Response to “Breaking: nuns, babies, puppies, dolphins spark fierce liberal backlash” by Matt Walsh

I did not want to, but a friend pushed me into it. I am writing another response to Matt Walsh from the Today I am responding to this piece. I’ll just go straight to the parts that got my attention.  If you feel I missed some bigger point feel free to let me know in the comments. To start, I did not find the Breitbart piece to be all that even-keeled as Matt assures us it is. It alleges that the ad is the Coke company’s announcement that the US is no longer ruled by the constitution or liberty. This feels like a lot of hyperbole to me.  Not only is it expressing disapproval of non-english speakers but gays too. It also describes the conservative reaction in terms similar to the ones Matt criticizes liberals for using. I think lighting up the internet is comparable to a firestorm.
Then we have Allan West claiming, the commercial is a sign we are on the “road to perdition” AKA our culture is literally going to hell because of this. Which itself is stupid, insane and deserving of nearly all that was said about it. Enough said.

Then you have the fox news commentator saying that “coke is the official drink of illegals crossing the border”. Which, I figure can only mean that he figures non-english speaking people must all be here illegally, or that everyone in the commercial must be in the US or that he believes coke is making a statement on US immigration policy. It sounds incredibly racist, xenophobic and reactionary. This is not to mention how incredibly dehumanizing it is to call people “illegals”. It is in fact comments like these that are the reason the Republican party is losing the support of anyone but old white men, and will continue to have difficulties in this area for years to come. It is essentially saying if your are not a white American we don’t want you.

Additionally, Walsh neglects to mentions the statements by Laura Ingraham, which also mentioned “illegals” as well as Glenn Beck ranting that the ad was solely created to divide people. All the above mentioned statements were stupid and put the conservative movement in a bad light, and very much deserved the condemnation they got.

Does this amount to a “backlash” or a “firestorm”? I don’t know it, these strike me as subjective labels, and the whole thing strikes me as a largely a semantic argument. I do know, that we have at least five prominent conservative voices plus a handful of like minded followers all saying things that are completely worthy of condemnation and provide an excellent example of a real problem the conservative movement is facing. Conservatives are alienating people by calling them illegals, and having prominent members of their movement freaking out over anything that is slightly multicultural. It is part of the reason Obama got elected twice (for better or worse) and republicans keep doing it to themselves. I have yet to see Walsh condemn any of this.

Also the things that were said about Miss New York a while back were incredibly ignorant and offensive and worthy of commentary, even if Walsh and most other Americans did not care the pageant was going on.  Needless to say, I am glad both stories were reported to me. I don’t think stories such as this killed journalism.  Journalism died when all the major media outlets got bought out by the same handful of companies that had bought out most of the competition.  I for on don’t believe real journalism really truly died though, it just left the mainstream.  This actually strikes me as bit of selected outrage on Walsh’s part.  How often is he likely to play the “this is not journalism” card, for stories that put liberals in a bad light? In this case we have a story with five high-profile conservatives saying dreadful things, and Walsh is saying, look away, this is not real journalism.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to Response to “Breaking: nuns, babies, puppies, dolphins spark fierce liberal backlash” by Matt Walsh

  1. Mike Petry says:

    I raise the same point to you that I raised to Matt.
    None of these things killed journalism because the idealized, non commercial, non storytelling journalism never really existed.

  2. JP says:

    Road goes both ways sir. I’ve seen some pretty nasty comments from ‘tolerant’ liberals about Christians, Caucasians, Southerners, etc. There are bad apples in every bushel. Live and let live. Life is not a zero-sum game.

    • Mr. Wilson says:

      I absolutely agree with you and I condemn such nastiness when I see it. This of course is a response to specific statements in a specific article, but yes I fully acknowledge that we often are far more tolerant of hypocrisy dishonesty and name calling coming from our own team than from the other guys. Though note, I don’t think many people who’ve read most of my other posts would identify me as a liberal.

  3. palebluemote says:

    Matt Walsh was whitewashing again? This needs a new term: whitewalshing.

  4. Tony says:

    I see the point you are making, but you missed the point Matt made. He stated his opinion that the backlash was largely overstated. He didn’t state that the backlash was all founded and he backed it, he was just saying from reading the liberal side of the story, he expected far more inflammatory comments from the conservatives.

    And then he proceeded to show that Nuns and Puppies have garnered just about as much backlash as this commercial has, which is actually an overstatement too, but I’m pretty sure it’s supposed to be in order to highlight the rediculousness of the whole situation.

    There are plenty of people on both sides who say stupid things from time to time, and plenty of times when there is widespread support or backlash for a topic. There is no reason for either side to pretend there is a huge firestorm of comments to be coming when there isn’t.

    • Mr. Wilson says:

      I sort of agree. I counted two more prominent conservatives than Matt did saying nasty things about the commercial. I think the bigger issue is that prominent conservatives were saying nasty things, and I think this is definitely report worthy, and the issue of whether enough people commented on it to call it a backlash strikes me as largely a question of semantics, I probably would not have used those terms. Perhaps Kerfluffle would have been better.

      Note, though Matt list eight headlines as evidence for his post, only one of these uses the term “firestorm” the most of the rest use the term “outrage”. This term does not have the same implication, you only need one person for a case of “outrage” as best as I can tell. Also, though Matt expresses disapproval at the use of the term xenophobia as well, which I think completely appropriate given some of the remarks, and their focus on “illegals”.

      I think his use of “puppies and “nuns” was a bit dishonest, since these are topics people are likely to be commenting on at any given time, and are not connected to a single specific event as the comments about the commercial were.

      So while, I concede that some of the ambiguous language used in covering this story (how many comments are needed to make a “firestorm anyway), was arguably in at least some cases over the top, the criticisms directed at the prominent conservative voices who were involved was completely called for. My main grief with Matt is that he seems to be pretending that the conservative movement does not have the problems with xenophobia, multiculturalism and what have you, that these responses clearly show.

      • Tony says:

        I’m just part of the conservative crowd that is perfectly okay with the commercial that feels no outrage at all about it being aired. And I would appreciate it if I wasn’t lumped into a made up group of people that are all apparantly labeled as horrible people. A handful of people, regardless of how outspoken they are, does not a majority make.

      • Mr. Wilson says:

        I agree, but I never said anywhere or even implied that a majority of conservatives agreed with any of the comments made. What I said, was a handful of prominent conservative voices made these comments and that these comments in my opinion that this did reflect some problematic strains of thought with in the movement. I did not say that this represented a majority or anything of the sort, sorry if you felt lumped in. I recognize that there are a wide variety of views exist with in the conservative movement, despite the lack of appeal that most of them have for me.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s