On Name-Calling

Since this came up in the comments on my post hate-crimes legislation, I thought I'd bring it to your attention.

Periodically I comment on a post by a right-wing blogger (and he/she may be extreme right, although those I don't usually bother with -- they are self-evidently specious -- or on the near right, which are the ones that usually deserve comment) and, if I get a response at all, it seems to start off with the standard attack vocabulary. Somehow, the reality on that side of the middle is that anyone who disagrees with their positions is by definition a hateful, vicious, vitriolic, America-hating, etc., etc. lefty on a smear campaign. The right, of course, is marked by civility and reason, as witness the results a recent study on one of the right's most popular spokesmen:

Bill O'Reilly may proclaim at the beginning of his program that viewers are entering the "No Spin Zone," but a new study by Indiana University media researchers found that the Fox News personality consistently paints certain people and groups as villains and others as victims to present the world, as he sees it, through political rhetoric.

The IU researchers found that O'Reilly called a person or a group a derogatory name once every 6.8 seconds, on average, or nearly nine times every minute during the editorials that open his program each night.

"It's obvious he's very big into calling people names, and he's very big into glittering generalities," said Mike Conway, assistant professor in the IU School of Journalism. "He's not very subtle. He's going to call people names, or he's going to paint something in a positive way, often without any real evidence to support that viewpoint."

This is not something unique to O'Reilly. I'd be willing to lay odds that a similar study of any major right-wing media voice -- Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin, Jame Dobson -- is going to find similar results. I'd be interested, as well, to see something about a major left-wing media voice, if anyone can figure out who that might be. (Time to trot out the anonymous commenters on Daily Kos, I guess.)

And about the racisim mantra, which was part of my post:

"Our results show a consistent pattern of O'Reilly casting non-Americans in a negative light. Both illegal aliens and foreigners were constructed as physical threats to the public and never featured in the role of victim or hero," the authors concluded.

Before you start throwing stones. . . .

This actually ties into the whole idea of "discourse" and right-versus-left tactics. This response by Andrew Sullivan to this piece by Jon Chait (registration required) sort of distills it. I even agree with Sullivan, except that I'd point out that the left is nowhere near as disciplined, which I think is part of its charm. Sort of highlights the difficulty of finding a left-side spokesman similar to those right-siders I mentioned above. (Sullivan links to a substantial response by Matthew Yglesias, and I found this comment by Digby that brings us back to the progaganda trope.)

Part of the problem here for those on the right who do not want to be identified with the racists, misogynists, and homophobes is that, because of this disipline regarding the message, they are perceived as part and parcel of that ideology, no matter their views on individual issues because they don't make an effort to distance themselves. The only time I see any disagreement with the O'Reillys and Dobsons is when someone takes these "moderates" as part of the group, and then it's not a condemnation of their methods or stances, it's "I don't agree with that," which is pretty close to Hillary Clinton's or Barack Obama's "I think all Americans should be treated the same" response to questions on gay civil rights. Lame, no?

Maybe this unity on message is why I get these brickbats. Perhaps it's just that the right can't deal with disagreement. It's not really difficult -- it's just a matter of not making emotional investments in what should be a question.

My only recommendation is that, if you want to be perceived as having an independent viewpoint and not buying into the David Duke wing of the Republican party, attack them as viciously and rather more intelligently as you attack the rest of us. Then I might believe you.