Limbaugh can't take the truth about Obama tax cuts

[kevbone]

Does anyone actually believe Limbaugh?

[tvashtarkatena]

Yes, I'm at a loss to think of how the media will be reformed; self professed ignorance on the topic. For an effective advocate, that represents an opportunity.

 

Apparently not for you guys, however.

 

Is there any reason I should not write you guys off as a whining, ineffectual peanut gallery? So far, I've seen none here.

 

 

 

[tvashtarkatena]

I was asked for my personal contribution, I gave a measurable answer. So did Rob. If that's 'puffing'...it might be because you're weighing it against your non-answer to the same question.

 

In fact, out of the three of you, none of you answered any of my legitimate questions.

 

Actually, no. No one in the post asked for your extensive resume. You insinuated what others were doing needed your assessment of their effectiveness. Great - you're working for the ACLU, we're estatic for you. Wish others were doing the same.

 

I don't feel the need to get into a "mine is bigger than yours discussion".

 

But here. I found an extra chair for your ego.

 

I asked for what you guys did...nothing. I asked for what your causes agenda was. Nothing. I asked about your pet organizations track record. Nothing.

 

If you really think this is a comparison of dick size, you're dreaming. I'm just trying to figure out, with all your complaints, all your bluster, if there's anything real under there. So far, I got nothing. You had an opportunity to introduce your efforts and organizations to a broader audience here, but instead you choose to talk about 'puffing' and 'zero sum'. Shit, someone else asks the same thing, and you whining cuntz still can't come up with a single answer.

 

Think you can't get donations via Spray? I've done it several times. But then, I use a slightly different approach.

 

Is there any wonder why you and yours lose battle after battle?

 

Cuz it's pretty clear to me.

 

Edited September 29, 2010 by tvashtarkatena

[Jim]

If you really think this is a comparison of dick size, you're dreaming.

 

Is there any wonder why you and yours lose battle after battle?

 

No. But the size of something else is obvious.

[tvashtarkatena]

If you really think this is a comparison of dick size, you're dreaming.

 

Is there any wonder why you and yours lose battle after battle?

 

No. But the size of something else is obvious.

 

Now don't even think about answering Rob's questions. No, you wouldn't ever want to do that....

 

OK, I'll do it for you guys...

 

From it's website, FreePress.net seems to be an umbrella organization that primarily does public education and a letter writing email network. It's main campaigns are focused on Net Neutrality, supporting non-commercial public media, improving the quality of news by watchdogging FCC licensing requirements, and working against media consolidation. Big actions include a holding an activist's summit last year and filing a complaint with the FCC regarding highly editorialized news. It has an email based letter writing network, but no permanent lobbying capability to direct and focus those efforts. It does not seem to do any legal action. It's annual budget is just over 3 million.

Edited September 29, 2010 by tvashtarkatena

[prole]

How much it will be "appreciated" is not a big concern of mine. What will either organization do with my money, and what have they done in the past?

 

Appreciation means how big an impact it's likely to make on the organization relative to its size which is directly related to how the money is spent. As far as what an organization has done in the past, it seems less important to me than how an organization frames the issues and how those issues are situated in terms of creating spaces that can result in and reinforce lasting social change. There are plenty of liberal organizations out there with great track records of doing exactly jack shit. I don't think the ACLU is one of them, but I don't think gay weed is much of a "game-changer" at this point either. Surveillance, unlawful detention, etc., holding on to what we've got? That's important, go for it but I'm not pretending that it's going to change anything.

Edited September 29, 2010 by prole

[prole]

Oh, and I've done my share of tabling, petiton-waving, listserving, event coordination, campaigning, marching, civil-disobedience, and money-donating. It didn't stop corporate globalization, the invasions of Afghanistan or Iraq, NAFTA, or the installation of George Bush. That doesn't mean that I'm going to putting my time and energy into the American Humane Society because they've got a better "track record".

[Jim]

Oh, and I've done my share of tabling, petiton-waving, listserving, event coordination, campaigning, marching, civil-disobedience, and money-donating. It didn't stop corporate globalization, the invasions of Afghanistan or Iraq, NAFTA, or the installation of George Bush. That doesn't mean that I'm going to putting my time and energy into the American Humane Society because they've got a better "track record".

 

Ineffective dweeb.

[tvashtarkatena]

Well, gay marriage may not be big deal unless you're one of the 20-30 million Americans who can't get married to the person they want to. Similarly, marijuana policy reform is probably not a big deal if you're not one of the more than 800,000 Americans arrested for it every year, or you're not black, and so have a 3 to 1 bias working against you in the criminal justice system.

 

No, not really big deals at all.

 

As small as these issues, are, however, there are organizations out there who have nothing better to do than to pass a domestic partnership law in WA, overturn prop 8 in CA, reduce marijuana enforcement to the lowest priority in Seattle, and coordinate a legalization initiative in CA. And win 4 major SC victories against Gitmo and eventually get it shut down, win a major court case against illegal surveillance and harassment of peace protesters, be legal observers for the WTO and anti-Iraq protests....

 

Nope, nothing to see here.

 

 

Edited September 29, 2010 by tvashtarkatena

[tvashtarkatena]

Oh, and I've done my share of tabling, petiton-waving, listserving, event coordination, campaigning, marching, civil-disobedience, and money-donating. It didn't stop corporate globalization, the invasions of Afghanistan or Iraq, NAFTA, or the installation of George Bush. That doesn't mean that I'm going to putting my time and energy into the American Humane Society because they've got a better "track record".

 

Ineffective dweeb.

 

Sadly...yup. I should know...I did all the same shit. Got tired of 'no results'...and the progressives who produce them.

 

 

 

 

Edited September 29, 2010 by tvashtarkatena

[Jim]

I don't really give a hoot what organizations that someone puts their time and energy into whether it's trying to get kids grade points up, working on their community's plans, or working phone banks while juggling their kids schedule. Just do something - anything - that contributes to your community in a manner that matches your convictions.

 

What turns me off is holy-than-thou attitudes.

[tvashtarkatena]

And you won't find that attitude here.

 

Now, the 'Show me how my hard earned money's gonna make a real difference'.

 

That's an attitude you WILL find here.

 

Your donors deserve at least that much respect. In contrast, you're response to such legitimate questions seems to be "if you have to ask, YOU'RE AN ASSHOLE!"

 

You guys have been about as open and helpful as the RNC regarding my simple questions so far.

 

Not impressive.

 

 

Edited September 29, 2010 by tvashtarkatena

[Jim]

Thanks. As soon as the doors open after lunch for the Judgement Room we'll enter in proper prostrate position.

 

 

[rob]

prostate position?

[tvashtarkatena]

Thanks. As soon as the doors open after lunch for the Judgement Room we'll enter in proper prostrate position.

 

 

No worries, I've already done your homework for you, and decided not to donate to FreePress.net due to its lack of serious lobbying or legal capability. I can get more bang for the buck elsewhere on those the very same issues it's focused on.

 

That decision had nothing to do with a few wallflowers whining on the innernutz, either.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Jim]

Thanks. As soon as the doors open after lunch for the Judgement Room we'll enter in proper prostrate position.

 

 

No worries, I've already done your homework for you, and decided not to donate to FreePress.net due to its lack of serious lobbying or legal capability. I can get more bang for the buck elsewhere on those the very same issues it's focused on.

 

That decision had nothing to do with a few wallflowers whining on the innernutz, either.

 

Maybe, just maybe folks don't feel the need to list their resume on the web as you do. You can take that as a non-answer - who cares. Just keep telling us how much your work matters - though no one ever asked nor did anyone disparage your efforts.

[tvashtarkatena]

Thanks. As soon as the doors open after lunch for the Judgement Room we'll enter in proper prostrate position.

 

 

No worries, I've already done your homework for you, and decided not to donate to FreePress.net due to its lack of serious lobbying or legal capability. I can get more bang for the buck elsewhere on those the very same issues it's focused on.

 

That decision had nothing to do with a few wallflowers whining on the innernutz, either.

 

Maybe, just maybe folks don't feel the need to list their resume on the web as you do. You can take that as a non-answer - who cares. Just keep telling us how much your work matters - though no one ever asked nor did anyone disparage your efforts.

 

We can agree to disagree on this, like good libruls. The idea of bragging to the Spray audience is...laughable, to say the least. Half you guys I know, the other half of the all 12 or so of you out there I couldn't give a shit one way or the other. One person's 'keep it real' discussion is another person's 'chest beating'. I prefer to deal in the tangible world. Sorry.

 

 

The bike park is looking good, BTW (NOT to be taken as a snide remark).

Edited September 29, 2010 by tvashtarkatena

[Jim]

We can agree to disagree on this, like good libruls.

 

The bike park is looking good, BTW (NOT to be taken as a snide remark).

 

Agreed. I would discuss where my energy goes outside my professinal life over a beer - but, really, don't need to trail bread crumbs of my life over the interwebs.

 

Bike park?

[Jim]

prostate position?

 

Oh. Well, I am in mid-50s.

[rob]

when getting a prostate exam, is the doc supposed to have BOTH hands on your shoulders?

[tvashtarkatena]

We can agree to disagree on this, like good libruls.

 

The bike park is looking good, BTW (NOT to be taken as a snide remark).

 

Agreed. I would discuss where my energy goes outside my professinal life over a beer - but, really, don't need to trail bread crumbs of my life over the interwebs.

 

Bike park?

 

Jesus, Jim, I already know enough about where your efforts go. We're good, trust me.

 

My questions referred specifically to the free press thing, not Jim's life and times. I really wanted to know how you guys were trying to get from A to Z...you might have considered answering at least ONE of my questions to help me understand that.

 

 

[Jim]

Ok then. My apolgies for the broader interpretation.

 

Regarding free press. First, I do really believe it's an issue of democracy. The reduction in organizations that actually report on news, well news of any depth and sophistication; and that requires real investigative reporting is a problem.

 

Aside from being replaced by info-tainment the growth of corporate media "news", of which Fox is one example, are just saturating the airways with lies and more lies. Yes, the populace doesn't seem to be inclined do much research these days but if there were more available media I believe it would make a difference.

 

The commercial media - I don't know what if any resolution there is for that. Regading political advertisement - the avalanche of money is having a similar effect. I would prefer disclosure leglistation - and public funding of elections - which in the current climate are both doubtful. When I speak with my representatives on my two yearly visits (ok, their aids) I bring this up as an imortant constituent concern (ok, mine). I do donate to Media Matters as a hope that some information dispersal is useful.

 

Has any of this been effective? Not so given the grand scheme of things. Will I toss it overboard as part of the stuff I do. I doubt it.

 

I guess we could come to the conclusion that the populace gets the government they deserve, sometimes I think that. But it gets a bit depressing.

[prole]

My questions referred specifically to the free press thing, not Jim's life and times. I really wanted to know how you guys were trying to get from A to Z...you might have considered answering at least ONE of my questions to help me understand that.

 

Media Reform Proposals

--from Robert McChesney's Making Media Democratic in the Boston Review Summer 1998

 

Building nonprofit and noncommercial media. The starting point for media reform is to build up a viable nonprofit, noncommercial media sector. Such a sector currently exists in the United States, and produces much of value, but it is woefully small and underfunded. It can be developed independent of changes in laws and regulations. For example, foundations and organized labor could and should contribute far more to the develop of nonprofit and noncommercial media. Labor, in particular, has to be willing to subsidize radio, television, Internet, and print media. Moreover, labor cannot seek to micromanage these media and have them serve as its PR agents. For independent media to flourish, they must have editorial integrity.

 

Sympathetic government policies could also help foster a nonprofit media sector, and media reform must work to this end. Government subsidies and policies have played a key role in establishing lucrative commercial media. Since the 19th century, for example, the United States has permitted publications to have quality, high speed mailing at relatively low rates. We could extend this principle to lower mailing costs for a wider range of nonprofit media, and/or for media that have little or no advertising. Likewise we could permit all sorts of tax deductions or write-offs for contributions to nonprofit media. Dean Baker of the Economic Policy Institute has developed a plan for permitting taxpayers to take up to $150 off their federal tax bill, if they donate the money to a nonprofit news medium. This would permit almost all Americans to contribute to nonprofit media-not just those with significant disposable incomes-and help create an alternative to the dominant Wall Street/Madison Avenue system.

 

Public Broadcasting. Establishing a strong nonprofit sector to complement the commercial giants is not enough. The costs of creating a more democratic media system simply are too high. Therefore, it is important to establish and maintain a noncommercial, nonprofit, public radio and television system. The system should include national networks, local stations, public access television, and independent community radio stations. Every community should also have a stratum of low-power television and micropower radio stations.

 

The United States has never experienced public broadcasting in the manner of Japan, Canada, and Western Europe. In contrast to the US, public broadcasting there has been well funded and commissioned to serve the entire population. In the United States, public broadcasting has always been underfunded, and effectively required to provide only programming that is not commercially viable. As a result, public broadcasters typically provide relatively unattractive programming to fringe audiences, hardly a strategy for institutional success. Moreover, Congress has been a watchdog to see that public broadcasting did not expand the range of ideological discourse beyond that provided by the commercial broadcasters. In sum, public broadcasting in the United States has been handcuffed since its inception. Still, it has developed a devoted following. This following has provided enough vocal political support to keep US public broadcasting from being effectively privatized, but most of this toothpaste is now out of the tube. Public radio and television are increasingly dependent upon corporate grants and "enhanced underwriting," a euphemism for advertising. The federal subsidy only accounts for some 15 percent of public broadcasting revenues. Indeed, public broadcasting, by the standard international definition, no longer exists in the United States. Instead, we have nonprofit commercial broadcasting, closely linked to the corporate sector, with the constant threat of right-wing political harassment if public stations step out of line.

 

We need a system of real public broadcasting, with no advertising, that accepts no grants from corporations or private bodies, and that serves the entire population, not merely those who are disaffected from the dominant commercial system and have to contribute during pledge drives. Two hurdles stand in the way of such a system. The first is organizational: How can public broadcasting be structured to make the system accountable and prevent a bureaucracy impervious to popular tastes and wishes, but to give the public broadcasters enough institutional strength to prevent implicit and explicit attempts at censorship by political authorities? The second is fiscal: Where will the funds come from to pay for a viable public broadcasting service? At present, the federal government provides $260 million annually. The public system I envision-which would put per capita US spending in a league with, for example, Britain and Japan-may well cost $5-10 billion annually.

 

There is no one way to resolve the organizational problem, and perhaps an ideal solution can never be found. But there are better ways, as any comparative survey indicates. One key element in preventing bureaucratic ossification or government meddling will be to establish a pluralistic system, with national networks, local stations, community and public access stations, all controlled independently. In some cases direct election of officers by the public and also by public broadcasting employees may be appropriate, whereas in other cases appointment by elected political bodies may be preferable. As for funding, I have no qualms about drawing the funds for fully public radio and television from general revenues. There is an almost absurd obsession with generating funds for public broadcasting from everywhere but the general budget, on the bogus premise that public broadcasting cannot be justified as a public expense. In view of radio and television's importance in our lives, it clearly deserves a smidgen of the money we use to build entirely unnecessary weapons systems. We subsidize education, but the government now subsidizes media only on behalf of owners. We should seek to have a stable source of funding, one that cannot be subject to manipulation by politicians with little direct interest in the integrity of the system.

 

A powerful public radio and television system could have a profound effect on our entire media culture. It could lead the way in providing the type of public service journalism that commercialism is now killing off. This might in turn give commercial journalists the impetus they need to pursue the hard stories they now avoid. It could have a similar effect upon our entertainment culture. A viable public TV system could support a legion of small independent filmmakers. It could do wonders for reducing the reliance of our political campaigns upon expensive commercial advertising. It is essential to ensuring the diversity and deliberation that lie at the heart of a democratic public sphere.

 

Regulation. A third main plank is to increase regulation of commercial broadcasting in the public interest. Media reformers have long been active in this arena, if only because the public ownership of the airwaves gives the public, through the FCC, a clear legal right to negotiate terms with the chosen few who get broadcast licenses. Still, even this form of media activism has been negligible, and broadcast regulation has been largely toothless, with the desires of powerful corporations and advertisers rarely challenged.

 

Experience in the United States and abroad indicates that if commercial broadcasters are not held to high public service standards, they will generate the easiest profits by resorting to the crassest commercialism, and will overwhelm the balance of the media culture. Moreover, standard-setting will not work if commercial broadcasters are permitted to "buy" their way out of public service obligations; the record shows that they will eventually find a way to reduce or eliminate these payments. Hence the most successful mixed system of commercial and public broadcasting in the world was found in Britain from the 1950s to the 1980s. It was successful because the commercial broadcasters were held to public service standards comparable to those employed by the BBC; some scholars even argue that the commercial system sometimes outperformed the BBC as a public service broadcaster. The British scheme worked because commercial broadcasters were threatened with loss of their licenses if they did not meet public service standards. (Regrettably, Thatcherism, with its mantra that the market can do no wrong, has undermined the integrity of the British broadcasting system.)

 

In three particular areas, broadcast regulation can be of great importance. First, advertising should be strictly regulated or even removed from all children's programming (as in Sweden). We must stop the commercial carpetbombing of our children. Commercial broadcasters should be required to provide several hours per week of ad-free kids' programming, to be produced by artists and educators, not Madison Avenue hotshots.

 

Second, television news should be taken away from the corporate chiefs and the advertisers and turned over to journalists. Exactly how to organize independent ad-free children's and news programming on commercial television so that it is under the control of educators, artists, and journalists will require study and debate. But we should be able to set up something that is effective.

 

As for funding this public service programming, I subscribe to the principle that it should be subsidized by the beneficiaries of commercialized communication. This principle might be applied in several ways. We could charge commercial broadcasters rent on the electromagnetic spectrum they use to broadcast. Or we could charge them a tax whenever they sell the stations for a profit. In combination these mechanisms could generate well over a billion dollars annually. Or we could tax advertising. Some $200 billion will be spent to advertise in the United States in 1998, $120 billion of which will be in the media. A very small sales tax on this or even only on that portion that goes to radio and television could generate several billion dollars. It might also have the salutary effect of slowing down the commercial onslaught on American social life. And it does not seem like too much to ask of advertisers who are permitted otherwise to marinate most of the publicly owned spectrum in commercialism.

 

Third, political candidates should receive considerable free airtime on television during electoral campaigns. In addition, paid TV advertising by candidates should either be strictly regulated or banned outright, as the exorbitant cost of these ads (not to mention their lame content) has virtually destroyed the integrity of electoral democracy here. If they cannot be banned, or even reduced by regulation, then perhaps a provision should be made that if a candidate purchases a TV ad, his or her opponents will all be entitled to free ads of the same length on the same station immediately following the paid ad. This would prevent rich candidates from buying elections. I suspect it would pretty much eliminate the practice altogether.

 

Even in these pro-market times, the corporate media have been unable to rid the public of its notion that commercial broadcasters should be required to serve the public as well as shareholders and advertisers. Hence, when commercial broadcasters were able to force the FCC in 1997 to give them (at no cost) massive amounts of new spectrum so they could begin digital TV broadcasting, the Clinton administration established the Gore Commission to recommend public service requirements to be met by broadcasters in return for this gift. Following the contours of US media politics, the Gore Commission has been little short of a farce, with several industry members stonewalling all but the lamest proposals. But we can hope that the Gore Commission will generate some more serious public service proposals, and provide the basis for a public education campaign and subsequent legislation to give them the force of law.

 

Antitrust.. The fourth strategy for creating a more democratic media system is to break up the largest firms and establish more competitive markets, thus shifting some control from corporate suppliers to citizen consumers. By all accounts, the current antitrust statutes are not satisfactory, and if antitrust is ever to be applied to media it will require a new statute, similar in tone to the seminal Clayton and Sherman Acts, that lays out the general values to be enforced by the Justice Department and the Federal Trade Commission. The objective should be to break up such media conglomerates as Time Warner, News Corporation, and Disney, so that their book publishing, magazine publishing, TV show production, movie production, TV stations, TV networks, amusement parks, retail store chains, cable TV channels, cable TV systems, etc. all become independent firms. With reduced barriers-to-entry in these specific markets, new firms could enter.

 

The media giants claim that their market power and conglomeration make them more efficient and therefore able to provide a better product at lower prices to the consumer. There is not much evidence for these claims, though it is clear that market power and conglomeration make these firms vastly more profitable. Moreover, even if one accepts that antitrust would lead to a less efficient economic model, perhaps we should pay that price to establish a more open and competitive marketplace. In view of media's importance for democratic politics and culture, they should not be judged by purely commercial criteria.

 

Antitrust is the wild card in the media reform platform. It has tremendous appeal across the population and is usually the first idea citizens suggest when they are confronted with the current media scene. But it is unclear whether antitrust legislation could be effectively implemented. And even if it does prove effective, the system would remain commercial, albeit more competitive. It would not, in other words, reduce the need for the first three proposals.

 

Not to Worry?

 

The fundamental flaws in our corporate-dominated, commercial media system are widely appreciated. Unfortunately, there is also a rush to assert that the Internet should silence our fears. Because the Internet is open to all at relatively low prices, the hegemony of media giants and advertisers will soon end, to be replaced by a wide-open, decentralized, diverse, fast-changing, and competitive media culture. Best of all, this result is implicit in the Internet's digital network technology, and will not require government regulation. Indeed, the mainstream consensus-strongly endorsed by the Clinton administration's Internet policy-is that government regulation alone could prevent the Internet from working its magic.

 

Though the Internet and digital communication in general are certainly creating a radical change in our media and communication systems, the results may not be a more competitive market or more democratic media. Indeed, the evidence to date suggests that as the Internet becomes a commercial medium, the largest media firms are most likely to succeed. The media giants can plug digital programming from their other ventures into the Web at little extra cost. To generate an audience, they can promote their Web sites incessantly on their traditional media holdings. The leading media "brands" have been the first to charge subscription fees for their Web offerings; indeed, they may be the only firms for which this is even an alternative. The media giants can (and do) arrange to have their advertisers agree to advertise on their Web sites. The media giants can also use their market power and brand names to get premier position in Web browser software. The new Microsoft Internet Explorer 4.0 offers 250 highlighted channels, and the "plum positions" belong to Disney and Time Warner. Netscape and Pointcast are making similar arrangements. Moreover, approximately half the venture capital for Internet content start-up companies comes from established media firms; they want to be able to capitalize on profitable new applications as they emerge. In addition, the evidence suggests that in the commercialized Web, advertisers will have increased leverage over content because of the number of choices before them.

 

When these market considerations are taken together, it is difficult to imagine the growth of a competitive digital media marketplace in which small suppliers overwhelm corporate giants. Digital communication will cause considerable dislocation, but not a revolution. And in the end, the content of the digital communication world will appear quite similar to the content of the pre-digital world.

 

Ironically, the most striking feature of digital communication may well be not that it opened up competition in communication markets, but that it has promoted consolidation by undermining traditional distinctions between radio, television, telecommunication, and computer software. In the 1990s, almost all the media giants have entered into joint ventures or strategic alliances with the largest telecom and software firms. Time Warner is connected to several of the US regional (Bell) telephone giants, as well as to AT&T and Oracle. It has a major joint venture with US West. Disney, likewise, is connected to several major US telecommunication companies, as well as to America Online. News Corp. is partially owned by WorldCom (MCI) and has a joint venture with British Telecom. Microsoft, as one analyst noted, seems to be in bed with everyone. In due course the global media cartel may become something of a global communication cartel.

 

So how does the rise of the Internet alter my proposals for structural media reform? Very little. There are, of course, some specific policy reforms we should seek for the Internet: for example, guaranteeing universal public access at low rates, perhaps for free, and assuring links for nonprofit Web sites on the dominant browsers and commercial sites. But in general terms, we might do better to regard the Internet as the corporate media giants regard it: as part of the emerging media landscape, not its entirety. So when we create more and smaller media firms, when we create public and community radio and television networks and stations, when we create a strong public service component to commercial news and children's programming, when we use government policies to spawn a nonprofit media sector, all these efforts will have a tremendous effect on the Internet's development as a mass medium. Why? Because Web sites will not be worth much if they do not have the resources to provide a quality product. And all the new media that result from media reform will have Web sites as a mandatory aspect of their operations, much like the commercial media. By creating a vibrant and more democratic "traditional" media culture, we will go a long way toward doing the same with the Web.

[rob]

tl;dnr

[prole]

Sorry, does that not qualify as a "one-minute elevator pitch"?