dagblog - Comments for "Video: Those At The Tea Party, Drink The Koolaid"

I'm not surprised that you're

DF — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 01:52:45 +0000

I'm not surprised that you're concerned about indulging in partisanship. I've known you to be a responsible thinker and writer over the past year and a half or so.

If the intent is to inform those without the context, then they almost certainly could have and should have approached it differently. However, I saw it as a piece with a different audience in mind, namely an audience that already has the context, and not for the purpose of informing, but rather for showing how successful yet superficial the campaign of the like of Glenn Beck and FreedomWorks have been in order to persuade like-minded individuals to action.

I'll back down on the

Michael Wolraich — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 22:56:02 +0000

In reply to In what way, exactly, do you

I'll back down on the filmmaker's intentions, which you do a better job of defending than I can counter, but not about the liberal voyeurism. There is a lot of it out there on the web, not just the responses to the videos--cluck-clucking with plenty of insults about insanity and stupidity. It's very partisan and self-serving, and I believe that's a large part of what makes these videos popular. Maybe I'm projecting; I want my readers to take more from my posts--and hopefully my book--than "Republicans are dumb/crazy." I'm worried about exploiting the partisanship indulgence myself.

Your discussion with Nebton on your thread also highlights the background context that you use to judge the tea party video as an accurate characterization, in contrast with the ACORN video. You are right about that context, but I think that the videos would be better if they stood on their own by providing at least a little more of that context. Again, my position is not that the views portrayed are exceptions; it's that the video doesn't do as good a job as it might have of demonstrating that they're not exceptions.

PS The quotes weren't scare quotes. I was just quoting the language of the video.

In what way, exactly, do you

DF — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 17:31:00 +0000

In reply to Did too, many times: the

In what way, exactly, do you feel that the film-makers denigrated the people in the film? You've stated what you think the intent was, again, but you still don't say why. Just saying "more context" or "longer interviews" doesn't tell me much about what you think they could better accomplish in a video intended for YouTube, which has a limit of ten minutes.

I think we should unpack this a bit. There are three aspects to your charge here. One is "ridicule" the other is "right-wing" or "Republican" and the last is "dumb". One thing that's interesting to me is that you're the one calling them dumb and right-wing. The creators of the video never call them anything. They let the people at the event speak in their own words. They were respectful. They didn't post the video to YouTube with a title like "LOL STUPID REPUGS!!!!". If you look at their YouTube account, there's nothing at all of this sort of negativity. It's all about healthcare activism.

So, I think we can cross off ridicule from their intention in any case. Did they intend to show that Republicans are dumb? I'm not sure you can make this argument either. One of the hallmarks of Glenn Beck's 912 bamboozle is that it's supposed to be "non-partisan", as I'm sure you're aware. Now, we both probably have a healthy amount of skepticism as to whether that's really true. The polling alone would seem to run counter to this conclusion. Nevertheless, I've seen plenty of people at these events on video and at the events I've been to in person who offer at least some token criticism of the GOP and prefer to identify themselves as Americans and by their grievances rather than by party.

All of this is probably at least partially attributable to the disheveled state of the right, but at the very least we can say that this wasn't strictly a GOP event. So there's no guarantee that the people you interview in these crowds will even identify as Republican, though we both probably agree that it isn't exactly unlikely.

As for the charge of dumb, I don't see that either. These people are clearly misinformed and clearly repeating things that they have been told without examining them. If that makes them dumb, then nearly 90% of America is dumb because that's how many people believed the lie that Saddam Hussein was connected to 9/11, which was easily refutable based on the available facts.

Is it funny? Let's take the politics out of it for a moment. A man stands underneath a sign with a slogan, then claims he does not support the slogan. This is absurd. It sounds like a Monty Python sketch. Does that mean that, assuming I laugh at this premise, that I'm ridiculing him because he is a right-winger and, therefore, dumb? I don't think so. It means what I'm seeing is patently absurd, regardless of content.

There are probably people out there who do what you describe, but your accusation against the creators of this video doesn't seem to hold up to scrutiny. Nor is it reconcilable with the obvious fact that what these people were saying was identical to that of the messaging put out by organizational leadership, a point that I've repeatedly made that you have yet to address. Is C-SPAN guilty of the same voyeurism? I ask this because what I saw that day on the C-SPAN was hardly different.

Nor does it jive with the fact that what I saw in this video was not at all unlike the attendee interviews that I saw on major cable and network news programs, where the same pattern was essentially followed: interviewer asks why they're there or why they're making the statements they are, attendee says something incomphrensible, interviewer moves on because there really isn't much of a place to go when the person you're talking to is saying things that can't really be resolved against reality.

In fact, can you point out a single interview from this event that didn't go this way? I haven't seen one. Frankly, I doubt I will, precisely because the organizational leadership responsible for crafting these messages are no more illuminating on these points. This is classic propaganda. These talking points are not meant to be informative. They don't require a basis in fact. The point is not to spur rational discussion or critical thinking. The point is to get people to react emotionally precisely so that they will not examine critically what they are being told.

Lastly, I'm curious as to why you put "right-wing propaganda" in scare quotes, especially given your interest in the subject and in Glenn Beck's influence in particular. Do you not see this as propaganda at work?

Did too, many times: the

Michael Wolraich — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 23:37:03 +0000

In reply to Well, you're welcome to your

Did too, many times: the intention was to ridicule stupid, crazy rightwingers.

I also offered my suggestions for improvements: showing longer conversations (and I complimented the filmmaker on what I thought was the best part) and more context, such as clips from right-wing leaders and commentators.

But I will clarify. I do agree that one the intentions was to counter the "right-wing propaganda," but I feel that the filmmaker exploited a temptation among liberal audiences to denigrate right-wing Republicans for the sake of partisan self-indulgence. That's the part that bugs me.

Well, you're welcome to your

DF — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 23:05:00 +0000

In reply to I agree with you on

Well, you're welcome to your interpretation, but it seems to me that you're projecting it on the creators. They conclude the video with this statement:

All that stands in the way of universal health care in America are the greed of the medical-industrial complex, the lies of the right-wing propaganda machine, and the gullibility of voters who believe the lies.

Let's not let volume beat reason.

That seems much more in accordance with my interpretation than it does with yours. You may have reasons to believe that they had less noble intentions, but you haven't given them, nor have you explained the way that they failed or what you think they should have done differently.

I agree with you on

Michael Wolraich — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 22:15:02 +0000

In reply to I think you're missing the

I agree with you on everything except the point of the video. I do think that one of its purposes is to laugh at dumb Republicans. If the primary purpose were to highlight the success of the misinformation campaign, I think that the video could been done differently and more effectively.

I think you're missing the

DF — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 21:43:00 +0000

In reply to it simply defies common sense

I think you're missing the point of the clip. The context is generally understood by the intended audience. The point is not merely to laugh. The point is to illustrate how successful the misinformation campaign is. The marvel isn't that these people seem dumb. It's that they're out in the world making statements that they can't even explain when given the opportunity, statements that are all on a list of talking points that are likewise parroted by the organizational leadership.

As I've stated several times at this point, what is germane is that the things that they are saying are identical to the sanctioned message of the day. These are not crazies in a crowd. They are a crowd of crazies. It would be as difficult to find a sane person in this crowd as it would be to find your proverbial wingnuts in any other.

"There have always been

Michael Wolraich — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 20:43:02 +0000

In reply to I'll admit, we have no way of

"There have always been conspiracy theories, but what's strange is seeing conspiracy theories that are spread top-down rather than bottom-up."

Great point, Doctor. That's part of what I've been trying to get at. I guess that you saw that pattern in the video itself. I didn't so much, so I wish that the video had been more explicit in presenting this information.

What about the Jay Leno

Larry Jankens — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 20:40:35 +0000

In reply to it simply defies common sense

What about the Jay Leno schtick where he goes around town asking people questions and broadcasts the stupidest responses? Are people in LA really that stupid?

I don't think we can view this edited video as an overall indictment of the opinions of the right, rather its an indictment of blind sheep who believe what ever they are told it doesn't matter if they are right or left.

it simply defies common sense

Michael Wolraich — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 20:37:00 +0000

In reply to I've considered this. If

it simply defies common sense and evidence that somewhere in this crowd lurked a silent majority of reasonable people

The point is that these may be the dumbest, craziest people at the event--we don't know. We can make the claim with some justification that most other people at the event are crazy too only because we know the context of the paranoia promoted by Glenn Beck and co. The video does not present that context. You don't need a book or full length documentary, you just need to offer a little background and a little more than one-line clips from the subjects.

Such context would not only support the implied critique, it would provide more information to the audience and get beyond the "ha ha, look at the dumb, crazy people."