Michelle Goldberg and the despicable art of progressive propaganda

The Times' Michelle Goldberg, a progressive columnist who concedes that her ideological fervor has incurably damaged her political judgment, is so desperate to similarly damage the candidacy of moderate Joe Biden, she callously exaggerates portions of Biden's conversational occasions as "unnerving" "gaffes." If she can't find plausible reasons to despair of his campaign, how about just characterizing the commonplace as despair-worthy?

Two cases in point from her current column, "Joe Biden Doesn’t Look So Electable in Person."

Ms. Goldberg was in South Carolina of late, as was Mr. Biden. There, at a Planned Parenthood event, , a discussion moderator "asked him what he’d say to pro-choice voters who have concerns about his mixed record [his Hyde reversal] on the issue."

Biden's reply, in part: "The fact of the matter is that we’re in a situation where mortality rate for poor women and black women, here in this state, 26.5 percent of the, 24, 25.6 people, who of 100,000 who need, who end up dying as a consequence of birth, it’s absolutely absurd."

Goldberg was appalled. The maternal death rate is in fact 26.5 of 100,000 births, which Biden had at first correct but then transposed the last two digits, to 25.6. This exceedingly minor factual misstep horrified the columnist, hurling her to the depths of aforementioned despair. Would you have found this to be an unforgivable error?

Later, at the same event, where "preselected audience" members were called on to ask questions, a young lady related her traumatic ordeal of "being sexually assaulted by her abusive husband not long after having a baby. She became pregnant and needed an abortion, and later needed two more. She wanted to know what Biden intended to do to protect and expand abortion access for people like her."

Again, in part, Biden's response was, "First of all, a lot of you women, maybe a lot of men out here, don’t realize what incredible courage it took to stand up and say that." He also cited his experience in formulating domestic violence legislation, and asked the young lady to stay at the event's conclusion, so that the two of them could speak privately.

All in all, a rather touching example of the frontrunner's well-known compassion. Goldberg's second-hand assessment? "For some of the activists there, the moment was another Biden screw-up — they saw him mansplaining rape trauma to a room full of feminists."

I, for one, was mortified and not a little incensed by Goldberg's vicarious anguish. How Biden's endearing remarks could be judged a "screw-up" was, and remains, beyond my capacity for bullshit-dismissal. But baseless, vindictive hyperbole and invented harm is a threadbare, shabby tactic of political propagandists.

Goldberg is a good writer and quite obviously devoted to her political agenda. Nothing wrong with the latter. Deliberate distortions of reality, however, lessen the writer's credibility and expose the writer's willingness to deceive. Goldberg has penned countless denunciations of Trumpian tactics, such as wretchedly misleading propaganda. She should reread her denunciations, and reform accordingly.

Comments

[Jason]

Curious to know who Goldberg supports, because I’m sure we could sift through whoever-it-is’s every recorded utterance and find something we could construe as horribly appalling.

[AnneJ]

It seems that whatever the media left tries to do to hurt Biden, the voters aren't having it.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/in-south-carolina-voters-blame-media-for-amplifying-bidens-missteps

[Peter G]

Oh my God! She used the E word? She questioned his electability? I am astounded. Why, you ask, am I so overwrought? Because it has been explained to me by literally every Twitter person I asked, that questioning their favorite candidate's electability is tantamount to using the Harry Potter Unforgivable Curse Aveda Kedavra publicly on a basket full of puppies. It is always somethingist.

I am pretty much immune at this point to left wing synthetic outrage. But I have been for a long time and almost as long as I have had Acquired Bullshit Sensitivity from exposure to right wing bullshit. And that is a long time.

[AnneJ]

I'm looking for one thing in a democratic presidential candidate: can he or she beat Trump. Period. This is not the time for purity tests

[Halster]

Bullshit writing like this helps explain why "sad times have landed on the political journalism front". I hit the headlines a few times a day just to see if we've bombed Iran or Trump has had a heart attack yet.

The Carpentariat and Juanita Jean's (for a little political humor from a Texas mom's point of view) are my only regular indulgences. https://juanitajean.com

[Peter G]

I’ll be damned. I remember Juanita from some of her hilarious guest posts at a few places I used to frequent like C&L. Didn’t know she had her own site. Thanks.

[Peter G]

Polling would indicate that most, including Bernie, could do that. Trump is likely to be the only president since polling was invented to never top 50 percent in popularity polling. The Democrats actually have quite a few respectable candidates with good futures. Which I find interesting because it wasn’t long ago that the punditry were assuring us all that the Democratic talent pool had dried up. I just wish a few had decided to go for a senate seat where the Republicans are also vulnerable, or more so, because of their pumpkin headed leader.

[AnneJ]

Perhaps there will be some good house democrats running for the senate. I've learned (and it took me awhile) to take what they say with a pillar of salt. Yes it is true that polls show Trump losing to most of the democrats running, I guess I'm looking for the one who will beat him the hardest. Not another 2016 where the democrat wins the popular vote and loses at the electoral college.