"A Bit of Internecine Warfare"
At The Corner, Daniel Foster writes:
This Matthew Continetti cover story — on Glenn Beck, Rick Santelli, and the Tea Party — from the latest Weekly Standard has recently been the locus of a bit of internecine warfare on the right.
One of Beck’s producers called it “intentionally misleading,” a “collection of lies,” and “a hit piece barely worthy of Media Matters.” He also provided a toll-free number readers could use to cancel their subscriptions to TWS (while bizarrely claiming that he didn’t support boycotts).Now, Beck and his associates have been known to avail themselves of the full emotive power of the English language to press home points that might have been made a bit less stridently. So I checked out the story to see if the producer was being fair.The answer is, not really.As I’ve said elsewhere, the piece at issue was quite good. And the response to it from the Beck camp is a useful reminder of the pressure folks at magazines within the movement operate under.
You might think that mendaciously smearing a writer in good standing at The Weekly Standard would draw outraged denunciations from across the conservative movement, but the normal standards don’t apply when powerful entertainers are the offending party. So rather than a bunch of people publicly rallying to Mr. Continetti’s defense, and discussing his piece in a manner commensurate with what it deserves, lots of folks squarely behind him on the merits will hold their tongues.
Next time I pass a magazine stand I am going to grab one of those ubiquitous index cards and subscribe to The Weekly Standard. May the publication emerge from this particular story with more paying readers than before.
It seems to me that more conservatives would have stepped forward to defend Beck and question Continetti on his charge the Beck is promoting “old ideas”. Since when are limited government, individual rights, anti-statism and free markets classified as old ideas — actually, statism is a much older “idea” — what’s being considered are principles, not fads.
— Mike Farmer · Jun 27, 02:55 PM · #
When Continetti brings up the term “old ideas”, it is in the context of the 1950’s and the John Birch Society —- more the stuff that Hofstadter talked about in “The Paranoid Style in American Politics” than a reference to free markets, limited government, etc.
— ratufa · Jun 27, 03:59 PM · #
*You might think that mendaciously smearing a writer in good standing at The Weekly Standard would draw outraged denunciations from across the conservative movement,. . . *
Remember when we were at Culture11 and we talked about starting a new feature called “Not the News” where we’d mock trivia that was treated as if it were important? The “someone said something nasty about a reporter” is a clear category of “not news.”
I suspect the real issue is that (a) most people weren’t even aware of the “smearing” (I wasn’t until I read it on The Corner) and (b) they don’t feel the need to come to a reporter’s defense over something so trivial as what Glen Beck’s producer thinks. (I’m not sure why anyone cares what Beck thinks, much less what his producer thinks about what it said about Beck.)
Also, I know and like Matt but I can’t imagine that my readers would care much about the issue. The same is true for the Weigel affair. While everyone in the D.C. media seems to have an opinion about it, most of the rest of the country could care less. In fact, it merely confirms what they suspected all along—the D.C. media (especially the New Media) is a clubby group that acts more like a high school than an outlet for news.
— Joe Carter · Jun 27, 04:30 PM · #
Ratufa,
Pehaps, but that’s not how I read it.
— Mike Farmer · Jun 27, 05:25 PM · #
Back in the days when William F. Buckley was doing some housekeeping among American conservatives, trying to marginalize the anti-Semites at American Mercury, for example, he didn’t spend a large fraction of his time obsessing about the less savory characters on his side. He had much that was positive to contribute (yelling “Stop!” at history being a positive thing, the way he did it). He would not have been effective in reading out the American Mercury types if the greater portion of his time had not been spent on important, substantive topics.
He was going places with his ideas, and the anti-semite crackpots were left behind. If he had not gone anywhere, it would not have been possible to leave anyone else behind.
— The Reticulator · Jun 27, 05:38 PM · #
Yeah, I pretty much agree with Joe Carter.
Also, when you begin sentences with stuff like:
“You might think that mendaciously smearing a writer in good standing at The Weekly Standard would draw outraged denunciations from across the conservative movement,…”
it reminds me of T. Herman Zweibel.
— ratufa · Jun 27, 06:04 PM · #
Joe,
It wasn’t the words about Matt Continetti so much as the suggestion to cancel Weekly Standard subscriptions that struck me as something of legitimate interest to the movement. Maybe you’re right that the DC media “is a clubby group that acts more like a high school than an outlet for news.” Within that high school the people who are defended when unfairly attacked is quite selective.
— Conor Friedersdorf · Jun 27, 07:35 PM · #
what amazes me about this is that TWS (practically Dick Cheney’s house organ) in general and Mr. Continetti (who made his name on Abramoff but is also a pretty enthusiastic Palin booster) in particular have impeccable movement conservative credentials. Thus unlike the Manzi/Levin fracas it’s not really possible to frame this as a center-right vs movement conservative kind of thing (or as i prefer to see it, a thinkers vs thugs issue). Rather, it can only be seen as either (a) a movement conservative vs lunatic fringe thing or (b) a pure and naked issue of power.
pretty ugly, both the Bircher-ite ideas themselves and meeting criticism of these ideas with retaliation istead of rebuttal
— Gabriel · Jun 27, 08:02 PM · #
I was listening to the episode when Beck asked Stuart, the producer, if he had called for a boycott — the producer said he hadn’t called for a boycott and didn’t care who subscribed to Weekly Standard — he embartassingly admitted he did give the information to cancel or complain if they wanted it. It’s not like Beck is calling for a boycott — the boycotts against him have failed and he’s repeated many times he doesn’t believe in boycotts. The producer simply thought the article was an unfair depiction. This is another example of overblowing stuff like the Weigel firing — it’s strange that those defending Weigel can’t see their own overeactions, or overlook the over-reactions of others, like Beck’s producer —when you check the facs it’s clear it’s not an establsihed position.
— Mike Farmer · Jun 27, 08:37 PM · #
Gabriel,
On global warming, Jim Manzi also had impeccable credentials… until he criticized Mark Levin.
— Conor Friedersdorf · Jun 27, 08:58 PM · #
@Reticulator:
Unless you were a black American. Cheers!
— Chet · Jun 27, 11:27 PM · #
Within that high school the people who are defended when unfairly attacked is quite selective.
I agree with you there. I should have also noted in my original comment that I completely agree that the refusal of conservative pundits and writers to denounce Beck/Limbaugh/Levin and other talk radio types when they make offensive and stupid remarks is a form of cowardice. If you have a large audience (like Levin) they’ll hold their tongues, if your influence is on the wane (like Pat Buchanan), they have no problem denouncing you. If Limbaugh’s Arbitron ratings ever dropped they’d suddenly find the courage to say what they really think about him.
— Joe Carter · Jun 28, 01:26 AM · #
ratufa: “it reminds me of T. Herman Zweibel”
Please tell us more about your memorable relationship with Mr. Zweibel.
— The Reticulator · Jun 28, 01:43 AM · #
“refusal of conservative pundits and writers to denounce Beck/Limbaugh/Levin and other talk radio types when they make offensive and stupid remarks”
You don’t see the denouncements of Beck/Limbaugh/Levin from the right because the press is preoccupied covering the liberal denouncements of Daily, Olbermann and Maher.
— Mike Farmer · Jun 28, 04:30 AM · #
I meant Stewart, not Daily —
— Mike Farmer · Jun 28, 12:28 PM · #
Here’s Douthat on the issue:
http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/30/the-two-faces-of-the-tea-party/
I think his discussion with Goldberg is on to something and interesting.
— J Mann · Jul 1, 02:52 PM · #