anti-health-care-reform rally on the steps of the Capitol. While she estimated that 20,000-45,000 people attended the event, the Washington Post reported it was actually more like 10,000. And let's look at Netroot NationBy the Numbers: Netroots Nation '08—AustinOfficial organizers' estimate of attendance at the Netroots Nation convention: 2,500 http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/7/22/886336/-Cheers-and-Jeers:-ThursdayTwo Year old information on the last one but it all I could find.A paltry 2,500 people. The estimate on a convention you know where people send representatives (Should I link to a dictionary so you can look up the words?) was attended by 600 people.Hundreds of thousands of people, have regardless of your cherry picked links, have attended or participated in the Tea Party Movement.Stop whining because your pet projects aren't getting the attention you feel they deserve.

  10. >Your point being ..? You're now comparing attendance at a conference to attendance at a rally …? A "paltry" 2,500 attend Netroots Nation but 600 show up for the inaugural tea bag freak show and the media descends on this at a rate of 1 reporter for 2 convention goers and the media is still unfairly liberal biased?????Sorry you aren't making sense. I'm done talking to you.

  11. >don't waste your time with morons like Bob, SoBe. he's here to disrupt, not discuss facts. he may even be paid to do so by some shadowy GOP org; they pay some trolls to disrupt when a liberal blog gets too widely read. i guess i've been in the "TV is all lies all the time" camp for so long it's hard for me to understand that anyone would believe it's ever going to change. Charles D speaks for me; expecting them to change is like expecting a wolf to become a vegetarian.what i tend to focus on these days is getting people to just turn it off, and stop subscribing to lying corporate rags like the WaPo or old grey whore. it's so much easier now to get people to read a blog, so i don't feel like i have to fight that battle anymore. but americans are truly addicted to their media stream, even good liberals can't seem to recognize the propaganda and mind control it produces all the time. the situation with Sherrod proved that to me again, far too many liberals and progressives still mistake what happens in the conservative media stream as "real." it's not, most of the time.

  12. >Drat, I missed a chance to have a nice, polite conversation about politics with an apparathole like Bob. Shucks!