A few months back, as many of you most likely remember, Texas state Senator engaged in an 11-hour filibuster that was widely covered and, in many cases, celebrated as a true-to-form challenge to the Texas establishment concerning abortion rights and an impending vote concerning the future availability of abortion.
This contrast of media coverage about these two crusaders has left some media critics enraged, perceiving the media as mocking Cruz while championing Davis. However, the differences between these two instances are relatively stark, and the comparison amounts to a false equivalency. I appreciate media critics and their enduring challenge to media hegemony, but on this point they're plainly incorrect. Indeed, the "liberal media bias" trope is pretty tired and, for the most part, unfounded as a guiding principle of media behavior. In general, media bias exists on both sides to a tremendous degree. This particular story represents the knee-jerk reactions of one side of the ideological divide to accuse "the media" (I've grown to love people erroneously making a monolith out of this institution) of framing stories in unfavorable ways to their agenda. Popular media outlets have grown extremely sensitive to these sorts of accusations and often give full and dedicated air-time to both sides of a debate regardless of the actual merits or facts of an argument's premise. In the case of Ted Cruz, it seems fairly apparent that most of the criticism is coming from conservative commentators and politicians, not journalists.
First of all, the Ted Cruz rant on the US Senator floor was not a filibuster. It was not a parliamentary mechanism. It wasn't to prevent a vote on a social cause he believes in. It was self-aggrandizing stunt to bolster his own 2016 prospects and develop his own "Tea Party cred." His strategy at this point is hinged on fracturing his party, getting as many Republican politicians angry at him as possible (See: Corker & King & Burr), and his speech was plainly in the accepted window of debate in the Senate over this particular bill. He wasn't speaking truth-to-power in the same setting, conditions, or environment as Wendy Davis, who was stalling a bill until the midnight hour (when the Senate went on recess) and was viewed as a champion of women's rights and Democratic strong-arming. Ted Cruz simply gave a really, really long speech-- most of which was totally off-topic and a waste of everybody's time. Indeed, a great number of his colleagues have criticized him and his defunding endeavors with extremely volatile language. So, generally, nobody in the establishment-- either side of the aisle-- have a particularly strong love for Cruz. Therefore, the comparisons between Davis and Cruz are wholly unfounded and insubstantial.
http://theweek.com/article/index/250186/did-ted-cruzs-talkathon-expose-liberal-media-bias
I had not yet heard of the Ted Cruz filibuster, so thank you for pointing it out. I remember hearing about the Wendy Davis one though. I can't say how much I agree with the idea of a filibuster. I mean, it was cool to watch in the film 'Mr. Smith Goes To Washington' but I'm not entirely sure why we need it today. In the case of Wendy Davis we see its usefulness, but really isn't it mostly just a waste of time? That time that was spent wasted is time that could have been put forth into doing some actual good. Ted Cruz's filibuster did not seem to exactly give it any good reason for still existing either. As you said, it wasn't really a filibuster. When so much is going on, our elected officials do not need to be just wasting everyone's time.
ReplyDeleteWendy Davis at least filibuster to raise awareness to an issue instead of again, wasting people's time to bolster your own future. I would hope our lawmakers could find better use of their time then to hear about Ted Cruz's shopping habits or hear 'Green Eggs and Ham'. I mean, if that is what the job of a senator is like, please sign me up. While I disagree with you when you say that media outlets try to show both sides of the story (and occasionally they do), there are instances where it really isn't both sides of the story. I believe I have an example on my blog somewhere. Sometimes the information presented can be changed to make it seem like it is one way or another. Anyway, great post!
Interesting post, Andy! I like the overall message but something in particular grabbed my attention; your mention of the liberal bias in media and how everyone perceives media as being biased against them. I wrote something on the theory of the "hostile media effect" on my blog. It has a lot to do with what you were talking about. If you have a minute you should check it out!
ReplyDeleteAgain, great post!
Very interesting point! I think it is interesting that you pointed out that Ted Cruz's stunt was NOT a filibuster and was just a stunt to potential boost his own name for the 2016 elections coming up. We all now know who he is, so I guess it worked in that way if that was what he was looking for. I agree with your last statement. There should not have been a link between the two and it was just someone trying to make something happen where it can not.
ReplyDelete