Building a Liberal Media
Am I the only one who thinks that the real task facing the left is not picking a 2008 candidate, getting new policies or moving right or left? Our main goal is to build up, work towards and encourage a partisan liberal media to challenge the right wing LIE machine. When Dems debate Repubs on cable, the right have a hundred unaccountable talking heads from talk radio, Fox, MSNBC or openly conservative magazines, websites etc. Other than Eleanor Clift, I cannot think of a single famous liberal talking head who acts as an advocate for the Dems on TV. We need our own Fox, we need to challenge the rightward, lazy drift of the mainstream media and we need to expose the right wing, even if that means exposing hypocrisy in their personal lives. The Repubs will always have the upper hand with a cheerleader press built singularly to promote their interests and their falsehoods.
Yes AND No, Zippy
In a way, it would seem to make sense that we need a liberal media base to counterpoint the conservative/republican media which is so prevalent and so biased. But, and here's the big "BUT," are we then not just a guity as the repubs in pounding out our own spin on the issues? Wouldn't it make a heck of a lot more sense to push for a return to the time of "true journalism?" You know, that was the time when "spin" was just a cycle on the washing machine. "Fair and balanced" was a phrase which more aptly described an individual rather than a TV talking head (of any ilk).
"News" is just that; a factual reporting of events of consequence. Unfortunately, for those of us who actually pay attention, what corporate media passes off as "news" today is more accurately defined as "opinion/editorial" in nature. Most of our country hasn't a clue that they are being spoonfed a mouthful of hogswallow! If Peter Jennings says so, if Bill O'Reilly says so, or any of the others say so, it must be so. It is patently obvious that the ethical considerations once so important to the "journalist" now rank somewhere far below in importance to them than: (1) their big, fat multi-million dollar contracts; (2) stock portfolios; and, (3) how to keep both of these by making the bossman one totally happy camper.
I really dn't think your deal
I really dn't think your dealing with the realities facing us. If we 'push for a return to the time of "true journalism"' (I honestly have no idea how we would go about this), do you think ClearChannel or Fox or MSNBC are going to change? This is exactly the kind of thinking that I feel the Democratic establishment suffers from. We still believe that there is a fair, responsible, fact-based press who will come to our rescue and slay the right wing noise machine. It ain't happened yet, and I don't see this changing.
Amen, brother...
Short of Olberman on MSNBC, there is not a single visible liberal on TV that's worth anything. IMHO, Alan Colmes does more to hurt the liberal/democratic agenda than he helps. For example, just tonite douchebag Hannity was interviewing Tommy Franks in a beautiful woodpaneled studio, obviously trying to present this intellectual point of view of how great the Iraq war was, blah blah blah. Alan Colmes gets to interview Wesley Clark outside like he was a passer by. Clark was given 1/4 the amount of air time. Granted it was FOX, but this happens all over the spectrum.
We need a real Democratic perspective on all the major channels and I think the only way this will happen is to have some top tier Democrats agree to do this kind of interview work. I totally believe that they are afraid to do it. I'd give my left nut to see Howard Dean on the same set as Hannity or the falafel guy. He'd shred them (if they didn't edit it). They need to suck it up and be willing to take a risk to do it.
Peace out,
John
Try reality, not knee-jerk!
Of course my gut instinct is to lob just as many bombs back into the enemy camp as they lob at us, but that will do nothing if it ends up making us look bad. I admit that sometimes I am something of an altruist, but without faith in something (even a "system") we're nothing. High ideals that may be, but I still have an unswerving faith in the American system. That being said, I simply cannot believe that if we Demos just use logic instead of kneejerk reactionary programs that we will win moderates to our view. As we continue to be steady, consistent and "American," others cannot help but notice the vast disparity between Demos and neocons. I may be wrong but, as a rule, I tend to be methodical rather than radical.
Sounds good
Now this is highly manipulative. I find it truly amazing that we can spend month after month, year after year, in less than desirable circumstances, to put it mildly; and then one good day, one pleasant, normal day, and we seem to be willing to forget it all. Until the next strike. I think that is one of the characteristics of the terrorism that we are faced with these days, and it is designed to keep the snowball rolling down the hill. It's called "pacifying." It always sounds so appealing to be moderate, not to rock the boat, upset anybody. It is so much easier. But many of us do not have that option. So maybe you need to rethink your logic, Doodlebug.
A slight clarification
I just want to say that I am not in any way accusing anybody of letting things ride. That was not my intention in writing the above message. It's something I have noticed in my own experience, though. So if even I feel this way sometimes, who have been hit harder than anybody, I can imagine how it must be for others. It is just something I have wanted to mention and is not meant to be a criticism at all.
I agree
I am of the firm belief that the Republican leadership gives marching orders to everyone from Limbaugh to Bob Novak to make sure they are repeating over and over their current propaganda.
We don't need to imitate them. Rather we need to get back on the offensive and get back to our populist roots. When they attack, not only do we need to respond rapidly, we need to hit back and point out their lies and how utterly wrong they are.
I think they should just give Limbaugh
marching orders. He has had enough fun. In fact, we could just get rid of 85% of the current media and start to live our lives again as they were intended to be lived. I like the idea of being on the offensive, but it just wouldn't work for me to rip the Christmas decoration off my neighbor's door across the hall or to burn the flyers I receive from my apartment complex advising me of what's going to be happening next to "to be." Last time it was making arrangements "to be without water." This time it is inviting my friends and family "to be here" at the apartment complex. So what is your recommendation for a rapid response under those conditions?
I think we agree here. I don
I think we agree here. I don't advocate acting like a bunch of rabid nutjobs. What I was trying to say was that we need real, frontline dems to step up and be willing to get in front of a camera, on the shows that ordinary people watch. Furthermore, when they get on camera, they need to talk to the main democratic message, and not be bullied into nonsense issues that give the right the ability to summarily dismiss them as "way out liberals".
One thing that hurt Kerry during the campaign was his reluctance to interview on anything other than the local spots where he was campaigning at the time. It's time for people to wake up and realize that they, like the majority of America, are Democrats. They just don't know it.
Nice, golfmonkey,
but I wasn't talking to you.
Whoa, already!
Perhaps I misspoke (like Rummy)! More than likely, though, I did not clearly explain myself.
Yes, we need media who espouse our views. No, they shouldn't be like Limbaugh, et al. We cannot come off as "rabid nutjobs," but we can't come off as namby-pamby either. Where that happy medium is becomes the question.
As an attorney, I know that the rational, calm, logical approach; setting out point by point, generally makes the day in court.
As an older lesbian, well, I'm quite frankly terrified of the next 4 years and beyond! I, and my spouse, do not have the luxury of sitting around waiting for the country to come to its senses; we'll be dead by then!
All of that being said, one half of me wants to move in a rational fashion while the other half of me wants to take to the streets, protest, get in their face and darned near incite a riot to get the liberal viewpoint across. Which of these approaches will turn the tide is unclear to me; perhaps I'm just too close to the issues (the "hot button" ones) to participate in this topic in any meaningful manner.
To those of you who disagree with me, well, doggone it, that's what this is all about. We've still got that anyway. 'Course, this site is probably being watched by "you know who," but that's just too darned bad as well!
There's room for both
I for one wholeheartedly support your right to "take to the streets" and would proud if you did so. That doesn't detract from the fact that the Democratic Party has no voice that average people hear every day. As much as I despise FOX, a ton of people watch it as their only news source (as indicated by the election results). I am convinced that notable dems are afraid to stick their necks out in this arena.
Short of getting XM radio and tuning into Air America, there is no constant outlet of our point of view from credible dems.
Thanks for your comments
I don't think you misspoke, Doodlebug. I agree with you, as a matter of fact. I also feel both impulses at various times -- the desire to disrupt the status quo and at the same time the dread of doing so. I have compared myself on occasion to the Shirley MacLaine character in "Terms of Endearment." It's the scene where her daughter is dying in a hospital room, and she's suffering. Shirley MacLaine calls for the nurse again and again, but no one shows up. She finally, out of sheer torment, begins to make a scene in the halls of the hospital. It is a difficult position to be in.
I rather think that a balance between the two extremes is probably the best way. But it is not always necessary to be in full agreement, is it?
I want to thank you for your comments, though. I appreciated reading them.
Room for both
Right. Except that Mike from the Republican Headquarters left me alone a couple of times, and I did great! Isn't that nice? So there may be room for both, but neither one of them is me. Who would agree to that?
Huh?
Huh?
The Lady hears the beat of a
The Lady hears the beat of a very different drummer...
Thank God. I thought it was
Thank God. I thought it was just me being dense.
I am sure she does
Good and bad, happy and sad, all thoughts vanish into emptiness like the imprint of a bird in the sky.
That's okay, golfmonkey,
I think I have made my point, despite my receipt of a new flyer advising me to make arrangements to be without water. This is how terrorism operates.