Rage This
by dsb nola on July 23, 2010
Here’s the lead story at Politico right now:
My question: Why is Shirley Sherrod’s picture so large and centered amidst such an array of esteemed rage artists? Certainly she would be justified if she felt rage these days, but she’s not hardly a rager like Joe Wilson and Andrew Breitbart. I’m not sure I’d even characterize Alan Grayson as a rager, but I get why he’s included–he says mean or exceedingly uncharitable things about Republicans and Politico had to include at least one Democrat. Likewise, Tucker Carlson is more a dick than a rager. The article’s authors present Politico as an unwitting witness to right/left wing rage:
as a nonpartisan news site, we face relentless attacks from the right and left, all looking for signs of bias.
I’m not accusing Politico of bias. I just think Politico is frequently lame and superficial. Who benefits from such lame superficiality? Politico, mostly. But I also think bamboozlers benefit because Politico is a leader in creating false equivalences (as well as draining policy questions of their content through an obsession on process), which helps bamboozlers like Breitbart have so much currency. Why does Politico do it? At heart, Politico writers are party planners.
