Attack Poodles and Other Media Mutants by James Wolcott (2004)During her days as a student at Cornell University, Ann Coulter edited the campus conservative newspaper,
The Cornell Review. When I arrived at Cornell, Coulter was long gone, but the Review upheld Coulter's legacy as a source of inflammatory, race-baiting, dishonest and divisive stories. Progressive and liberal ideas were not only ridiculed and opposed, they were framed as immoral, illegal, treasonous, un-patriotic, racist, anti-semitic and un-christian. Now if any of this sounds similar to how liberals are described by today's right wing media - it's not by coincidence; then as now, the script comes from the same sources.
At the time, however, my friends and I had no idea of the amount of financial and intellectual firepower that was propelling the Review. The Review, versions of which existed (and still do) at many colleges across the nation, wasn't the product of a few budding campus republicans; the Review was part of a nationwide project by conservative elites who provided funding, talking points, technical assistance, and access to conservative media stars. Writers for the Review didn't have to come up with the inflammatory articles they infected the campus with, they were given article topics and talking points that had been poll-tested and researched by professionals to have the broadest impact. In many ways, those of us interested in progressive ideas and politics were terribly naive; we thought we knew what and who we were fighting, we didn't. The conservative movement was far more sophisticated, better funded and organized than we could have imagined.
Like the Review of my college days, the mainstream conservative media of today and the type of discourse it promotes is not merely an organic response to liberalism - the kind you would expect from a diverse nation like ours. Instead, the ascendancy of today's conservative media is the direct result of the decades old campaign by conservative think-tanks and politicians, who, after first hand real-world testing on college campuses and in other forums, know that by positioning issues in stark divisive language, by agitating and dividing, by framing in the most offensive possible manner, public opinion can be manipulated away from facts and toward the right's interpretation of American and Christian values. The goal has always been to use the media to regain control of a society progressing toward theological independence, equitable and compassionate social policy, and tolerance.
The foregoing provides context for why I'm a big fan of James Wolcott and this book. Wolcott is a writer and media critic whose acidic tongue and razor sharp mind lifts the curtain on the agenda behind the right wing noise machine. He targets the right wing in general, and it's media stars in particular - the Attack Poodles - but some non-conservative media assholes also get dealt with.
Chapter by chapter, Wolcott dissects, grills, and flambés (oh shit, a French word, how
predictable of me) the right's media stars from ratings heavy weights like Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh, to blog stars like Rich Lowry and Andrew Sullivan, to hypocritical moralists like Peggy Noonan and Bill Bennett, to the unexplainable like Coulter - the Queen of Attack Poodles herself - Dennis Miller, and Alan Keyes.
The book examines the strategy behind the Attack Poodle playbook:
"Attack Poodles value friction. They thrive on it. For them, means drive the ends, and antagonism damatizes the issues and intensifies the responses. Poodles rely on the divisiveness of wedge issues to sharpen what may otherwise be fuzzy differences between conservatives and liberals, and to keep liberals on the defensive."
The hubris required for success among the pack:
"A pundit is someone who, unburdened with too much knowledge, reticence, and modesty, knows exactly how many twists on the tap Alan Greenspan should take to re-liquefy the economy, how many troops are required for counterinsurgency in Iraq, what Hillary's latest hairstyle signifies for the 2008 presidential race, and how much jail time Martha Stewart should serve. You'll never hear an attack poodle shake his curls and confess, "Man the Mideast, what a mess - I haven't a figgin' clue what to do about the Palestinians."
How the Poodles deal when they're shown to be wrong:
"Logical inconsistencies - championing states' rights until some states seek to legalize gay marriage, ridiculing "tax-and-spend" Democrats while defending the deficit-bloating spending binges of Bush II - can be tucked into the larger consistency of sticking to the ideological game plan. Twenty-twenty hindsight and a dose of amnesia allow even the most myopic opinion-maker to smooth out contradictory positions into the clean horizon of history.
Specific Poodles are deconstructed (Bill O'Reilly):
"He pretends to be an independent, beholden to no party or faction, but it's left-wingers on whose limbs his jaws most tightly fasten. Like so many conservatives who dress up as independents when they go into town, he bays about individual liberty and the overencroachments of the State, yet froths at the mouth over the ACLU, calling it "the most fascist organization I have seen in decades," the Aryan Brotherhood apparently having eleduded his notice. To O'Reilly, ACLU lawyers are Nazi swine with briefcases: "They're intellectual fascists. And they use the courts as their Panzer divsions."
And the target audience of the Poodles:
"With the election of George Bush in 2000, the Angry White Male has reasserted and reestablished himself as a member of the priviledged underpriviledged class, waking up with a fart after a decade in hibernation ... This newly formed possee was intent on righting the wayward path America has taken since the tribal sixties. Jutting their jaws like Charlton Heston defying his ape masters, getting their daily load of humorous indignation from radio host Rush Limbaugh, its members were fed up with the entire menu of liberal intrusion: high taxes, gay rights, gun control, feminist harping, yuppie snobbery, affirmative action, political correctness, multiculturalism, speed limits, Oprah's scented affirmations, and illegal immigrants grabbing good jobs that nobody else wanted. Angry White Males felt like a persecuted minority themselves as the complexion of America began to shade from white to beige, tailing toward burnt sienna."
What really sets Wolcott apart is the flair with which he takes down the Poodles and his un-apologetic intent in doing so. Some of my liberal minded friends feel that Wolcott doesn't really advance liberal arguments; that he is just another noise maker, a Poodle with liberal stripes. It frustrates me to hear that because it misses the point. Too many liberals fall for the right's gamesmanship; conservatives openly laugh at bumbling liberals tripped up by the most transparent of tactics, always on the defensive, always one step behind, always speaking one octave too quietly. Conservatives know the game and have no intention of disabusing liberals of their ignorance. Reliance on facts, laws, and progressive ideals has worked well for liberals in the courts where until now those arguments have prevailed on abortion, affirmative action, separation of church and state, and protecting due process and civil rights. But in the arena of news and opinion, fire must be met with fire which is why it's nice to have a flame thrower like Wolcott to beat back the nonsense.
For a daily dose of Wolcott's style and content, check out his
blog
Posts
