Suffer the little children.....

[mkporwit]

suffering

[j_b]

Anyone who wants to sit down and get harangued by a gaggle of leftists

 

independent/public media are a "gaggle of leftists"? why do you keep thinking your rhetorical fallacies will go unnoticed?

 

for their many failings and shortcomings can dial them up on Youtube and get their virtual lashings on demand. Or they can borrow copies of virtually any documentary ever created from the library (I hear they have "books" there too!). Or pay $10 a month and do the same on Netflix. It's never been easier for people who are interested in quality, diversity, etc to get their hands on it at little or no cost to themselves, so it's not clear why the public needs to fork over any additional funds or grant the government any additional powers to underwrite a moth-eaten, 1960's era vision of TV as a mechanism for social uplift.

 

hmm, nope. You'll find that an informed public being essential to democracy is a widely shared concept and definitely not an obsolete, moth-eaten vision despite your irrational hatred of what the 60's brought to western democracies.

 

For all your attempts at appearing as a tolerant, freedom loving type, the vision that emerges from your rhetoric is very bleak.

[JayB]

Anyone who wants to sit down and get harangued by a gaggle of leftists

 

independent/public media are a "gaggle of leftists"? why do you keep thinking your rhetorical fallacies will go unnoticed?

 

for their many failings and shortcomings can dial them up on Youtube and get their virtual lashings on demand. Or they can borrow copies of virtually any documentary ever created from the library (I hear they have "books" there too!). Or pay $10 a month and do the same on Netflix. It's never been easier for people who are interested in quality, diversity, etc to get their hands on it at little or no cost to themselves, so it's not clear why the public needs to fork over any additional funds or grant the government any additional powers to underwrite a moth-eaten, 1960's era vision of TV as a mechanism for social uplift.

 

hmm, nope. You'll find that an informed public being essential to democracy is a widely shared concept and definitely not an obsolete, moth-eaten vision despite your irrational hatred of what the 60's brought to western democracies.

 

For all your attempts at appearing as a tolerant, freedom loving type, the vision that emerges from your rhetoric is very bleak.

 

I'm not the one histrionically lamenting the inadequacy of the American public's media preferences here, kemosabe.

 

Listening to you expound on the significance of TV in the internet age is like reading an anarchist manifesto concerning the political implications of the phonograph in the radio age.

 

"Step 1: Seize the phonograph factory and distribute wax cylinders bearing the manifesto to...."

 

The vision that you've been articulating is neither necessary nor sufficient for an informed public.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Anyone who wants to sit down and get harangued by a gaggle of leftists

 

independent/public media are a "gaggle of leftists"? why do you keep thinking your rhetorical fallacies will go unnoticed?

 

for their many failings and shortcomings can dial them up on Youtube and get their virtual lashings on demand. Or they can borrow copies of virtually any documentary ever created from the library (I hear they have "books" there too!). Or pay $10 a month and do the same on Netflix. It's never been easier for people who are interested in quality, diversity, etc to get their hands on it at little or no cost to themselves, so it's not clear why the public needs to fork over any additional funds or grant the government any additional powers to underwrite a moth-eaten, 1960's era vision of TV as a mechanism for social uplift.

 

hmm, nope. You'll find that an informed public being essential to democracy is a widely shared concept and definitely not an obsolete, moth-eaten vision despite your irrational hatred of what the 60's brought to western democracies.

 

For all your attempts at appearing as a tolerant, freedom loving type, the vision that emerges from your rhetoric is very bleak.

 

I'm not the one histrionically lamenting the inadequacy of the American public's media preferences here, kemosabe.

 

Listening to you expound on the significance of TV in the internet age is like reading an anarchist manifesto concerning the political implications of the phonograph in the radio age.

 

"Step 1: Seize the phonograph factory and distribute wax cylinders bearing the manifesto to...."

 

The vision that you've been articulating is neither necessary nor sufficient for an informed public.

 

Classic stuff, Jay!

[j_b]

I'm not the one histrionically lamenting the inadequacy of the American public's media preferences here, kemosabe.

 

adding 'histrionically' to your sentence isn't going to give it any greater meaning.

 

Listening to you expound on the significance of TV in the internet age is like reading an anarchist manifesto concerning the political implications of the phonograph in the radio age.

 

here is your problem, you appear to think that porn watching and playing video games (and whatever other procrastinating) on the internet amounts to being informed. Democracy is much older than the phonograph so you better update your would-be demeaning imagery.

 

"Step 1: Seize the phonograph factory and distribute wax cylinders bearing the manifesto to...."

 

The vision that you've been articulating is neither necessary nor sufficient for an informed public.

 

I am not expecting warmongers and fearmongers to agree that corporate media propaganda is the antithesis of democracy. After all what would they be left with if they couldn't manipulate the public into buying their snake oil.

[prole]

Classic stuff, Jay!

 

Yeah, double retard-clap!!

[j_b]

Drowning Out the Noise Machine

 

by Megan Tady

 

Journalism is breaking my heart. Or should I say, “journalism.”

 

Hate-mongering media extremists have captured our news networks and are using the public’s platform – our airwaves – to pick off progressive leaders like Van Jones and misinform the American people.

 

Nothing new there, of course. But it’s especially outrageous that the same networks that didn’t challenge the rush to war with Iraq and Afghanistan now host right-wing talking heads suspicious of healthcare reform who help spread absurd lies about “death panels.”

 

Fox news anchors prompt “tea party” crowds to cheer on camera to dramatize a reporter’s live feed, and CNN routinely airs a program with Lou Dobbs that vilely attacks immigrants night after night.

 

In the meantime, “moderate” voices in the media are mostly silent and fail to properly cover this insanity or simply tell the truth on the nightly news. Print media routinely report on TV’s faux news segments, adding legitimacy to propaganda.

 

New target: media diversity and localism

 

Since their success ousting Van Jones—who was President Obama’s Special Adviser for Green Jobs at the Council on Environmental Quality—media hacks like Dobbs, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and Bill O’Reilly are turning their attention to another “enemy of America”—media diversity and localism.

 

Yes, you read that correctly.

 

They’re now targeting Mark Lloyd, the FCC’s new chief diversity officer, by claiming that Lloyd has a secret plan to take over the airwaves. Lloyd’s real goal: making sure that that news actually reflects the issues that affect local communities. It’s the kind of overhaul we drastically need in a country dominated by a media elite.

 

This goal is actually the cornerstone of communications policy in the United States. The Communication Act of 1934 mandates the FCC to promote localism, diversity and competition in media. What’s new here is that the FCC is finally willing to pursue this policy.

 

According to Media Matters, Beck has targeted Lloyd in at least 10 Fox News programs since August 14. Early this month, he asked his Twitter followers to “[f]ind everything you can” about Lloyd.

 

This smear campaign is supposed to make us think that more voices in the media, more coverage of the local issues we care about, is actually bad for us. “They’re trying to do this back-door route with diversity… to shut you up by shutting us down,” Limbaugh told his listeners.

 

People like Limbaugh want us to think Lloyd is part of a plot to kick conservatives off the air, even though conservative talk radio accounts for 91 percent of all talk radio programming produced by the five largest media companies. Print media have latched onto this “story” like a barnacle.

 

Too serious to ignore

 

If Bill O’Reilly has ever said anything true, it is this sentence from a mid-September broadcast: “Fox News and talk radio are now setting the [national] conversation.”

 

Civil rights and public interest groups across the country are now pushing back. The organization ColorofChange.org has started a campaign to get advertisers to abandon Beck’s show. Nearly 300,000 people have signed a letter to advertisers, and 62 companies have now pulled their business. Dozens of mostly Latino organizations have joined a campaign at BastaDobbs.com, which calls on CNN to get rid of Dobbs.

 

And more than fifty groups have signed a letter to the FCC asking the agency to stand in support of Lloyd and media diversity and localism. (Full disclosure: The letter was produced by Free Press, the nonprofit organization where I work.)

 

But these efforts aren’t enough. We need an all-out grassroots movement to create systemic change in our media system. Here’s how you can fight back:

 

1. Increase your support of independent media and public media to extend the reach of news outlets offering true investigative reporting and thoughtful discourse.

2. Help secure Net Neutrality to safeguard Internet freedom. We can’t let corporations control the only platform on which everyone’s voices can be heard equally.

3. Become the media: join local news ventures in your community.

4. Call on Congress and Obama to adopt a national journalism strategy and offer policies that create new ownership structures, a journalism jobs program and increased funding for new public media.

 

The answer isn’t censoring people like Beck–it’s more speech, more voices and more opportunity. If we can’t take away Beck’s megaphone, we’ll have to drown it out.

 

 

[ivan]

Drowning Out the Noise Machine

 

by Megan Tady

 

Journalism is breaking my heart. Or should I say, journalism.

 

Hate-mongering media extremists have captured our news networks and are using the publics platform our airwaves to pick off progressive leaders like Van Jones and misinform the American people.

 

Nothing new there, of course. But its especially outrageous that the same networks that didnt challenge the rush to war with Iraq and Afghanistan now host right-wing talking heads suspicious of healthcare reform who help spread absurd lies about death panels.

 

Fox news anchors prompt tea party crowds to cheer on camera to dramatize a reporters live feed, and CNN routinely airs a program with Lou Dobbs that vilely attacks immigrants night after night.

 

In the meantime, moderate voices in the media are mostly silent and fail to properly cover this insanity or simply tell the truth on the nightly news. Print media routinely report on TVs faux news segments, adding legitimacy to propaganda.

 

New target: media diversity and localism

 

Since their success ousting Van Joneswho was President Obamas Special Adviser for Green Jobs at the Council on Environmental Qualitymedia hacks like Dobbs, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and Bill OReilly are turning their attention to another enemy of Americamedia diversity and localism.

 

Yes, you read that correctly.

 

Theyre now targeting Mark Lloyd, the FCCs new chief diversity officer, by claiming that Lloyd has a secret plan to take over the airwaves. Lloyds real goal: making sure that that news actually reflects the issues that affect local communities. Its the kind of overhaul we drastically need in a country dominated by a media elite.

 

This goal is actually the cornerstone of communications policy in the United States. The Communication Act of 1934 mandates the FCC to promote localism, diversity and competition in media. Whats new here is that the FCC is finally willing to pursue this policy.

 

According to Media Matters, Beck has targeted Lloyd in at least 10 Fox News programs since August 14. Early this month, he asked his Twitter followers to [f]ind everything you can about Lloyd.

 

This smear campaign is supposed to make us think that more voices in the media, more coverage of the local issues we care about, is actually bad for us. Theyre trying to do this back-door route with diversity to shut you up by shutting us down, Limbaugh told his listeners.

 

People like Limbaugh want us to think Lloyd is part of a plot to kick conservatives off the air, even though conservative talk radio accounts for 91 percent of all talk radio programming produced by the five largest media companies. Print media have latched onto this story like a barnacle.

 

Too serious to ignore

 

If Bill OReilly has ever said anything true, it is this sentence from a mid-September broadcast: Fox News and talk radio are now setting the [national] conversation.

 

Civil rights and public interest groups across the country are now pushing back. The organization ColorofChange.org has started a campaign to get advertisers to abandon Becks show. Nearly 300,000 people have signed a letter to advertisers, and 62 companies have now pulled their business. Dozens of mostly Latino organizations have joined a campaign at BastaDobbs.com, which calls on CNN to get rid of Dobbs.

 

And more than fifty groups have signed a letter to the FCC asking the agency to stand in support of Lloyd and media diversity and localism. (Full disclosure: The letter was produced by Free Press, the nonprofit organization where I work.)

 

But these efforts arent enough. We need an all-out grassroots movement to create systemic change in our media system. Heres how you can fight back:

 

1. Increase your support of independent media and public media to extend the reach of news outlets offering true investigative reporting and thoughtful discourse.

2. Help secure Net Neutrality to safeguard Internet freedom. We cant let corporations control the only platform on which everyones voices can be heard equally.

3. Become the media: join local news ventures in your community.

4. Call on Congress and Obama to adopt a national journalism strategy and offer policies that create new ownership structures, a journalism jobs program and increased funding for new public media.

 

The answer isnt censoring people like Beckits more speech, more voices and more opportunity. If we cant take away Becks megaphone, well have to drown it out.

 

return to the original excuse the government has for interfering here - "our airwaves" - fox is a CABLE channel primarily and isn't using the public's resources to broadcast its admitedly tawdry bullshit

[Jim]

Anyone who wants to sit down and get harangued by a gaggle of leftists

 

independent/public media are a "gaggle of leftists"? why do you keep thinking your rhetorical fallacies will go unnoticed?

 

for their many failings and shortcomings can dial them up on Youtube and get their virtual lashings on demand. Or they can borrow copies of virtually any documentary ever created from the library (I hear they have "books" there too!). Or pay $10 a month and do the same on Netflix. It's never been easier for people who are interested in quality, diversity, etc to get their hands on it at little or no cost to themselves, so it's not clear why the public needs to fork over any additional funds or grant the government any additional powers to underwrite a moth-eaten, 1960's era vision of TV as a mechanism for social uplift.

 

hmm, nope. You'll find that an informed public being essential to democracy is a widely shared concept and definitely not an obsolete, moth-eaten vision despite your irrational hatred of what the 60's brought to western democracies.

 

For all your attempts at appearing as a tolerant, freedom loving type, the vision that emerges from your rhetoric is very bleak.

 

I'm not the one histrionically lamenting the inadequacy of the American public's media preferences here, kemosabe.

 

Listening to you expound on the significance of TV in the internet age is like reading an anarchist manifesto concerning the political implications of the phonograph in the radio age.

 

"Step 1: Seize the phonograph factory and distribute wax cylinders bearing the manifesto to...."

 

The vision that you've been articulating is neither necessary nor sufficient for an informed public.

 

Most of the items passing for news on the itnernet is opinion, talking heads, blogs reguritating wire service stories, and "analysis". There is very little investigative journalism that orginates from these sources. Rather that is still the domain of newspapers, NY Times, Washington Post, LA Times, etc.; and some broadcast news - 60 minutes comes to mind.

 

While the information is now more widely dispersed via the internet - it's pulling content from the traditional news sources. And more variations on the same content, rehashed over and over, is not adding any information but spin. Maybe this will change as the medium matures - but my guess is that we'll just get more dancing midgets on things like youtube and an endless succession of 15-minute-moments that continue to find a vast audience of dolts.

[ivan]

 

There is very little investigative journalism that orginates from these sources. Rather that is still the domain of newspapers, NY Times, Washington Post, LA Times, etc.; and some broadcast news - 60 minutes comes to mind.

 

didn't druge give us blowjob-gate though?

[KaskadskyjKozak]

 

Yeah, double retard-clap!!

 

We don't need to hear about your STDs.

 

[prole]

Anyone who wants to sit down and get harangued by a gaggle of leftists

 

independent/public media are a "gaggle of leftists"? why do you keep thinking your rhetorical fallacies will go unnoticed?

 

for their many failings and shortcomings can dial them up on Youtube and get their virtual lashings on demand. Or they can borrow copies of virtually any documentary ever created from the library (I hear they have "books" there too!). Or pay $10 a month and do the same on Netflix. It's never been easier for people who are interested in quality, diversity, etc to get their hands on it at little or no cost to themselves, so it's not clear why the public needs to fork over any additional funds or grant the government any additional powers to underwrite a moth-eaten, 1960's era vision of TV as a mechanism for social uplift.

 

hmm, nope. You'll find that an informed public being essential to democracy is a widely shared concept and definitely not an obsolete, moth-eaten vision despite your irrational hatred of what the 60's brought to western democracies.

 

For all your attempts at appearing as a tolerant, freedom loving type, the vision that emerges from your rhetoric is very bleak.

 

I'm not the one histrionically lamenting the inadequacy of the American public's media preferences here, kemosabe.

 

Listening to you expound on the significance of TV in the internet age is like reading an anarchist manifesto concerning the political implications of the phonograph in the radio age.

 

"Step 1: Seize the phonograph factory and distribute wax cylinders bearing the manifesto to...."

 

The vision that you've been articulating is neither necessary nor sufficient for an informed public.

 

Gotta love the trajectory of the argumentation here: First deny that the "public", "common interest", "society", etc. exists. Second, raise the spectre of big government. Then, deny there's a problem, "everything's fine, we're giving them what they want". Next, pull out the boogyman again, this time in East Coast liberal female variant. Finally, when all else fails, matter-of-factly state that the entire parameter of debate is irrelevant anyway: TV is dead. Wash hands, tell everybody you gotta go take a shit.

 

The Conservative Movement: Defending Blind Ignorance for the Masses in the Name of Freedom Since...well, Forever.

Edited October 1, 2009 by prole

[KaskadskyjKozak]

The Conservative Movement: Defending Blind Ignorance for the Masses in the Name of Freedom Since...well, Forever.

 

You commies are always at the ready with your "reeducation" camps and forced propaganda.

 

[ivan]

 

Gotta love the trajectory of the argumentation here: First deny that the "public", "common interest", "society", etc. exists. Second, raise the spectre of big government. Then, deny there's a problem, "everything's fine, we're giving them what they want". Next, pull out the boogyman again, this time in East Coast liberal female variant. Finally, when all else fails, matter-of-factly state that the entire parameter of debate is irrelevant anyway: TV is dead. Wash hands, slink out.

 

The Conservative Movement: Defending Blind Ignorance for the Masses in the Name of Freedom Since...well, Forever.

for a man who proclaims hatred for "straw men" you appear to have an ability to create your own

 

you've heard more than just "conservative" voices here, but if that flatters your notion of being the lone torch-bearer for all causes liberal, feel free to indulge it

 

was there ever a halycon day when the american electorate was deeply engaged and educated and keepign the tiller of government on the strait and true?

[KaskadskyjKozak]

you've heard more than just "conservative" voices here, but if that flatters your notion of being the lone torch-bearer for all causes liberal, feel free to indulge it

 

was there ever a halycon day when the american electorate was deeply engaged and educated and keepign the tiller of government on the strait and true?

 

No shit Ivan. Prole is a real piece of work.

 

Newsflash! TV programming sucks ass and caters to the lowest common denominator and the bottom line. Don't like it, don't watch! I sure don't want people like Prole taking it over and deciding what we get to see and how that information is "filtered".

[j_b]

return to the original excuse the government has for interfering here - "our airwaves" - fox is a CABLE channel primarily and isn't using the public's resources to broadcast its admitedly tawdry bullshit

 

It isn't an excuse but the understanding that control of the means to convey information to the public is part of the commons because of its critical importance toward enabling democratic participation of citizenry to the political process. It being called CABLE is a in great part a misnomer as shown by satellite dish reception, or the fact that hardwired cable isn't even the most desirable technology: generalization of wireless would be much cheaper and free us from wired cable monopolies, which explains in part why wired cable monopolies are fighting tooth and nail against community sponsored wireless.

[j_b]

for a man who proclaims hatred for "straw men" you appear to have an ability to create your own

 

what straw men? I fail to see any straw men in what prole said for he described very well what has been JayB's rhetoric.

[prole]

was there ever a halycon day when the american electorate was deeply engaged and educated and keepign the tiller of government on the strait and true?

 

Gotta love your optimism. You should join Kojak's "No, We Can't!" Party. It's just to the right of Jay's "No, We Shouldn'ts".

[KaskadskyjKozak]

was there ever a halycon day when the american electorate was deeply engaged and educated and keepign the tiller of government on the strait and true?

 

Gotta love your optimism. You should join Kojak's "No, We Can't!" Party. It's just to the right of Jay's "No, We Shouldn'ts".

 

Sorry, but my party is "Fuck off Commie Prole".

 

Now go lick sack (and chode).

 

 

[prole]

was there ever a halycon day when the american electorate was deeply engaged and educated and keepign the tiller of government on the strait and true?

 

Gotta love your optimism. You should join Kojak's "No, We Can't!" Party. It's just to the right of Jay's "No, We Shouldn'ts".

 

Sorry, but my party is "Fuck off Commie Prole".

 

Now go lick sack (and chode).

 

 

That party's even more reactionary than the other one. Man, you're EXTREME!

[j_b]

was there ever a halycon day when the american electorate was deeply engaged and educated and keepign the tiller of government on the strait and true?

 

may be not a halcyon day but Americans were way more engaged in the 30's, which explains why regressives have tried to dismantle much of the progressives policies that were implemented then. Except for the last 2 elections voter turnout has pretty much been falling over the last 60 years, and the anomaly of the last 2 elections could be explained by a reaction to the Bush administration fiasco.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

That party's even more reactionary than the other one. Man, you're EXTREME!

 

Not quite as radical as a college student living off of loans who's never worked a day in his life nor been self-sufficient, but pontificates endlessly about societal ills and economic systems, but who can be?

[Kimmo]

[

 

Not quite as radical as a college student living off of loans who's never worked a day in his life nor been self-sufficient, but pontificates endlessly about societal ills and economic systems, but who can be?

 

you're too jaded. you were young once, right? what happened?

[KaskadskyjKozak]

you're too jaded. you were young once, right? what happened?

 

Hi Cocoa, how's life?

[olyclimber]

HELLO. I AM HERE TO REGISTER MY MORAL INDIGNATION.