Politics, media and the politics of media.
Rush Limbaugh has been all over Mad Men this week, and as you might expect with a TV show about the 1960s revolution in pop culture, his ideological take was almost directly opposite to the discussion in all the recap blogs.
Naturally, Rush saw Mad Men’s depiction of the struggles of women to be fairly compensated for their work, represented by characters like Peggy and Joan, as a form of “militant feminism,” which, he says, “totally screwed up human nature.” Because the women’s refusal to be little more than sex objects “made everybody question what they naturally felt like doing,” cads like Roger and Pete could no longer chase them around the office as brazenly. These “natural behavioral roles,” Rush goes on, “were not automatically questioned and doubted and attacked until the late sixties, when this all intensified.” And as we all know, he’s been the prime victim of such attacks ever since.
But Rush’s complaints about the finale, which he feels TV critics have marched in “lockstep” to deem as “brilliant,” were even more revealing. The series ends, of course, with Don Draper chanting Om on a hilltop at Big Sur, finding a measure of peace and enlightenment at last. Then the screen filled with one of the most iconic ads ever, Coca-Cola’s 1971 “Hilltop,” in which a young, multicultural cast sing, “I’d like the buy the world a Coke…”
The inspiration that brought Don back to advertising was, in effect, the antithesis of Rush’s many shibboleths—it was racially and ethnically inclusive; it dreamt of peace and harmony; it practically cried, “One Worldism.” And young women (dressed in shapeless hippie garb, like embroidered peasant shirts) led the idealistic anthem. Visually, it was a radical statement of late ’60s hope.
But for Rush, “the so-called brilliance in the finale was gonna be way over everybody’s head” because most of the audience knows nothing “about the real-life McCann Erickson.” Both the fictional Don and the actual adman who created “Hilltop,” Bill Backer, worked for McCann. Backer got his inspiration not by Om-ing out at a peacenik retreat but by watching how people stranded at an airport cafe in Ireland bonded by drinking a river of Coke.
The key is how you understand “Hilltop.” At the time, progressives saw the well-scrubbed blissfulness of the Coke commercial as a corporation co-opting the counterculture, a perversion of idealism that, as we know now, helped to buy the world more Type 2 diabetes. “Hilltop” was the beginning of corporate manipulation of hipness, cool, and anti-corporate rebellion to move product, so much so that we don’t even notice it anymore. As Joan Walsh adds, the ad bowdlerized “the movements of the ’60s–-civil rights, environmentalism, feminism” to valorize “a company routinely criticized for labor abuses, which faced a boycott over its refusal to leave apartheid South Africa.”
Rush Limbaugh, however, sees “Hilltop” as a highpoint of lefty power. He thinks corporations should never have to suck up to hippies or liberals or “femi-Nazis,” or whatever it is he thinks women, gays, and people of color want.
Interestingly, Mad Men ’s creator, Matthew Weiner, takes neither side. Or rather, he takes Coke’s word for it. “I think it’s the best ad ever made,” Weiner told theTimes. “That ad is so much of its time, so beautiful—I don’t think it’s as villainous as the snark of today thinks it is.”
Yet, in a striking coincidence, just a half hour before the Mad Men finale ran Sunday night, Showtime’s new Happyish used the same Coca-Cola commercial to make an even snarkier point.
Happyish takes place in a present-day ad agency, where Thom Payne (Steve Coogan)—who says he’s a whore who works “for Satan”—pitches Coca-Cola on a campaign built around “radical happiness.” His partner advises the Coke reps to model their marketing on the über brand of them all, the Nazi Party. The execs eat it up. In one of the series’s many fantasy sequences (which include Payne having sex with a Keebler elf and running his car over the GEICO gecko, who tells Thom to “fuck off”), we see a look-a-like “Hilltop” ad. As the camera pulls back to reveal the film set, a chubby Hitler stomps out and screams at the warbling hippie youth to amp the feel-good. “I told you to be happy!” he shouts in a paroxysm of Führerness. (How the show gets away with all this is another story.)
While advertising arguably helps pull Don out of his own personal hell, it’s crushing Thom’s soul. In a weird coincidence, it’s doing the same thing to Rush Limbaugh right now.
Advertisers have been fleeing Rush’s radio show ever since he began viciously attacking then–law student Sandra Fluke in 2012. As advertisers have dropped Rush, so have radio stations. This week, Boston’s WRKO announced that it’s cutting Limbaugh’s talk show from its line-up. This is “the second major radio station in recent weeks to drop Limbaugh’s program,” Media Matters points out. “Limbaugh’s longtime Indianapolis affiliate WIBC severed ties with him in April. WIBC’s parent company noted that Limbaugh’s absence could actually improve its advertiser prospects.”
It’s gotten so bad that one talk-radio consultant is telling stations that “YES-YOU-CAN Sell Rush Limbaugh”—chiefly by “prospect[ing] local retailers who drink Limbaugh’s Kool-Aid” and “guy-stuff categories” like “golf and gadgets and all the other apolitical things Rush talks about.”
Right. Rush is just a golf-and-gadget guy, and Coke is just a bottle of caffeine and sugar water.
Read Next: Leslie Savan on the Verizon-Huffington Post merger
Most of the coverage of Verizon’s planned $4.4 billion acquisition of AOL—and thus of the Huffington Post and other news sites—has been almost giddy about all the moneymaking and technological possibilities. By merging with AOL, Verizon will expand by leaps and bounds into mobile video services and “programmatic ad buying,” bringing America’s largest mobile company “a new kind of energy and talent,” as one venture capitalist enthused. On its end of the pre-nup, AOL will get some much-needed cash and, still crumpled by its disastrous merger with Time-Warner in 2000, some fresh cachet.
And, whether Verizon sells HuffPost (most observers believe it will) or keeps it (AOL CEO Tim Armstrong insists, “AOL’s always going to be an owner of HuffPost”), the deal’s been deemed a win-win for Arianna Huffington. As Lloyd Grove writes, she “sold her digital media company to AOL for an eye-popping $315 million only four years ago, [and] has once again fallen into a giant tub of butter.”
But there hasn’t been nearly as much talk about what this means for the content—you know, the journalism. When a telecom giant at the center of every poli-techno controversy, from net neutrality to NSA spying, owns and is expected to invest millions in one of the world’s most-read news sites, what happens to editorial independence?
Verizon, after all, has its own dedicated page at HuffPost, much of which covers the telecom’s ongoing effort to strangle net neutrality. (Both HuffPost and AOL have been outspoken champions for keeping the web’s playing field level.) And even though the FCC has ruled in favor of the regulations for now, corporate lobbying continues. “Verizon and other major telecom companies have plans to challenge the regs,” Clark Mindock writes at Open Secrets, “But whether or not AOL changes its stance on net neutrality, the fact is that the biggest opponent of net neutrality rules is about to acquire one of the biggest proponents.… And AOL’s D.C. money presence is a drop in the bucket compared to Verizon’s.”
And how free would HuffPost be in the future to report on Verizon’s and other telecom’s involvement in government surveillance of Americans’ phone records? Or on Verizon’s support of the rightwing, Koch-backed policy-maker, the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC)? Just days before the Verizon/AOL deal was announced, HuffPost ran a post headlined: “Telecom Sleaze: ALEC and Its Communication’s Funders—AT&T, Verizon, CenturyLink, Comcast and Time Warner Cable.” I’m just guessing, but that could be the last time we see HuffPost casually refer to Verizon as “sleaze.”
Let’s say Verizon does eventually spin off HuffPost (the most likely buyer now is German conglomerate Axel Springer, according to Re/code’s Kara Swisher); the initial Verizon/AOL merger is pending regulatory approval and is many months away. In the interim, will HuffPost tread anymore lightly on Verizon-volatile issues?
For its part, Verizon says it won’t pressure AOL or its properties. A company spokesman told Open Secrets that editorial independence has been discussed and that AOL’s Armstrong is expected to “continue to manage the media properties the way he does today.”
But based on Verizon’s one foray into news, its record on censorship looks dismal. Last fall, when Verizon Wireless started the short-lived tech-news site SugarString, the new editor e-mailed potential writers that “two verboten topics” are “spying and net neutrality.”
Verizon objected to this characterization, saying, “SugarString is open to all topics that fit its mission and elevate the conversation around technology.” But, as the Daily Dot points out, “The company did not clarify the details of ‘its mission.’”
You can feel the fear of Verizon mission creep at the tech news site Engadget. It and TechCrunch are two of the more prominent AOL properties that could soon be Verizon’s. When the acquisition was announced Tuesday, Engadget editor Terrence O’Brien tweeted:
Nothing like waking up to find out you have new corporate overlords.
— Terrence O’Brien (@TerrenceOBrien) May 12, 2015
To be clear: This changes nothing editorially at @Engadget. We’ll continue to cover Verizon, net neutrality, etc… the way we always have.
— Terrence O’Brien (@TerrenceOBrien) May 12, 2015
Executive editor Christopher Trout was impassioned:
A lot of shit talking going on today. @Engadget is run by humans. Humans with integrity and ethics. Nothing’s changing as long as we’re here
— Christopher Trout (@Mr_Trout) May 12, 2015
By contrast, the response on the editorial side of HuffPost seems, at least on the surface, positively sanguine. “Way too soon to tell, but I’m not worried at all, don’t think this is a story,” one reporter there e-mailed me.
A staff writer (who, like most I contacted, asked to be quoted off the record), e-mailed that he doesn’t know enough to say “What It All Means. But I rather think that the fact that we published this story (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/12/verizon-sprint-fcc_n_7267022.html) soon after news of the deal broke speaks for itself, as does the fact that we very doggedly pursued the story of Tim Armstrong’s decision to alter AOL employee 401(K) plans.”
Why the calm? As another staffer explained to me, whether Verizon keeps or spins off HuffPost, “Either way we’re going to get a lot of money to do what we want, which is analogous to what happened when AOL bought us, only amplified: more editors, big-name hires…and the opportunity to rev the engines a little bit. If Verizon holds on to us, that can be done exponentially. I’m not talking like a corporate cheerleader, I’m just talking objectively.”
Indeed, Lloyd Grove estimates that if Verizon retains HuffPost, there could be “an infusion of a couple of hundred million dollars, which would be good because AOL couldn’t invest anything because they were basically out of cash.”
AOL CEO Armstrong is certainly bullish on HuffPost. He says his goal is to make the site “the largest single media brand in the world,” and he’s already talking about how “the deal may mean better wages and benefits for AOL employees.”
Employees is a key word. When AOL bought the Huffington Post for $315 million, Arianna Huffington didn’t pass a cent onto the thousands of freelance writers who blog for the site for free—as in unpaid, gratis, pro bono. Getting “exposure” was its own paycheck. And regardless of how any Verizon windfall is spent, it’s as unlikely that she’ll start paying bloggers as it is that the politically committed telecom will start giving its journalists 100 percent, total, no-holds-barred editorial freedom. That’s a word for nothing left to lose.
Read Next: Leslie Savan on the “invasion” of Texas
All week long we’ve been having a good laugh over Texas Governor Greg Abbott’s ordering the Texas State Guard to monitor Jade Helm 15, a military exercise planned by the Pentagon to simulate “covert military operations” in Texas and seven other Western states. The conspiracy theory on the right is that the operation is designed to “take over” Texas, which is funny because the state is actually already part of the United States. The speculation that abandoned Walmart stores are being prepped to hold gun-lovers and patriots makes it only more hilarious because, well, don’t Walmarts already do that?
We on the left can laugh all we want at the right-wing nut jobs, but don’t think for a moment that liberals are the only ones enjoying the comedy. A lot of Republicans who know better are laughing up their sleeves about the hysteria the media coverage is generating. Texas Representative Louie Gohmert feeds the alarm, warning that “patriotic Americans have reason to be concerned” about the exercise. “I have a great deal of faith and confidence in Governor Abbott,” Texas Senator Ted Cruz says, letting the fantasy fly. “You know, I understand a lot of the concerns raised by a lot of citizens about Jade Helm. It’s a question I’m getting a lot.”
But as Jon Stewart points out, these military exercises have been going on in Texas for years, and the Lone Star State has always welcomed them. Hmmm, what’s different now, he wonders, under a photo of our black president.
This is how ginning up the base works. If there’s a near-time analog, it would be the 24/7 coverage before the 2014 midterm elections about Ebola and the crazies’ theory that the feds were encouraging an epidemic in America by not quarantining anyone who set foot in West Africa. That was a bad joke, too, since, after all, nobody who had not been in West Africa or treated someone with Ebola had ever caught the disease. And the media coverage stopped on a dime when the election was over.
But, boy, did that coverage help drive racially biased voters to the polls.
Whether or not rank-and-file Texans really believe that US generals are threatening to put them under martial law, there’s a sense of pleasure in punking the national media and forcing them to discuss black helicopters. Check out this video, from the Austin American-Statesman and played this week on Hardball, that shows a US Army spokesman trying to calm fears at a town hall in Bastrop County, Texas. After the 4:30 mark, you can see a young woman smiling and hooting in delight as the spokesman tries to make his point, only to be confronted by folks shouting that they don’t believe a word he says.
The Texas takeover is like Obamacare death panels, or Sharia law coming to a court near you, or fluoride in the water supply. It doesn’t matter if the particular charge is proven to be completely false. Just getting the larger idea (don’t trust Obama’s feds, they want to un-cling you from your guns and religion) into the mainstream media is a victory. It validates the paranoia.
And just because Clive Bundy is paranoid does not mean the federal government isn’t actually out to get him. Right-wingers perceive their power waning and so proactively taunt the powers that be to expend resources and convince them they’re wrong. Many conservatives are sane enough to know that these conspiracy theories are a crock. But they see that Mitt Romney tried to win the presidency two years ago with a supermajority of white voters and lost convincingly. They want conservatives to win elections, and it is increasingly apparent that their ability to do so in national contests is diminishing rapidly. Defying or degrading the institutions that enforce the will of popular majorities is actually a logical way to delay their expression.
We’re going to have a long, hot summer of this sad joke: Jade Helm 15 lasts from July 15 through September 15. There’ll be lots of laughs, but it’s not clear who’ll get the last one.
Read Next: Leslie Savan on right wing media’s political spin of the Baltimore Riots
Bill Kristol threw out the main right-wing line on the Baltimore riots, and in his tweet you could hear a plaintive nostalgia for the days when violence in a major city meant an instant, measurable political bounce for his party:
Winning GOP message: Against anarchy & chaos, at home & abroad. Cheney-Giuliani 2016 probably too much to hope for…But if not them, who?
— Bill Kristol (@BillKristol) April 28, 2015
Who, indeed? Kristol’s dream ticket is so monstrous that anything short of it would seem moderate by comparison.
Predictably, the right-wing media are throwing blame on black people and Democrats for the riots, and as usual Fox News is leading the way. So much so that the sanest voice on Fox, Shep Smith, had to tamp down a virtual blame riot on The Five on Monday.
“I haven’t heard anything from any civil-rights leaders. Have you?” co-host Eric Bolling asked coyly. Smith said he had, and “on our air.” Then co-host Greg Gutfeld, somehow sensing that the collective guilt wasn’t being shared enough, tried to pin the violence on the protesters’ parents, to which Smith responded:
…if we want to sit here and indict the civil-rights community and indict the parents for what we’re watching right now, instead of, for now, just covering what happens and then later talk about whose fault it is, because we don’t know whose fault it is.
But acting like you know who’s to blame is second nature to true demagogues. Fox News’s resident psychologist Keith Ablow blames Obama for the riots, saying protesters are taking their cues “from a president who has given the appearance that there is every justification for any level of anger at our country because we’re such despicable people.” Former Illinois congressman Joe Walsh tweeted that the Democrats “have purposely turned blacks into uneducated government slaves.”
What conservatives are hoping for is a repeat of 1968, when the combination of riots in more than 100 cities across the country after the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. and a police riot at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago that summer helped associate the Democrats with violent civil disorder and helped Richard Nixon narrowly win the White House. Baltimore’s riots in ’68 were so bad they actually changed history—if you’ve got a long memory, you’ll recall that former Baltimore mayor and then–Maryland governor Spiro Agnew was chosen as Nixon’s vice president because of his nattering nastiness toward Maryland protesters.
That election almost half a century ago was incredibly important: Nixon’s victory ended the long era of progressive political dominance in the United States. In comparison to the media’s shock over the post-MLK violence, the often overwrought coverage in 2014 of the riots in Ferguson, Missouri—and their adjunct in blackness, the Ebola scare—seems almost sedate.
The burning buildings in Baltimore this week definitely present a challenge to Democratic candidates, most obviously to Martin O’Malley, another former mayor of Baltimore turned Maryland governor. O’Malley’s “zero tolerance” policy on crime during his time in office was, Ed Kilgore writes, “more Michael Bloomberg than Bill de Blasio”: “[O’Malley] will immediately face claims that ‘zero-tolerance’ policies he put into place as mayor contributed to the deterioration of police-community relations, thanks to a rising tide of arrests for minor offenses that ruined the employment prospects of many young black men (also a major factor in some of the 1960s ‘race riots’).”
It will be difficult to convince Democratic primary voters that O’Malley is the progressive alternative to Hillary Clinton if his record on this issue becomes well-known and poorly defended.
But Hillary, too, is threatened by her handling of Baltimore. She needs to maintain Barack Obama’s margin in the black community, while at the same time reaching out to the whites she’ll need to make up for the inevitable loss of the young progressive voters Obama attracted. Today, she addressed the Baltimore violence in a speech at Columbia University by name-checking recent victims of police brutality (Walter Scott, Tamar Rice, Eric Garner and now Freddie Gray), and saying, “Everyone in every community benefits when there is respect for the law and when everyone in every community is respected by the law.”
“We have to find our balance again.”
She used the word “balance” repeatedly, trying to position herself as “the balance candidate”—the steady fulcrum between left and right, between black grievances and white fears.
That sort of caution might seem nostalgic itself, for a time when Democratic politicians had to plead with Reagan Democrats to return to the fold. But this is not the same America as the one that went through the riots in 1968—for one thing, whites are demographically much less dominant now than they were then. As with same-sex marriage, some GOP wedge issues are close to flipping on their users.
That said, the likelihood that these riots could dull the income inequality issues that were cutting deeply by confusing them with racial tensions is great. As long as the debate is framed around the question of redistributing wealth via government policy, the Democrats were standing to gain electorally. But, if conservatives have their way, Baltimore will leave us debating how the electorate is divided racially, not economically.
Remember, the demographics are close to flipping. Probably the best response is something like Larry Wilmore’s last night on The Nightly Show. “If anything explains America,” Wilmore said over video of the riots, “it’s those pictures: oppression-riot, oppression-riot is exactly the pattern that built this country. Starting with the tax oppression that led to the tea-party riot, the party that you all seem so in love with.”
At some point using racial slurs to marginalize people is going to backfire. Among the gangs in Baltimore is one named the Black Guerrilla Family. “Hmmm,” Wilmore said, “between the Bloods, Crypts and the Black Guerrillas, which one of these gang names do you think Fox likes to say the most?” He showed a montage of Fox voices repeating the name, a good ten times.
“Fuck you, motherfuckers,” he said. “That’s rolling off your tongues a little too gleefully.”
Read Next: Leslie Savan on the increasing irrelevance of “personality coverage” in elections
“We are horrible,” a TV producer covering Hillary’s first day of campaigning, at a community college in Iowa, said after watching a version of the clip above, according to Slate. “Why do we do this?”
The usual explanation is simple competition: ratings and advertising dollars and keeping your increasingly scarce media job demand it.
There’s always been a certain amount of media fear and self-loathing on the campaign trail. From the press complaining about suffering from “Clinton fatigue”—which it acquired from obsessing over Hillary’s every pore—to Maureen Dowd’s vampire-like columns that feed on Clinton blood, the Beltway media herd has always been pretty horrible, especially to Bill and Hill (and I say this not as one of their fans).
As much as the media would like the 2016 elections to turn on Hillary’s authenticity or Jeb’s brotherly love or Marco’s youth, the 2016 presidential contest may actually depend on ideology and practical concerns.
This week a video slugged “This Tea Party Patriot May Vote For Hillary” hinted at how little personality and cultural wedge issues may matter anymore. James Webb, who runs a YouTube gun channel (Hot Lead retired), told his followers that the Democrats, and specifically Obamacare, have helped him in a very personal way.
Hello, YouTube. I’m kinda having a difficult decision…. I don’t know whether to go for a Republican or a Democrat—and I’m serious. Because I asked myself, I said, “Which party has helped me out the most in the last, I don’t know, 15 years? Twenty?” And it was the Repub-, err, Democrat Party. The Democrats….
The Republican Party, they ain’t done nothing for me, man. Nothing. So, I’m leaning toward voting for Hillary. Unless something major comes up. I don’t trust the Republicans anymore. They’re wanting to repeal the Obamacare. And, I don’t want them to do that, man, ‘cause then I’ll have to go to work again.
Sure, some commenters on Webb’s channel slam him for retiring at only 50 and call him a welfare cheat. But Obamacare has been doing exactly what the Congressional Budget Office said it would: It’s allowing people to quit jobs they stuck with only for the health benefits and to do something more fulfilling.
Even as the MSM went on a chipotle break over Hillary’s “listening tour” of Iowa, other pundits—including Krugman and Chait—turned up evidence that the polarization of the two parties had begun to tilt the field permanently to the Democrats’ advantage in presidential elections. Economic issues and the trend towards voting against the other party rather than in support of any party leadership have made personality coverage seem increasingly irrelevant.
Recent polls confirm these shifts. The job-approval numbers for Indiana Governor Mike Pence, hailed for his regular “Hoosier sensibility” when he won in 2012, have dropped almost twenty points since the Religious Freedom Restoration Act fiasco. In Wisconsin, Governor Scott Walker, the GOP presidential favorite just a month ago, has seen his job approval ratings drop sharply at home and is running 12 points behind Hillary Clinton in the state; the same Marquette University Law School poll finds that in a possible 2016 Senate rematch, former senator Russ Feingold (D) would beat current Senator Ron Johnson (R) 54 to 38.
Drawing conclusions from polls this early is itself a media horribleness, and I’m part of that. And of course analyzing the personalities of politicians can tell us a lot about their politics and character, and it’s enormous fun.
But as Clinton’s campaign takes shape, I find myself wondering whether 2016 is already baked in. When both parties were filled with a swinging mix of liberals and conservatives, you could give a pol a wedgie and bring him down. But in a Haves vs. Have-nots contest, actually accomplishing something for the most people is a real advantage.
So here’s an idea for the political paparazzi press: Take some of that energy you put into literally chasing pols and put it into investigating them on the issues that affect people’s lives.
Read Next: Leslie Savan on Fox News and the killing of Walter Scott
The video that Feidin Santana took of Michael Slager, a white North Charleston, South Carolina police officer, allegedly shooting and killing Walter Scott, a 50-year-old black man, is Fox-proof.
The three-minute-plus video shut up the inevitable police apologists who’d always find a way to blame the black guy for his own death by saying he acted in a threatening manner. But now, even Fox News folks are saying it’s right and just that Slager has been charged with murder.
“This is not Ferguson,” Andrew Napolitano said on Fox & Friends on Wednesday. “In Ferguson, there was a bona fide fight over the officer’s gun and the officer won the fight. This is [sic] two disparate cases. This is a victim running away from the police, shot in the back. This is what some people said Ferguson was, but it turned out it wasn’t.”
Dr. Ben Carson, Fox's favorite black GOP presidential candidate, called it “an execution.”
(UPDATE: You might think that the dash-cam video released last night showing the traffic stop and Scott running away would trigger a Fox instinct to reverse course and blame the victim. But, so far, that hasn’t happened. Sean Hannity said last night that Scott “was not a threat to anybody” and that it’s “irrelevant what happened leading up to” Slager shooting him. And this morning on Fox, conservative radio host Lars Larson said he still believes “the officer committed murder.”)
No, the Fox line seems to be that now that Slager is sitting in jail without bail, justice has been served, the system works. So let’s move on, folks. And, oh yeah, it’s not a race thing. Greg Gutfeld on Fox’s The Five claimed, as if channeling the “color-blind” Stephen Colbert, “I didn’t see a black man killed by a white cop. I saw a man shoot another man in the back.”
That’s funny, because the video is incredibly detailed and definitive. Arguably more definitive than the videos showing the death-by-chokehold of Eric Garner in New York, or the death of Tamir Rice, the 12-year-old boy in Cleveland shot by police for playing with what turned out to be a toy gun, or the unprovoked shooting of an unarmed man, Levar Jones, by a South Carolina state trooper, or the brutal beating of Rodney King that set off the Los Angeles riots in 1991 after the officers were acquitted. They are all shocking videos, and they led to various degrees of punishment—or not—for the police involved. But the Walter Scott video is the most overwhelmingly convincing of them all.
While it’s always possible for video to be misleading or confusing, Santana’s isn’t. We don’t have to wonder what’s not in the picture.
First of all, it’s long. It’s true, the video doesn’t show the very beginning, when Slager stops Scott for a broken tail-light and Scott reportedly runs into a nearby grassy field. That’s where Slager used a taser on Scott and claims that the motorist tried to wrestle it from him; the officer told authorities he “feared for his life.”
It’s at that point that Feidin Santana, a young man walking his regular route to his job at a barbershop, began recording the incident on his cell phone. As Scott runs away from him, Slager is seen firing at Scott’s back eight times until he falls to the ground. After cuffing Scott, who is possibly dead at this point, Slager goes back to pick up what appears to be the stun gun and drops it near Scott’s body, as if to frame Scott as a very dangerous man. (The video also appears to show that none of the police who soon arrived administered any life-saving measures.)
Secondly, the video is shot in the middle distance—not so far that people look like blurry dots, nor so close or narrowly framed that vital information is missing. (The too-close classic: footage of people tearing down a statue of Saddam Hussein in Baghdad after the American invasion. They looked like a passionate, American-welcoming mob—until later footage zoomed out to reveal they were a small group of people who needed help from an American military vehicle to actually take the statue down.)
Santana’s video is choppy and shaky, surely because he was nervous, but also because he was moving with the action. “I witnessed it with my eyes and let the video do the recording,” he said in one of his several MSNBC and NBC interviews. Toward the end of the video, Santana still more bravely walks closer to the officer and Scott’s body. Widely called a hero, Santana said that early on he considered erasing the video because he feared for his life. But after reading the police report that made it seem that Scott was the aggressor, Santana gave the video to the Scott family.
The worst thing about the video is that it surfaced by pure chance. “A gift from god,” the Scott family lawyer, Chris Stewart, told MSNBC’s Joy Reid. “A person happened to be in the right spot at the right time to see this incident, and be quick enough to pull out that phone and record it. And not only that, that probably happens all the time. Right now somebody is probably filming an incident that if they stepped forward it would help that person, but they’re going to keep driving or keep walking or say, ‘Oh, I don’t want to get involved,’ or feel threatened or scared.”
Walter Scott’s younger brother, Anthony, put it best. “I hate that it had to be a video to prove to take it to this level. Because we have fallen brothers all the time, and they just fall for different reasons in different parts of the country, and they’re just not investigated or taken to this level. And I think it should be looked in deeper.” He’s hoping for justice, he said, but “I won’t be satisfied till I hear a guilty verdict.”
Indeed, this video might be Fox-proof but it’s not foolproof. Nor are the increasing number of body cams and dashboard cams used by police departments throughout the country. They can absolutely help—North Charleston has them on order, and if Slager had been using one, it’s reasonable to wager that Scott would still be alive.
Cameras, however, whether wielded by bystanders or police (or with the help of apps that film and upload to YouTube with one push of a button), don’t get to the root of police corruption and systemic racism.
But video is now a matter of life and death, crime and punishment, and all too often it’s the only way that white people and white media will believe what black people have to say.
Read Next: Leslie Savan on Monica Lewinsky, Justine Sacco, John Oliver, and the circle of shaming
In Dave Eggers’s 2013 novel The Circle, an all-powerful Google-Twitter-Facebook-Meerkat-like conglomerate challenges a billion of its devoted users to crowd-source the capture of a fugitive child-killer, in twenty real-time minutes. From photos, the perp is quickly identified—without independent verification—as an old woman in Leeds, England.
“Are we sure we want to find this hag?” the most-liked online comment snarks. “She looks like the Scarecrow from the Wizard of Oz.” Locals track her down at her job at a laundry, and as the whole world watches live, the woman, her face “at once terrified and defiant,” is “trapped against a wall, surrounded by a dozen people, most of them holding their phones to her, aiming them at her. There was no possibility of escape.” She collapses and is hauled off by the police. The Circle found her with nine minutes and thirty-four seconds to spare.
Jump to real life and the circle remains unbroken.
The same year Eggers’s novel was published, a publicist named Justine Sacco sent out a clumsy tweet while on a flight to South Africa: “Going to Africa. Hope I don’t get AIDS. Just kidding. I’m white!” Then, as Jon Ronson recounted to Jon Stewart last week to promote his new book, So You’ve Been Publicly Shamed, all hell broke loose. While Sacco was still in flight, a global cyber-mob started passing her “disgusting racist tweet” (as one tweeter called it) around as an example of unacceptable speech. Soon, Ronson writes in a book excerpt, a tweet came in
from her employer, IAC, the corporate owner of The Daily Beast, OKCupid and Vimeo: “This is an outrageous, offensive comment. Employee in question currently unreachable on an intl flight.”
And that brought out a kind of instantaneous circling, tying the Internet’s capacity for snap judgment to a digital witch hunt:
The anger soon turned to excitement: “All I want for Christmas is to see @JustineSacco’s face when her plane lands and she checks her inbox/voicemail” and “Oh man, @JustineSacco is going to have the most painful phone-turning-on moment ever when her plane lands” and “We are about to watch this @JustineSacco bitch get fired. In REAL time. Before she even KNOWS she’s getting fired.”
A new hashtag began to trend worldwide, and someone tweeted, “is there no one in Cape Town going to the airport to tweet her arrival? Come on, Twitter! I’d like pictures #HasJustineLandedYet.”
A local user obliged, posting her photo online and writing, “Yup. @JustineSacco HAS in fact landed at Cape Town International. She’s decided to wear sunnies as a disguise.”
In the name of opposing racism, this digital mob didn’t trap Sacco against a wall, exactly. Instead, she lost her job, not to mention her sense of security and identity. Sacco was “destroyed,” Ronson told Stewart, not by monsters, but by “nice people like us.”
The kicker, Ronson says, is that her comment wasn’t racist, but was instead a poorly delivered critique of whites’ “tendency to naïvely imagine ourselves immune from life’s horrors.”
It was what Ted Cruz might consider a form of reverse racism. “To put it simply,” Sacco told Ronson, “I wasn’t trying to raise awareness of AIDS or piss off the world or ruin my life. Living in America puts us in a bit of a bubble when it comes to what is going on in the third world. I was making fun of that bubble.”
Ronson writes that he himself had once been “a keen shamer. When newspaper columnists made racist or homophobic statements, I joined the pile-on. Sometimes I led it…. As time passed, though, I watched these shame campaigns multiply, to the point that they targeted not just powerful institutions and public figures but really anyone perceived to have done something offensive.” He “began to marvel at the disconnect between the severity of the crime and the gleeful savagery of the punishment.”
For his book, Ronson interviewed “everyday people pilloried brutally, most often for posting some poorly considered joke on social media.… The people I met were mostly unemployed, fired for their transgressions, and they seemed broken somehow—deeply confused and traumatized.”
Another thing they have in common is a mediasphere that presents content without context, and apparently without the shamers pausing to ask themselves whether their rage is justified. But it wasn’t just thousands of impulsive individuals who rushed to judgment. “Respected” sites, like Buzzfeed, which followed her online trail and published “16 Tweets Justine Sacco Regrets,” played a major role in egging on the mob.
Now, we can say what happened to Sacco is just awful, that we would never do that. But when the shaming comes in the thoroughly amicable form of John Oliver, it’s still harder to see it coming.
On his show a week ago Sunday, Oliver was doing a great bit on how municipalities like Ferguson, Missouri, are “balancing their books on the backs of some of their most vulnerable citizens,” as he said. “We cannot have a system that where committing a minor violation can end up putting you in—and I’m going to use a legal term of art here—the fuck barrel.” In fact, the Declaration of Independence should include “the right to fuck up every once in a while without it completely destroying our lives.”
And yet, to illustrate his point, Oliver ran a clip of a cop giving a woman a traffic ticket. Rather than being one of society’s “most vulnerable citizens,” this woman came off as privileged and obnoxious, telling the mild-manned cop, “I know my headlights weren’t on, Yadda, yadda, yadda…. Like I totally get it, like it’s a ticket, I need to pay it, I’m late.”
The clip, from the reality show Speeders, is at least five years old. But Oliver gratuitously brought the unidentified woman’s personality right into 2015. “You just know that woman behaves that way in every situation,” he laughed, adding (shades of Justine Sacco), “She’s probably not thought about that ticket until, I’m guessing, ’round about now, when she’s getting a lot of text messages from friends saying, ‘Amber, you’re totally on HBO right now shouting at a cop!”
Actually, we don’t know how she behaves “in every situation,” and we don’t know the context back then—was she rushing to deliver medicine to orphans, or to her spa? But it shouldn’t matter anyway: Oliver put her in the fuck barrel for a minor violation. And, hey, who’s not obnoxious at times? Should we lose our right to fuck up every once in a while without it completely ruining our lives?
Like millions on social media, Oliver does a great service when he goes after the sins of the powerful and the stupidities of our system. This time, however, he forgot to punch up, not down.
Our small and everyday cruelties aren’t necessarily caused by a lack of character. Some are baked into our technology. On the Internet we can hide behind anonymity, of course, but more specifically, we’re living through what Stephen Marche calls an “epidemic of “facelessness.”
“The precondition of any trial, of any attempt to reconcile competing claims, is that the victim and the accused look each other in the face,” he writes. “Inability to see a face is, in the most direct way, inability to recognize shared humanity with another.”
And checking out faces on a series of screens doesn’t quite cut it. Without actually seeing other individuals—and them seeing us—we get our ethical cues from the faceless crowd of millions.
The solution isn’t to shame the shamers. Monica Lewinsky, who aptly describes herself as “Patient Zero of losing a personal reputation on a global scale almost instantaneously,” says try a little empathy.
“Public humiliation as a blood sport has to stop,” she said at her recent TED talk. “…Just imagine walking a mile in someone else’s headline.”
Or tweet storm.
Read Next: Leslie Savan on what it means when “Hands up, don’t shoot” doesn’t hold up
When the Department of Justice released two reports on Ferguson, Missouri, I, like many on the right and the left, pretty much ignored one and devoured the other. I minimized in my own mind the report showing that the DOJ not only didn’t have a case against Officer Darren Wilson for killing Michael Brown, but that Brown’s hands were not in the hands-up surrender position. Instead, I focused on the second report that excoriated the Ferguson police department and courts for long-held abusive, racist practices. After all, I figured, Fox and the entire right would exploit the Wilson report and ignore the one on Ferguson. It hurts to type these words, but I was like Fox.
Earlier this week, however, in a piece called “’Hands up, don’t shoot’ was built on a lie,” The Washington Post’s Jonathan Capehart essentially called out the left, and himself. It was, he says, “the hardest piece I ever had to write.”
First, he nods to the “good” report, on Ferguson:
Years of mistreatment by the police, the courts and the municipal government, including evidence that all three balanced their books on the backs of the people of Ferguson, were laid bare in 102 damning pages. The overwhelming data from DOJ provided background and much-needed context for why a small St. Louis suburb most had never heard of exploded the moment Brown was killed. His death gave voice to many who suffered in silence.
But the report on the shooting, Capehart writes, “forced me to deal with two uncomfortable truths: Brown never surrendered with his hands up, and Wilson was justified in shooting Brown.”
As Capehart recounts, Eric Holder’s DOJ found that
Although there are several individuals who have stated that Brown held his hands up in an unambiguous sign of surrender prior to Wilson shooting him dead, their accounts do not support a prosecution of Wilson. As detailed throughout this report, some of those accounts are inaccurate because they are inconsistent with the physical and forensic evidence; some of those accounts are materially inconsistent with that witness’s own prior statements with no explanation, credible [or] otherwise, as to why those accounts changed over time. Certain other witnesses who originally stated Brown had his hands up in surrender recanted their original accounts, admitting that they did not witness the shooting or parts of it, despite what they initially reported…
Capehart calls hands up a “lie” (it was sparked by Brown’s companion in the incident, Dorian Johnson), but keeps it in context.
Yet this does not diminish the importance of the real issues unearthed in Ferguson by Brown’s death. Nor does it discredit what has become the larger ‘Black Lives Matter.’ In fact, the false Ferguson narrative stuck because of concern over a distressing pattern of other police killings of unarmed African American men and boys around the time of Brown’s death.
For this, social media went off on Capehart, calling him a “house negro,” accusing of him of mere click-baiting, and worse. The headline of a Salon piece by Brittney Cooper said he’s “poisoning the race debate” and likens Capehart to Bill Cosby and his “respectability politics.”
And in a heated panel discussion on CNN, The New York Times’s Charles Blow said of the two DOJ reports, “You can’t take one and say I believe this one and I completely discard the other. Because the other one provides context for the first. If you’re truly in pursuit of honesty, the truth will never hurt you.”
It is telling that this heated discussion wasn’t on MSNBC, which, except for Joe Scarborough’s Morning Joe, had been firmly wedded to the “hands up, don’t shoot” narrative (as have most of us at The Nation). Even Capehart seems to avoid the controversy when on MSNBC. Sub-hosting on Hardball last night, he referred to the flak he got for the piece, but didn’t quite address the actual lie at the center of the flak.
Others have noticed the suddenly mum MSNBC. The Daily Howler went after Chris Hayes in particular for “trying to muddy the water” about the DOJ report. “Are we liberals really ignoring the Justice report about the shooting of Brown?” the Howler asked. “Yes we are, and so are major mainstream orgs. When we aren’t ignoring that report, we’re often miscasting what it said.”
I still gulp saying this, but, yep, the “hands up” slogan was a lie. It’s when Capehart calls Brown an “inappropriate symbol” for the movement, however, that I lean toward Cooper’s critique. “Brown doesn’t have to be a perfect victim to be deserving of a place in movement history,” she writes. “The Department of Justice would never have investigated the Ferguson Police without Brown being killed and the people rising up in protest.”
And of course the movement is larger than the question of whether Brown’s hands were up, down or fisted, whether he charged at or tried to surrender to Wilson. So when those Rams players put their hands up in solidarity with the Ferguson protesters, a gesture that so infuriated Joe Scarborough, that was no lie. The slogan “Black Lives Matter” goes to a truth, shown again and again, that millions of whites in the United States believe that black lives are expendable. Many indeed see blacks as target practice, like this gun seller at a South Dakota gun show, selling this atrocity.
But just as Michael Brown doesn’t have to be “the perfect victim” to trigger righteous protests, so Jonathan Capehart doesn’t have to write the perfect, left-pleasing piece without being called a sell-out to his race. What he did is a necessary and healthy corrective.
And, lo, similar winds are drifting in from the right. One day before Capehart’s piece came out, conservative blogger Leon Wolf wrote in RedState.com:
No conservative on earth should feel comfortable with the way the Ferguson PD has been operating for years, even according to their own documents….
Anyone who can read the actual report itself and be comfortable with the fact that citizens of an American city live under such a regime is frankly not someone who is ideologically aligned with me in any meaningful way…
Wolf is getting both trolled and applauded from his side, too.
Read Next: Leslie Savan on why the Daily News called one group of Republicans ‘traitiors’
Hands down, this is the boldest political headline of the year: under the subhead “GOPers try to sabotage Bam nuke deal” and photos of senators Mitch McConnell, Ted Cruz, Rand Paul and Tom Cotton, the New York Daily News yesterday stamped the word “TRAITORS.”
The headline is almost as bold for the mainstream media as the open letter that forty-seven Republican senators sent to Iran’s leaders, offering to explain (inaccurately, as it turns out) how under our Constitution any nuclear treaty they sign with President Obama could vanish once he leaves office. “The next president could revoke such an executive agreement with the stroke of a pen,” they wrote, “and future Congresses could modify the terms of the agreement at any time.”
The misleading missive comes as the United States is in extremely delicate negotiations that could lift sanctions on Iran in exchange for it halting its nuclear program for at least ten years. The politically middle-of-the-road Daily News abhors the deal, but it has an almost old-fashioned sense of propriety, saying in an editorial:
Regardless of President Obama’s fecklessness in negotiating a nuclear deal with Iran, 47 Republican U.S. senators engaged in treachery by sending a letter to the mullahs aimed at cutting the legs out from under America’s commander-in-chief.
The News calls the letter a “petulant, condescending stunt,” and its signatories, which include all but seven GOP senators, “an embarrassment to the Senate and to the nation.”
“TRAITORS” isn’t clever, like today’s New York Post line on Hillary Clinton, “DELETER OF THE FREE WORLD,” and it may not become iconic, like the Daily News’s own “FORD TO CITY: DROP DEAD.” But it packs into one fist of a word what much of the rest of the media have been thinking but didn’t dare say ever since House Speaker John Boehner went around Obama and invited Bibi Netanyahu to warmonger before a joint session of Congress last week.
— Dr. David Romei (@DavidRomeiPHD) March 10, 2015
— Rusty Cannon (@RustyCannon) March 10, 2015
For his part, Obama reacted coolly, saying, “It’s somewhat ironic to see some members of Congress wanting to make common cause with the hard-liners in Iran.” He left the outrage to Joe Biden, who said, “I cannot recall another instance in which senators wrote directly to advise another country—much less a longtime foreign adversary—that the president does not have the constitutional authority to reach a meaningful understanding with them.”
The goal of both the GOP and Netanyahu is to destroy any chance of negotiating with Iran, the better to one day bomb, bomb, bomb it. For the crazy right, which now officially includes the majority of GOP senators, the letter is of a piece with their attempts to repeal voting rights, the Affordable Care Act, science, the Obama presidency and reality itself. (Andy Borowitz cracked the natural joke: “Iran Offers to Mediate Talks Between Republicans and Obama.”)
To top it off, even as the signers condescend to lecture Iran on our Constitution, they get it wrong, as the Washington Post points out, and Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif gets it right, calling the letter “a propaganda ploy” with “no legal value.” From NPR:
Zarif said he was astonished by the letter, saying it suggests the U.S. lawmakers “not only do not understand international law”—a subject in which he is a professor—“but are not fully cognizant of the nuances of their own Constitution when it comes to presidential powers in the conduct of foreign policy,” according to Iran’s Foreign Ministry.
He added, “I wish to enlighten the authors that if the next administration revokes any agreement with the stroke of a pen, as they boast, it will have simply committed a blatant violation of international law.”
Almost as intriguing as the machinations involved in the nuclear deal, and those within the GOP (three signers—Paul, Marco Rubio and Lindsey Graham—are presidential hopefuls) are those at the Daily News that may have led to “TRAITORS.”
The tabloid is owned by billionaire real-estate and media mogul Mort Zuckerman, a staunch supporter of Israel, but not on the Sheldon Adelson scale. The News, which endorsed Obama in 2008, Romney in 2012 and de Blasio the next year, plays it down the middle and several notches more intelligently than its arch rival, the New York Post, owned, as is Fox News, by Rupert Murdoch. Who decided to call sitting senators “traitors”? What was Zuckerman’s input? Was it some kind of last hurrah before the Daily News is sold—possibly to Murdoch?
Just two weeks ago, Zuckerman “shocked” his staff by announcing that he might unload the paper, which he’s owned since 1993. Besides Murdoch, other potential buyers include Mike Bloomberg, “the Dolan family—of Cablevision, Madison Square Garden, and Newsday fame—and the newspaper chain-owning Newhouse clan,” Lloyd Grove writes in the Daily Beast. In the eroding newspaper industry, both NYC tabs are reportedly losing millions of dollars each year—the Post, $70 million, to the News’s $20 million. Grove transmits one of the best lines on the state of newspapering: “New York’s tabloid war, said a battle-scarred veteran, has become a pitiable spectacle of ‘two bald guys fighting over a comb.’”
But that comb has value to Murdoch: if he were to buy and then shut down his rival, he could gain circulation and ad revenue. And most important to Murdoch, he could increase his already enormous political influence in the city as well as the country.
So one day, Murdoch may disappear yet another media outlet, one of the very few in the mainstream willing to call out the Fox News Congress.
Read Next: Leslie Savan on SNL mocking ISIS, Boehner mocking his ultras and why it’s all pretty funny
Two bold, ISIS-themed commercials—one real, one fake—have hit the air this week and in their different ways reveal the depth of American hysteria.
We all know about the Saturday Night Live parody ad: against the pastel atmospherics of the Toyota spot it spoofs, Dakota Johnson plays a young woman leaving home for the first time. “You be careful, OK?” says her tearful dad (Taran Killam). “Dad it’s just ISIS,” Johnson says, and winks. “Take care of her,” Dad tells one of the black-clad fighters, who whispers, “Death to America.”
Funny? Tasteless? Helps ISIS? Hurts ISIS?
You can ask similar questions about this real ad, also starring black-clad terrorists: Tasteless? Helps congressional right-wingers? Hurts them?
Of the two ads, the one above, made by the American Action Network, a Super PAC close to Speaker John Boehner, is far more shocking, because it spews its fear-mongering and patriotic one-upmanship not at liberals, as the GOP’s been doing for years, but against fellow conservatives. As David Nir writes at Daily Kos, “To see the very same rhetoric deployed against Republicans is nothing short of stunning.”
TV spots in the $400,000 campaign are running in the home states of Tea Party–friendly Representatives Tim Huelskamp, Jim Bridenstine and Jim Jordan, and related radio spots and robocalls are targeting dozens of other reps in conservative districts. These are the brainiacs who tried to shut down the Department of Homeland Security in order to (in their own minds) force Obama to reverse his executive action on immigration.
Ultimately, Boehner caved—he allowed the House to vote, yesterday, on a clean bill to fund the DHS through September that passed with mostly Democratic support. Nancy Pelosi pushed Boehner into that corner, but so did some not-crazy Republicans, like former congressman Steve LaTourette, who (using some unfortunate imagery, considering the topic) advised Boehner: “You got to chop off a few heads…and take no prisoners. I don’t think it’s appropriate that after six members who voted against him on opening day have now been promoted to be subcommittees chairmen.”
The ads—and AAN implies there could be others that will spank unruly hardliners in the future—show Boehner finally, if temporarily, entering the arena with a one-two punch. He’s attacking his right flank (no more tears, no talk of his ouster as Speaker, for now) while simultaneously giving the finger to the left by appointing Bibi Netanyahu the new Republican president of the United States.
Actually John Boehner is really letting his freak flag fly lately. When asked earlier this week if he’d let the House vote on a clean DHS bill, Boehner replied by pursing his lips and making kissy faces.
Boehner’s been almost as nonchalant about these questions of import as the SNL ISIS skit was. But the latter’s been the source of more tsuris in media. Elisabeth Hasselbeck railed that there’s nothing “funny about ISIS”; Twitter was all over it, on both sides.
H.A. Goodman wrote at the Huffington Post and said on Lawrence O’Donnell’s show that the SNL skit could do more to defeat ISIS than any bombing campaign—that through satire, “‘terror’ will finally lose its ability to gain followers.” Not true, countered terrorism analyst Evan Kohlmann. ISIS will love this ad. It makes them look glamorous, and surely the marketing-savvy terrorists figure, like Sarah Palin, that any publicity is good publicity when Lorne Michaels is involved.
But whether or not the skit dents ISIS, it does jab at American ISIS hysteria—the belief that Sharia’s coming to get you, that your children are going jihadi, and that ISIS (like Ebola before it) is an existential threat to the American way of life. Or as Lindsey Graham says of Obama, “This president needs to rise to the occasion before we all get killed here at home.” All. (See Graham, other ISIS overreactors, and the Boehner kiss on Jon Stewart ’s show here.)
While SNL did an ISIS spoof in November, with Chris Rock, it’s brave of them to keep cranking them out.
In the end, they’re bolder than Boehner.
Read Next: Leslie Savan on what would actually get Bill O’Reilly in trouble