2/14/2005

Right Winger Discovers Letters to the Editor

I'm back from my vacation swilling chardonnay in Sonoma, tanned, rested, and ready to rock.

First on my take-down list is Yet Another Insufferable Right Wing Lawyer/Blogger, "LearnedFoot" of the Kool Aid Report, which specializes in bitching about the opinion page of the Star Tribune.

In the middle of sliming Senate District 60 DFL chair Joel Bergstrom as a "vomitous mass", LearnedFoot throws in an offside jab at yours truly, so I couldn't resist responding.

What's got LearnedFoot's panties in such a bunch? Why, he's shocked -- shocked -- to discover that activists use letters to the editor to promote their agendas!

In this case, Joel Bergstrom wrote a letter to the editor of the Star Tribune noting the irony of Republican state representative Julianne Ortman calling for more money to train police on the same day Minneapolis announced another round of budget cuts for police services. Bergstrom sensibly asks, where's the money?

But for LearnedFoot, the important thing is that Joel's letter isn't signed "Chair, SD60 DFL":

Here's a gravitas-laden question: shouldn't letter writers be required by the editor to disclose their political affiliations if the writer serves in some official role for a party? Those that submit commentary articles are required to do so. It strikes me as rather sleazy that letter writers can be clothed in a mantle of seeming uber-mensch objectivity - "hey, it's just my opinion" - when really all these people are doing is fulfilling their duties as DFL talking-point shills.

I was curious about Joel's take on all this so (check this out) I asked him. Here's what he said:

I guess in his world everything I do is in my capacity as Chair. On this letter in particular I was not representing the views of SD60, but myself, so I did not identify myself as chair b/c it would not be appropriate to ascribe my letter to all SD60 DFLers. And to act as if the republicans don't have a machine that does similar p.r. is a joke.

Interestingly, he does not address the content of the letter itself, the main question of which is: how does Ortman propose to pay for this?

Those of us who are both activists and private citizens have to be able to separate our activities, because being an activist is not the whole of what we do. It's not like we get paid, unlike some right-wing shills I could name. I don't post my personal opinion on the DFL blog; I don't post the DFL's opinion on my personal blog or in my letters to the editor; and I never represent the opinions of my employer. If what I'm writing represents the official position of an organization, I'll indicate that.

And if Mr. "LearnedFoot" has a problem with that, he can shove his learned foot up his erudite ass.

With that out of the way, let me endorse Steve Gilliard's ingenious Fast Boat Crusade. It's the op-ed analogue to Howard Dean's Fifty State Strategy. Gilliard wants ordinary Americans to move on from letters to the editor to full fledged op-ed pieces. The genius of this idea is very simple: it creates a grassroots "farm team" of op-ed columnists who may provide some counter to the legions of corporate-funded "scholars" at right wing think tanks like Cato, AEI, Heritage, and the Manhattan Institute who get paid to spew out drivel onto the nation's opinion pages. It might not work, but it's worth a try. The name comes from the great American hero John Paul Jones: "I shall need a fast boat for I intend to sail into harm's way."

6 Comments:

At 9:28 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Your insinuation about paid shills is fascinating. Name names, please.

 
At 9:59 AM, Blogger Luke Francl said...

Happily, Elizabeth.

Armstrong Williams, Maggie Gallagher, and Michael McManus secretly tolk public money to promote Bush administration programs.

In a broader sense, every op-ed written by a "Fellow" or "Scholar" at a conservative think tank is a paid shill. After all, they are paid (rather handsomely for many of them) to promote their think tank's agenda.

Don't get me wrong. The left has think tanks too. But not as many, and they are not nearly so brazen or sophisticated at media manipulation.

 
At 10:12 AM, Blogger Flash said...

Ya beat me to it Luke. Those were the three names that popped into my head when I read you screed. I would even add Gannon/Guckert to the list.

I laughed when Mitch equated Right-Wing shills to mean Conservative Bloggers. I mean, we kind of figured that was the case, but he just confirmed it.

Flash

 
At 11:05 AM, Blogger Luke Francl said...

I find it weird that for Mitch, everything is about conservative bloggers. I'm much more concerned with the conservative side's media infrastructure, as it's more influential. (Maybe I'm fighting the last war...)

But every time a lefty blogger says something about "shills", Mitch reads "blogger." I couldn't find the link he was talking about, but he's complained that after Armstrong Williams came out, Kos said that all conservative pundits should be assumed to be on the take. Mitch presented this as Kos saying we should assume all conservative bloggers were on the take. Again, I couldn't find the link to verify what Kos said, but I remembered it differently.

Why is it all about bloggers for Mitch?

 
At 12:57 PM, Blogger Luke Francl said...

I should note that Mitch posted a followup that cleared up any confusion of what I was trying to say.

We also had a good discussion of the issue of public morality and I'm interested to see what he's going to post on that.

 
At 12:58 PM, Blogger Luke Francl said...

Awesome, Crystal!

 

Post a Comment

<< Home