As far as the whole "the left vs. Obama" narrative goes, this passage from Greg Sargent is on the money (emphasis mine):
The problem here is this bizarre need to decide one way or the other whether the entire left is or isn't irrevocably dismayed with the Obama presidency and whether it has or hasn't completely given up hope on it.
This is fairly straightforward. Some liberals have concerns about this or that particular appointment or this or that particular policy statement. They're voicing those concerns. That doesn't make "the left" as a whole unhappy with Obama's entire presidency. Those same liberals are happy about other things Obama's doing, and many of them are generally optimistic. Believe it or not, people can simultaneously entertain more than one opinion about Obama's evolving administration.
The problem here is the desire that the news orgs have to tell a simplistic story about those poor, sad, delusional lefties whose silly idealism blinded them to Obama's "pragmatism" and "centrism."
Developing a one-line description of what "the left" think about the entire Obama administration is a silly enterprise lacking any investigative seriousness. It is, instead, an attempt to create a simple drama pitting two not very well fleshed out characters ("the left" and "the Obama administration") against one another. Dozens of news organizations have sought to use me as one of those characters, recycling two quotes of mine from three weeks ago as somehow representative of a vast anti-Obama uprising among foolish, idealist, hard-left bloggers.
Of course, not only is such a narrative too simplistic in its depiction of "the left," which is a vast and diverse institution, it isn't even an accurate portrayal of me. I, like "the left," think a lot of different things about "the Obama transition." Further, the Obama transition, like "the left," is a vast an ongoing process that cannot be accurately described in a single sentence. There are many constituent parts of the Obama transition, which is in the process of hiring 8,000 people. There are many internal debates within the transition, which is not a monolithic reflection of the inside of Obama's mind. There are debates inside and outside the Obama campaign. Not only is that a good thing, but those debates also tend to be over specific appointments and policies, rather than vagaries about "the left" or "pragmatism."
I don't know why so many news organizations are struggling to pay their bills these days, but I can't imagine that using people to fit into a simplistic, pre-established narrative about something that is actually complex--and very important--is helping that much. Granted, my little media outlet is far smaller and generates far less revenue than most, so perhaps I don't have the secret to media profitability. However, I think news consumers are better informed and smarter than they are often given credit for being by news producers. This belief comes from having to deal directly with many of the people who consume my website on a daily basis. If you write something that is inaccurate, then some of them will know it is inaccurate, and tell you right away, every single time you do it. Although there are exceptions, devolving into the simplistic is often the same as devolving into the inaccurate, and it might be turning off a lot of consumers who now have the ability to consume news elsewhere.
|
