How to deal with cricism

Some people who are the subjects of critical reports will attack the reporters, without reading the body of the report for the nature of the criticism.

Others take the more difficult method of actually reading the criticism, analyzing its accuracy, then responding to it.

Jamison Foser demonstrates that it is conservatives who attack the messenger without discussing the message:

In a December 5 column, Accuracy in Media's Cliff Kincaid wrote:

I didn't need to read any transcripts of the Chris Matthews MSNBC Hardball show to know what's he's been doing. It's a safe bet he was hyping some Bush-related "scandal." The former Democratic congressional staffer does what he does best -- make Democrats into heroes and Republicans into villains.

Kincaid didn't even need to look at what Matthews said; he just knew Matthews was making "Democrats into heroes and Republicans into villains."

This is not debate, nor is it discussion of the pros and cons of politics, policy or politicians. It is using the mass media as a weapon to attack those who oppose conservative policies as enemies, not as opponents. It is unreasonableness masquerading as discussion to conceal hatred, anger and the bad intentions of swindlers.

It is also the only tactic available to conservatives who in general espouse programs and laws that most of American population reject on their (lack of) merit.

Foser also points out that conservative critics accuse Media Matters for being opposed to free speech, simply because Media Matters dares to analyze and contradict the many lies and scams conservatives offer in the media.

"Yesterday, Daniel Henninger used his perch as deputy editor of The Wall Street Journal's editorial page to suggest that Media Matters favors government suppression of speech. In doing so, he exposed his own double standards. Complaining about Democratic senators' criticism of Rush Limbaugh for his recent suggestion that members of the military who oppose the Iraq war are "phony soldiers," Henninger wrote:

If you are Media Matters, if you are a man or woman of the Left, does state pressure on someone's political speech discomfort you? Or is it a welcome, even defensible, repression of harmful right-wing speech?

Well, as a "man of the Left," yes, state pressure on political speech discomforts me. That's why I wrote the following in response to the U.S. Senate's formal condemnation of MoveOn two weeks ago:

Whether one agreed with the substance of the MoveOn ad or found the wording offensive, there should be something disconcerting about a government body formally condemning private citizens for criticizing the government.

Surely journalists, of all people, should recognize how chilling it is for the Senate to take such action. But I can find not a single journalist who has made that point, or even raised the question of the appropriateness of such a government action in a free society. Nor did most of the news reports about the vote include necessary context. I have not seen a single news report, for example, that told readers how frequently the United States Senate condemns citizens for speech acts critical of the government. I suspect (and hope) it is quite rare. But that context was absent from media coverage of the vote.

Oddly, Henninger didn't mention the formal congressional condemnation of MoveOn's political speech in his column criticizing us. But surely, given his apparent discomfort over the criticism of Limbaugh by some Democratic senators, Henninger must have recently written a column denouncing a formal congressional vote condemning MoveOn, right? No. No, Henninger did not.

The contrast could not be more clear: Henninger is outraged that Democratic senators criticized Limbaugh for his "political speech." But he has expressed no such outrage that the House and Senate both actually voted to condemn MoveOn for its political speech.

Go read Jamison Foser's article. The conservative definition of free speech is that no one is allowed to oppose their lies, misrepresentations and scams.

That's not free speech. That is shutting down debate. When conservatives and Republicans get the government to condemn a political statement, that is authoritarian rule by conservatives.

So how do conservatives deal with criticism? They don't. They attack critics on ground other than those that sparked the criticism.

Attack and change the subject. The conservative Republican's anti-democratic and Unamerican method for dealing with criticism.