by Jerome du Bois
Last night Barack Obama supporters once again disrupted Milt Rosenberg's radio show, just as they had done a few weeks ago with Rosenberg's guest Stanley Kurtz. (I wrote about that here.) This time their target was David Freddoso, author of The Case Against Barack Obama. And once again, the campaign used the same tactics and even some of the same language to mobilize those supporters.
As quoted by the Campaign Spot on National Review Online:
. . . WGN apparently thinks this card-carrying member of the right-wing smear machine needs a bigger platform for his lies and smears about Barack Obama — on the public airwaves. . . .
Tell WGN that by providing Freddoso with airtime, they are legitimizing baseless attacks from a smear merchant and lowering the standards of political discourse.
The names change, but the plug-in phrases remain the same --and boringly repetitious, too. Three "smears" in two sentences.
And once again, it worked. From a post by Ed Lasky at The American Thinker:
I listened last night. One of the callers who identified herself as a college journalism (!) student criticized Freddoso. All she did was read off the alert the Obama campaign sent out to its list members. She only admitted this fact when Rosenberg asked her if she was doing so. In other words . . . she was just following orders.
I don't know this woman, obviously, but she sounds familiar. I'm not surprised she is a college student. We've been dealing with the same one-dimensionality for five years, mostly from other products of our debased educational establishments. They do not think for themselves; they've allowed themselves to be dissuaded from self-reflection. Their have shrunken their minds from capacious rooms to paper-thin planes. Like Skinner-trained pidgeons, they react to stimuli, and then they're done.
For example, in late April a Seattle art critic saw that our blog links to "the colored football site," and concluded that we are consumed by hatred. That was all she needed.
She also mentioned our "right-wing tirades." More misguided shorthand. I'm neither right nor left. I'm for freedom and individual rights. I'm for the self-reflective person, the examined life. I'm for this country, the foremost exemplar of those ideas.
The right wing, like the left wing, too easily extends into caricature, and then we end up with narcissistic blowhards like Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly. Neither of these two men is interested in getting to the heart of any matter. All they want is material for the next show. For example, in his recent interview with Barack Obama, O'Reilly could have enlightened his viewers about Obama's relationship with Bill Ayers with three simple questions:
When did you first meet William Ayers?
Who introduced you two?
What was the purpose of the meeting?
Then we'd be farther down the road to truth. But neither Hannity nor O'Reilly (nor Alan Colmes) will risk that, because if they did they would burn their access to further interviews.
Way back at the beginning of our blogging, one of our first emails came from Scott Sanders, of the now-defunct Paper Heart Gallery on Grand Avenue. He didn't want to address the subject of our posting, which was the shallowness of the thinking of local artists, as reflected in their public statements. Instead, he asked if there was a photograph of me out there on the internet. That's all. Why? I have no idea, but I'll guess it was so he could do to me what Jill Greenberg just did to John McCain.
Most of our correspondents emerge from the same frame. They either redefine the subject into something familiar to them, and then go on in that irrelevant vein; or they skip that part and just smear us. They're not interested in elevating, or even pursuing, the cultural discourse; they just want it to stop. They want us all to get lowbrow, lowrider, and lowdown.
No way.Posted by Jerome at September 16, 2008 04:45 PM | TrackBack