Al Gore, Media Whipping Boy

The Nation: The Reason For Media's Bullying Of The Former VP Is A Mystery

(The Nation)  This column was written by Eric Alterman.

---

That Al Gore's 2000 presidential candidacy was treated unconscionably by most members of the mainstream media is not really arguable by sentient beings. The very idea that a candidate like George W. Bush — extremist, incompetent, unprepared for office, addicted to cronyism and incapable of admitting even the simplest human error — could have been held by so many reporters to be a better choice for President than the two-time Vice President, Senator, Representative and environment and nuclear weapons expert, to say nothing of his central role in the Clinton Administration's successful two-term presidency, would be laughable were its consequences less tragic. And yet in that election, the media made Al Gore out to be a liar because so many reporters chose to misreport his remarks or take them out of context. To top it off, they made a joke of their maliciousness, mocking Gore for alleged mendacities that were largely the results of their carelessness and deliberate misrepresentation.

Gore has since moved on to become not only one of America's most powerful progressive voices but also, when it comes to the dangers posed by climate change, something of a secular prophet. "An Inconvenient Truth" has turned out to be perhaps the most influential political argument by a private citizen since Rachel Carson's "Silent Spring." The book version of the movie and his newest tome, "The Assault on Reason," are runaway bestsellers. Gore is a contender for this year's Nobel Peace Prize. And time has more than borne out the harsh assessments he has offered of George W. Bush over the past seven years, for which pundits like Charles Krauthammer and Joe Klein called him, literally, crazy.

And yet within the hermetically sealed confines of the American MSM, little has changed. In his new book Gore offers a complicated and depressing indictment of our present predicament, focusing on the dishonesty of our politics and the toothlessness of our tabloid-obsessed media. Resting as it does on reasoning derived from the likes of Jürgen Habermas and other philosophers, environmental scientists and even neuroscientists, the book could not help but trigger the MSM's reflexive anti-intellectualism, to say nothing of their loathing of its author.

Witness the Washington Post, whose reporters in 2000 ran with Republican Party press releases purporting to be Gore's own words. Amazingly, the paper's recent treatment of Gore has been even more nakedly hostile, sometimes bizarrely so. First out of the gate was Governing magazine editor Alan Ehrenhalt, writing in the paper's Sunday Book World, who chose not to focus his review on the work itself but instead offered up a stream of attacks on Gore's personality. Presenting no evidence, Ehrenhalt complained of Gore's "consistent ability to express fundamentally reasonable sentiments — often important ones — in ways that annoy the maximum possible number of people." Gore's movie, he said, was "smug and self-centered" — again, no evidence. True, he added that "much that he writes seems to be on the mark." Too bad it was written by an author with "an incurable habit of calling more attention to himself than to the ideas he wishes to communicate." Evidence? Zip.

Next came Post news columnist Dana Milbank. After attending a Gore speech he observed, "Even if Gore were speaking before a sellout crowd at Verizon Center, he would still be the smartest guy in the room. He reminded his listeners of this repeatedly last night," in a manner Milbank found "all too frequently, pedantic." With considerable condescension, Milbank added, "Not that you'd doubt Gore on these points, but, just in case, there are 273 endnotes," as if offering readers access to one's sourcing — as any serious nonfiction author save Bob Woodward is expected to do — is another example of what a self-satisfied smartypants we're dealing with.

Not long afterward the Post's Outlook section published yet another assault on Gore, this one by Weekly Standard editor Andrew Ferguson. Astonishingly, Ferguson began his screed by asserting, "You can't really blame Al Gore for not using footnotes in his new book.... It's a sprawling, untidy blast of indignation, and annotating it with footnotes would be like trying to slip rubber bands around a puddle of quicksilver." I say "astonishingly" because, as the annoyed Mr. Milbank pointed out in the same newspaper, the book contains 273 source notes spread across twenty pages right there in the back. So common was the anti-Gore animus that it apparently blinded everyone involved with the piece, thereby allowing Ferguson to humiliate himself as well as the newspaper with an accusation so amateurish it dissipated with a mere glance at the book.

While I have focused on the Post, it's not as if the rest of the media distinguished themselves — or diverged from their circa-2000 scripts. At ABC News, Diane Sawyer badgered Gore about his political ambitions, Jake Tapper compared the book to a Michael Moore missive and Terry Moran portrayed it as an act of vengeance. On the New York Times op-ed page David Brooks mocked Gore as a "Vulcan Utopia[n]," and Maureen Dowd focused, laserlike, on crucial features like Gore's waistline and his author photo while terming the ex-VP a "presidential flirt," a "righteous tease" and a "high-minded scold." And in a sentence that may rival Ferguson's for the Pulitzer Prize for Irresponsible Imagination in the Service of Personal Obsession — were one ever to be established — Dowd wrote that during his Diane Sawyer interview, Gore "almost seems to want to sigh and roll his eyes." Never mind, dear reader, that Al Gore neither sighed nor rolled as much as a single eyelash. To Dowd, writing in the newspaper of record, he "almost seemed to want to," and that's good enough.

So give George W. Bush credit. He may lie about counterproductive wars, destroy our reputation abroad, ignore Katrina victims, approve torture, blow up our balance of payments, ignore scientific evidence, undermine our Constitution and turn the Justice Department over to a collection of ideological hacks... At least he doesn't make Maureen Dowd think he wants to roll his eyes.

[jimmyc1955]

So - is it a given that corporate = conservative? If a corporation exists it will support only Republican and legislation only in it's interest?

[processor2]

***No*** ***mystery*** ***here***,

***The*** ***liberal*** ***media*** ***is*** ***in*** ***love*** ***with*** ***Hillary***, ***and*** ***will*** ***bully*** ***anyone*** ***that*** ***may*** ***get*** ***in*** ***her*** ***way*** ***of*** ***becoming*** ***president***.

...

***And***, ***if*** ***you*** ***think*** ***back*** ***to*** ***2000*** ***election***, ***the*** ***media*** ***was*** ***bending*** ***over*** ***backwards*** ***in*** ***Al*** ***Gore***'***s*** ***attempt*** ***to*** ***steal*** ***the*** ***election***.

...

[chicagoray40]

Where is your Pay Per Post disclosure here Mr Alterman? If you weren't paid for this pillow puffer piece yet you will be later by the Gore pr machine and that's you obvious motivation here.

So next time you write a love letter to Al Gore, the biggest fraud on the planet earth, let the readers know your in the bag off the bat please.

[xzavierbrown]

They are corporate entities with the dollar being the main driver. Americans have turned to blogs and other sources of news out of self-defense.
Posted by sesanders1 at 02:39 PM : Jul 01, 2007


**********************

Oh I am sure that New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Newsweek, The TIME, Washington Post, CBS, etc. etc..are a bunch of small mon and pop operations that are fueled with concern about the average citizen of this planet. Actually, the liberals had turned to Al Franken and Comedy Central'ish type of news source. Heard about Al Franken whinning about him not getting enough audience, its all over the opinion section.

I would give Al Gore profound respect as soon as he rolls into one of those huge CORPORATE bashes to promote Anti-Global Warming NOT on a gas guzzling limo but on a 10 speed bike..till then, I just see him as a scam artist trying to make a fast buck under the guise of philantrophy just like Bono, Goldof and the rest of those liberal motle crue

I start gnashing my teeth when I consider the role of the MSM in its treatment of Al Gore, its complicity with the neocons in getting us into Iraq, its knee-jerk coverage of the Swift boat liars against Kerry...I could go on and on. The idea that the media is liberal is antiquated...perhaps that was true during the depression, but not now. They are corporate entities with the dollar being the main driver. Americans have turned to blogs and other sources of news out of self-defense.

[tbweb]

processor2 wrote:

And, if you think back to 2000 election, the media was bending over backwards in Al Gore's attempt to steal the election.

Posted by processor2 at 08:20 AM : Jul 01, 2007

processor2,,,

Dispite all the speculation to the contrary its very possible that Pres. Bush actually won the 2000 election fair and square. The problem is, it was a very ugly win, and if Bush did win fair, every possible accusation could not be successfully defended in a way that would make the Bush win look legitimate. Perception is reality and the reality is the election looked stolen and it didn't help matters that the Presidents brother was Governor of the State that decided that election, or should I say tried to decide that election because as we all know the U.S. Supreme Court decided that election. I think the correct course of action based on all the surrounding circumstances and to make it absolutely fair would have been to have a Florida recount with Federal Marshalls manning the polling stations. If Bush was so confident he won, in a recount he would have won again, why did Bush fear a recount? LOL

[sjc_1]

Processor2 is one of the people we will have down at the work camp when the revolution comes :)

[Ed0719]

Processor2 must be one of the members of Karl Rove's posse that came up with the mantra: "Repeat a lie enough times and someone will believe it". Sorry, dude, but a lie is a lie no matter how many times you repeat it. It also indicates your level of immaturity.

The article in question is very prescient. There is no "liberal mainstream media", all of our media is CORPORATE. We see and hear only what the CORPORATE deems appropriate or in their best interest.

[processor2]

No mystery here,

The liberal media is in love with Hillary, and will bully anyone that may get in her way of becoming president.

...

And, if you think back to 2000 election, the media was bending over backwards in Al Gore's attempt to steal the election.

...

[xzavierbrown]

an advice for Eric Alterman, make sure you get a slap in the arse from Al Gore on the out. and wipe that stain off the side of your mouth

[tbweb]

The best Politicians are those who don't take their election victories for granted or go off in a different direction than what they ran on or were elected for, or even worst, abandon the voters who put them in power and start supporting special interest who can flood them with tainted money that not only has strings attached, but ropes and thick cables as well! But the thing I dislike the most is that as soon as it starts getting close to the election cycle again, the bad Politicians start to remember what they ran and were elected on and really start to get in contact with the voters and voter issues again. You can always tell the bad Politicians, they only represent the voters who put them in power 9 months after an election and 9 months before an election, all their other time is spent catering to special interest. If only the voters had a good memory and didn't get caught up in the election season drama and hype! If only the voters remembered. But on the question of Al Gore versus George Bush, the acid test is always if the election were held today, who would you vote for right now? The best Politicians are the ones you would vote for anytime, they don't play hide and seek around election year cycles, they just do their best always.

[thismachine]

it's called the gas light effect, it's what the corpo-facist controlled media uses on anyone who questions the profit motives of big business or the motives of the neocon rangers.

[BlueInWI]

The corporate military MSM industrial complex hates Al Gore because he had the best ideas that most threatened their corporate crony bosses.

They worked to destroy Clinton because he was brilliant but not born into the American Aristocracy like the Bushies. They want someone who will protect their interests. They believe in the ownersh--it society. We own everything and you get sh--it, or clean it out of our bathrooms for minimum wage (or less).

They and the media are out to destroy John Edwards this time around. Can already see it. Edwards is a wuss because he has perfect hair, while Romney is fantastic because he has perfect hair. Edwards is not liberal, but progressive and for real change that will threaten the interests of the leisure class and corporate executives whose pay raises have averaged over 20% a year these past 6 years... Watch them destroy Edwards the way they did Clinton, and Gore...

The real elites (wealthy leisure class) are giving loads of money to Hillary because deep down she is one of them... and won't rock the yacht.

[sparks224]

"Alterman seems to have forgotten the torrent of vituperation directed at George Bush by the MSM in 2000 & 2004."??
Posted by jayce1066

What are you talking about? If the Media had done its job in 2000 or in 2004, George W would have lost in a landslide.

Who would have voted for W if they knew the truth about him?

[cbs_oliver]

hmmmm gore.... jesus..... no connection seen here.
Posted by mommajomma at 02:20 PM : Jun 30, 2007


Good sneer.

FYI many Christians see a connection between Christ and regular people - like themselves - and like Al Gore - and they are disgusted to see stones thrown at them for sick pleasure.

[zorlacskates]

way to miss the point of the article, jayce. it's been 7 years since gore was in office, and you bushies are still crying about him and everything he does? my god, what are you so afraid of?

[omega39-2009]

I have this crazy theory that the Corporate owned Media has a tendency to promote the Corporate agenda.
Posted by sparks224

This became even more apparent over this past week. While the Senate prepared to push through their corporate written bill "jobs for everyone except Americans" the media ignored it and instead gave us minute by minute details of Paris Hilton and her parole after 21 grueling days in the county jail.

[jayce1066]

Alterman seems to have forgotten the torrent of vituperation directed at George Bush by the MSM in 2000 & 2004.

[sjc_1]

The media turned from being seekers of the truth to rabid corporate dogs after Reagan eliminated all provisions for public good as a price for using OUR airwaves. He opened up the flood gates for the likes of Murdoch and company.

Ronnie knew, ever since his days as Death Valley Days narrator and fronting for the likes of GE, where his bread was buttered. He made more giving a 2 hour speech in Japan than he did in 8 years at the White House.

[sparks224]

I think it's ok to let the Republicans cheat in elections (although 2000 and 2004 was a bit excessive).
Because, let's face it, without the cheating they wouldn't stand a chance.
So it's kind of like a handicap, it levels the playing field a little bit.

Of course this means they would have to quit telling everyone all that nonsense about trying to promote democracy around the world.