"If all you do is intimidate and punish and claim you'll get even relentlessly, people of all kinds of politicians -- and in all fairness, the press -- human reaction to intimidation is screw you. That's the human reaction."
http://www.huffingtonpost.c
om/2008/02/15/matthews-call
s-clinton-pr_n_86812.htmlActually, that's not really off the mark if you are talking about ordinary human behavior. What makes it so stupid is that Matthews applied it to the press. Where has Tweety been since the late 1960's, when the GOP raised press intimidation to an art form?
When Spiro Agnew campaigned in 1968 by beating up the press, it was a fair debate that the media had a liberal slant. But after decades of GOP drumbeatting, some people still believe it, even though it is absolutley no longer true.
Press intimidation paid off handsomely for the GOP. Media watchdogs became right-wing lapdogs. Like Pavlov's pooch drooling at the sound of a bell, the press reacted on instinct at the hint of bias. If a Republican shouted "liberal media", the press would stop dry-humping his leg and slink quivering into a corner.
Look at the press treatment of Al Gore and John Kerry. Lies spread about Gore eight years ago still get repeated as if true, when they can be easily debunked. And who can forget the swiftboating of John Kerry, by Republican thugs whose fictional claims of first-hand knowledge received a fraction of the coverage give their malicious smear of a war hero's record. In contrast, Bush's persistent lies in both campaigns, his drug use, favortism given to evade the draft, and his subsequent dereliction of duty in a time of war, were stories limited primarily to Air America and the liberal blogs, with rare mention in the corporate media.
So, if Clinton decides to kneecap Matthews, who can blame her? He and his colleagues have proven that nothing else works. My only complaint is that she should have started in 1992, and that other Democrats have not yet learned to fight back.
posted by Dogger 
