It’s truly one extreme to another with the mainstream media – they cannot understand a movement of people who are not trying to get something from the government, and are not structured top-down like most interest-groups and many political parties.
For months they have been writing us off – as the Washington cartoon below aptly illustrates: (Lisa Benson, 5/10/2012; http://townhall.com/political-cartoons/2012/05/10/99134)
But we have not been dying, we’ve been organizing; when Senator Lugar lost, the continued increasing strength of the tea party became obvious causing the media to the opposite extreme. Now they are calling us “Establishment” in stories like this one from ABCNEWS: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/meet-gop-establishment-tea-party/story?id=16314836#.T6vPrMRYvBF.
After the big push of 2010 to re-introduce the longstanding values of Fiscal Responsibility, Limited Government and Free Markets to our representatives in DC, it did not take the tea party long to figure out that even if the majority in the House is willing to stand tall on all our issues, (which they sadly are not), 1/3 of the government is not enough to turn the Ship of State from rapidly steaming leftward to anything resembling where we want to go, which would be straight ahead, “steady as she goes”.
The problem with the media is deeper than bias, but bias is a part of it. Once they have the “narrative” they want to spin out, they lose all interest in countervailing facts.
To help correct some of these media-generated misperceptions, Jenny Beth Martin has an article on Breitbart today in which she tries to help the media understand what we are doing. As she puts it, the tea party is not just alive but most important, it is “organized to fight and win.”
Anyone checking our websites, talking to our members or asking elected officials if they continue to hear from the tea party, could have told the MSM reporters that, indeed, the wonderful or horrible tea party activists, depending on your point of view, are indeed alive and kicking! (But that would involve research and worse, risk messing up a favored “narrative”.)