More on Lies, the Lying Liars and their Enablers

The GOP lie machine is in high gear now and, while it's not as big deal as the lying to start a war, the complicity of the media is particularly outrageous and, as Billmon says, hard to explain.

What's impressive, though (in a detached, I'm-not-really-living-in-this-country kind of way) is the corporate media's dutiful willingness to relay the GOP's claims of a Democratic coverup

[...]

It's easy to think up conspiracy theories to explain such mindless journalistic malfeasance but I think in this case the conventional explanation is also correct: the corporate media simply aren't prepared -- by inclination, training or habit -- to cope with the "big lie" technique.

And this is an almost textbook example of the big lie in action. Not in the sense that the lie is so enormous most listeners are simply unwilling to believe their leaders would tell it (the classic definition of the big lie) but because it's such a stereotypical example of the Rovian strategy of attacking your opponent's strength by deflecting the charges against you back at them.

[...]

As I think everybody but David Broder now understands, the conventions of "he said, she said" journalism aren't designed to deal with the tactics of modern information warfare. I'm reasonably sure the reporters who wrote the stories cited above understand it. But, being the beaten down, stressed out, over-worked, under-paid hacks they are (hey, I've been there) they keep going through the motions.

That's bad enough. But what's becoming evident is that some of them -- CNN has become a particularly notorious example -- are no longer willing to go through all of the motions, which are supposed to include giving the Democrats at least a nominal opportunity to respond to the big lies being pushed by the Rovians.

That's something I can't explain conventionally, except as a product of bias, cowardliness and/or intense editorial pressure from the top. Whatever it is, though, it's on full display now.

[...]

Everything I said above applies to the googolplex power to other GOP talking point de jour -- the claim that House leaders demanded Foley's resignation as soon as they learned about the "really dirty" stuff, i.e. his sex chats with former pages.

As the Think Progress blog makes definitively clear, this is categorically a lie, because Foley resigned before ABC News even reported the existence of the tell-tale IMs.

[...]

But now the Rovians have turned the timeline completely on its head, and are claiming Hastert demanded Foley's resignation because of something the Speaker himself says he knew nothing about.

This may seem a trivial matter, given all the other lies, big and small, that have come rattling down the propaganda assembly line over the past six years. Foley himself is just a sideshow geek compared to the three-ring circus that gave us the war in Iraq. But if there's been a more brazen attempt to rewrite history -- last week's history! -- I can't remember it.

True, the Rovians are desperate, but this clearly reflects their belief that they can say anything, any fucking thing at all, and not be called on it by the corporate media, at least not in any kind of time frame that matters. And as far as I can tell, they're right -- they haven't been called on it, except by Think Progress and the wild-eyed bloggers and the other tattered remnants of the left opposition.

I know, I know: So what else is new? But I've enough journalist left in me to still be astonished at how deeply and sincerely so many in my old profession has learned to love Big Brother. And they didn't even have to have cages filled with carnivorous rats strapped to their heads.