Chicago Boyz

What Are Chicago Boyz Readers Reading?

Recommended Photo Store
Buy Through Our Amazon Link or Banner to Support This Blog
  •   Enter your email to be notified of new posts:
  •   Problem? Question?
  •   Contact Authors:

  • CB Twitter Feed
  • Lex's Tweets
  • Jonathan's Tweets
  • Blog Posts (RSS 2.0)
  • Blog Posts (Atom 0.3)
  • Incoming Links
  • Recent Comments

    • Loading...
  • Authors

  • Notable Discussions

  • Recent Posts

  • Blogroll

  • Categories

  • Archives

  • The Juggernaut – Revisited

    Posted by Sgt. Mom on September 23rd, 2011 (All posts by )

     The juggernaut was-and still is, according to a quick internet search, an enormous, towering wagon with the image of a deity or two enthroned at the very peak under a vast canopy. This structure is taken out for a grand procession once yearly, pulled by devotees through the streets of a certain city in India: no quick spin around the block and back again: this wagon is enormous, clumsy, and heavy. Picture Elizabeth Taylor as Cleopatra, arriving to meet Mark Anthony, or the Persian emperor Darius grand entrance in 300; it’s an arresting visual, and often used as a metaphor to indicate a certain sort of power, will and devotion. 

    As the 2008 campaign began, I pictured our very dear mainstream press as deep-sea divers – so far into the tank for Obama that they had a couple of handlers and a pump feeding oxygen down to them, but by Election Day I visualized the Obama campaign vehicle as a gargantuan, creaking juggernaut, pulled along by the masses of print and broadcast media personalities, together with a fair number of the louder and more clueless popular entertainers. They strained at those chains and ropes which bound them, tugging the juggernaut painfully onward, while others leaned their shoulders to the rear, pushing the tottering structure towards the finish line. The power of their will – and the press and the TV camera – moved the One to glorious victory, regardless of the consequences  . . .  which were predicted (with a fair degree of accuracy, it turns out) again and again in libertarian and conservative-oriented blogs at the time.

    It’s not been unknown for members of the working press to have sentimental favorites. Back in the day, they about got down and drooled over John. F. Kennedy: many of the old press guys and gals still view him through a hagiographic haze and addled memories of Camelot. Conversely, Lyndon Johnson was so universally despised by the press and the intelligentsia that I (as a middle school kid just getting interested in politics) rather felt sorry for him. Nixon was loathed, and Gerald Ford lampooned as a clumsy oaf… but in between all that, serious media still were capable of some degree of detachment, but 2004 and 2008 represented to me the last unraveling of press credibility.

     The mainstream media couldn’t make the sow’s ear that was John Kerry into a presidential silk purse in 2004; not for lack of trying, although Kerry himself appeared to have all the personal charm and charisma of Frank Burns and Eddie Haskell combined. The last-minute 60 Minutes bogus Texas ANG story went down in flames almost at once, which proved fortunate for GWB. But in 2008 the mainstream press organs, almost without exception, doubled down hard for Obama, the Fresh Prince of Chicago.

    I can only wonder if they hoped to became the organ of state, the state that they hoped would emerge when the juggernaut was dragged over the finish line  . . .  little realizing or caring that they had frittered away their credibility with – if not the largest part of the public – then that part of it to the right and center, politically speaking. Very few of those scattered along that spectrum believes that mainstream media is neutral and independent any more. Now, every time that a commentator like David Brooks or Peggy Noonan tries to walk back their Obama-worship of three years ago, the more obscene and pathetic they look. The information about Obama was out there, out there three and four years ago, but our so-called professionals of the 4th Estate, reporters, editors, commentators and TV producers and all –  couldn’t be bothered to look at it.

     What a pity – for a lot of the last century, being a journalist in the mainstream American media was a respected profession… and now they have reduced themselves to apologizing for dragging the juggernaut along.


    3 Responses to “The Juggernaut – Revisited”

    1. Bill Brandt Says:

      I have wondered if the MSM is permanently discredited – we who live on the Net think so but there are millions who don’t who still watch the evening news (who knows why). I think for most of use we found the guy inside the juggernaut was like the guy behind the curtain in The Wizard of Oz.

      if you want to see how biased the MSM is take any story with Obama – Rev Wright, Tony Rezko, and pretend that a Republican was associated with it. Think they would be the same?

      I know; a rhetorical question.

      But I suspect the mythical candidate wouldn’t have gotten though Iowa – the news would be on the front page every day.

    2. David Foster Says:

      Juggernauts had a lot of inertia and were not very maneuverable; I understand that fairly often they crushed people to death.

    3. tomw Says:

      My personal observation is that the “4th Estate” wanted to be the ‘power behind the throne’ in that they curtsied for JFK, hid is philandering, covered for his disease, and, after “bay of pigs” made him the ‘victim’ of the CIA.
      He, and perhaps his cabinet, made the decision to deny air cover, even flown by Cuban dissidents. That was fatal to the mission.
      The “MSM” got their wish when Nixon was forced to resign. They had ‘taken down’ a President. They were powerful, and not to be ignored.
      The latest chicanery is the complete obliviousness they pretended about Teh Won. They knew of the faults and foibles, but here was a chance to make “history”, electing a Black to the highest office in the land. Too bad they picked an incompetent to tout so highly.
      My only concern it the scant attention paid by a high percentage of the populace. Their attention is grabbed when their paycheck is short, or taken away. That has occurred more than was expected… I think there will be consequences if the R’s don’t select another geriatric or incompetent as their candidate.

    Leave a Reply

    Comments Policy:  By commenting here you acknowledge that you have read the Chicago Boyz blog Comments Policy, which is posted under the comment entry box below, and agree to its terms.

    A real-time preview of your comment will appear under the comment entry box below.

    Comments Policy

    Chicago Boyz values reader contributions and invites you to comment as long as you accept a few stipulations:

    1) Chicago Boyz authors tend to share a broad outlook on issues but there is no party or company line. Each of us decides what to write and how to respond to comments on his own posts. Occasionally one or another of us will delete a comment as off-topic, excessively rude or otherwise unproductive. You may think that we deleted your comment unjustly, and you may be right, but it is usually best if you can accept it and move on.

    2) If you post a comment and it doesn't show up it was probably blocked by our spam filter. We batch-delete spam comments, typically in the morning. If you email us promptly at we may be able to retrieve and publish your comment.

    3) You may use common HTML tags (italic, bold, etc.). Please use the "href" tag to post long URLs. The spam filter tends to block comments that contain multiple URLs. If you want to post multiple URLs you should either spread them across multiple comments or email us so that we can make sure that your comment gets posted.

    4) This blog is private property. The First Amendment does not apply. We have no obligation to publish your comments, follow your instructions or indulge your arguments. If you are unwilling to operate within these loose constraints you should probably start your own blog and leave us alone.

    5) Comments made on the Chicago Boyz blog are solely the responsibility of the commenter. No comment on any post on Chicago Boyz is to be taken as a statement from or by any contributor to Chicago Boyz, the Chicago Boyz blog, its administrators or owners. Chicago Boyz and its contributors, administrators and owners, by permitting comments, do not thereby endorse any claim or opinion or statement made by any commenter, nor do they represent that any claim or statement made in any comment is true. Further, Chicago Boyz and its contributors, administrators and owners expressly reject and disclaim any association with any comment which suggests any threat of bodily harm to any person, including without limitation any elected official.

    6) Commenters may not post content that infringes intellectual property rights. Comments that violate this rule are subject to deletion or editing to remove the infringing content. Commenters who repeatedly violate this rule may be banned from further commenting on Chicago Boyz. See our DMCA policy for more information.