Limbaugh can't take the truth about Obama tax cuts

[tvashtarkatena]

I'm not very well versed on these particular issues except in a general sense...hence, my questions. Don't get me wrong, No Free Press = No Free Society, for sure. We're heavily involved in the surveillance of journalists and other related press issues.

 

I'd be interesting in hearing more FCC requirements for 'news' and whether or not that's a useful tool to beat back the propaganda.

 

Fox probably puts out 10 times more right wing bullshit than its nearest 'competitor', that's pretty obvious, but its also a cable show, no? Doesn't that give them carte blanch to do fuck all newswise? What's the baseball bat available to whack them with? I'm pleading total ignorance, here.

 

As for Rush n company, they're just doing the free speech/entertainment thing. Plus, we've defended Rush's privacy rights. If only O'Reilly would get busted for drugs...we could add him to the fold, and he'd probably come crawling just like Rush, despite his well known hatred towards us.

 

I do maintain that good news sources are still out there. The NEW Yorker, Harpers, and the Atlantic, NYT, etc are still going strong and on the web now.

 

And there's always Colbert and Stewart (you should have heard the Fox team whine about Colbert's congressional testimony two days ago LOL)

 

 

I also maintain, for an effective advocacy organization, the press can be as much friend as foe. Despite it's limitations, it's been a very useful conduit for our message.

 

Regarding campaign finance we've advocated reforms (min public money, full disclosure) along the lines you've suggested. We're still trying to decide how to move forward given the recent SC decision and, just as important, an inevitable future decision that will deal with the question of direct corporate campaign funding.

 

 

[tvashtarkatena]

Regarding effectiveness...reform can take decades. Trashing Gitmo took some doing. Pot reform its 12th year here in WA...but progress is being made and I think that dam is about to break in the next very few years.

 

It's more important that an organization have the machinery and resources to do long term campaigns right than if that particular campaign produces fast results. Still, its helpful to recognize what an organization's agenda is and how it seeks to enact it: Public education, lobbying, legal action, public protest....and recognize the strengths and weaknesses of each capability.

[tvashtarkatena]

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

 

Nope. You should have both at your disposal, to use as the situation calls for.

 

 

[tvashtarkatena]

A lot of shoulda, coulda in that piece with no specifics regarding actual campaigns of reform, or which policies or legislation needs to be reformed, how, who's pushing for it, and how that effort is going. One is not left with a real sense of how feasible/pie in sky any of the suggestions in the piece are.

 

That's where the hard work is.

 

Something more current than 1998 might help to reflect today's political realities - they're pretty different than they were 12 years ago.

Edited September 29, 2010 by tvashtarkatena

[tvashtarkatena]

It's kind of like the Impeach Bush movement. Should Bush have been impeached? Sure. Was there a chance in hell that was ever going to happen? Nope. Not worth spending a second or a dime on it.

 

Reforming Fox seems to be in the same category, to me. I don't see a mechanism to make that happen. That, and that show is really popular.

[rob]

if they cancelled fox, where would fairweather get his links from???

[prole]

A lot of shoulda, coulda in that piece with no specifics regarding actual campaigns of reform, or which policies or legislation needs to be reformed, how, who's pushing for it, and how that effort is going. One is not left with a real sense of how feasible/pie in sky any of the suggestions in the piece are.

 

That's where the hard work is.

 

Something more current than 1998 might help to reflect today's political realities - they're pretty different than they were 12 years ago.

 

Identifying the problems, framing and contextualizing issues, and formulating potential solutions is hard work. Getting an edgier, much less, radical program off the ground in the current social context is a gargantuan effort to say the least. That being said, it's not an excuse to retreat into myopic pragmatism or withdraw from a more comprehensive view of our problems. At any rate, a well funded public media and subsidizing non-profits coupled with the exercise of anti-trust regulation doesn't seem very pie-in-the-sky to me. For all your active engagement, your narrowing window of what's possible while the problems get bigger is more depressing than anything else. The telling people what can't be done, what is impossible, STFU and send me a check strategy you share with your opponents probably speaks more to civic disengagement, apathy, and non-participation than anything else.

[prole]

Nothing in the set of media reforms posted above is interested in reforming Fox or beating it with baseball bats or whatever you're talking to yourself about. Here's a more recent piece:

 

http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/603/index.html

[kevbone]

if they cancelled fox, where would fairweather get his linksKINKS from???

 

From KKK's bedroom.

[j_b]

But if Americans would simply tune into all those alternative information sources flooding the airway they would easily see through this madness.

 

Until then, you guys keep working on your master plan to shut Limbaugh up and make Fox News fair and balanced LOL.

 

Why do you keep reducing the issue of corporate media consolidation and 'manufacturing consent' to Fox and Limbaugh? The NYT published blatant lies to push for attacking Iraq. The NYT hasn't found a war it didn't like in decades. The NYT supported neoliberal globalization and outsourcing, deregulation, NAFTA, etc .. May be the NYT was for gay marriage but I am not sure.

 

Do you need me to tell you about the evolution of public TV as well? What's wrong with you?

[j_b]

This news story was totally blacked out by the corporate and public media:

 

[video:youtube]V-A1PYgzMv0

[kevbone]

And the Repubs call it the liberal media.......

[Jim]

And the Repubs call it the liberal media.......

 

Seriously. There several problems with this report; first it is way too long to get on network news - can you say all that stuff in like 30 seconds. Second - there's no opposing opinion - this is, like, one guys opinion and it's not fair to let him have all that air time to himself. Third - there's no chicks. Fourth - what do you think would really happen if this got aired? Holy cow - shite storm, full media blitz by the JDL and their PR folks, pressure on corporate sponsers to pull out of advertisements.

[JayB]

Summary:

 

"Neither election funding nor public opinion trends are going our way at the moment, so we need to figure out a way to use legislation to rig the game in our favor while pretending to be neutral."

 

What seems to be missing from this discussion is any recognition of the fact that...people in government are also inspired by and act on selfish motives.

 

What portion of the Federal Budget gets spent in a way that's free of political patronage? How many bills get passed that would pass that bar? That's not "campaign money?" That's how we got the corn ethanol program? Impartial actors using public power in a way that's completely free from private motives?

 

What's the evidence that any campaign finance legislation has accomplished anything more than inspiring people to find clever ways around the new restrictions? How likely is it that giving congress more power to regulate the content and delivery of media is going to give us something besides the electronic equivalent of corn ethanol?

 

Finally - even if you're comfortable with Pelosi using the new powers in a perfectly fair, wise, and apolitical way - are you sure that Michelle Bachmann would be likely to do the same? In politics is it really wise to give your friends weapons that you'd never want to see in the hands of your enemies?

 

 

 

[prole]

I always love how economic liberals praise constitutional arrangements, checks and balances, balances of power in centralized and decentralized institutions, and other democratic safeguards for their ability to keep against concentrations of power and then conveniently forget they can be applied in other contexts when it doesn't suit their interests.

Edited September 30, 2010 by prole

[Jim]

summary: The market will figure it out.

[j_b]

Summary:

 

"Neither election funding nor public opinion trends are going our way at the moment, so we need to figure out a way to use legislation to rig the game in our favor while pretending to be neutral."

 

Totally untrue. Although it has gotten worse, election financing reform was as necessary 10 years ago as it is today. "Public opinion trends" manufactured by the corporate media and paid for by corporations, ex: Glenn beck, Fox and the tea parties.

 

What seems to be missing from this discussion is any recognition of the fact that...people in government are also inspired by and act on selfish motives.

 

here comes the crackpot theories about "human nature".

 

What portion of the Federal Budget gets spent in a way that's free of political patronage? How many bills get passed that would pass that bar? That's not "campaign money?" That's how we got the corn ethanol program? Impartial actors using public power in a way that's completely free from private motives?

 

"the existence of corrupt politicians only interested in power is an argument for not stopping the flow of private interest money into politics."

 

What's the evidence that any campaign finance legislation has accomplished anything more than inspiring people to find clever ways around the new restrictions?

 

the good old argument according to which since there always be cheats, there is no point in preventing them from cheating ..

 

How likely is it that giving congress more power to regulate the content and delivery of media is going to give us something besides the electronic equivalent of corn ethanol?

 

congress already has the power to regulate media: it's called the Sherman anti-trust act.

 

Finally - even if you're comfortable with Pelosi using the new powers in a perfectly fair, wise, and apolitical way - are you sure that Michelle Bachmann would be likely to do the same? In politics is it really wise to give your friends weapons that you'd never want to see in the hands of your enemies?

 

how is Bachmann going to use taxing adverts to finance public media? what about applying the law of this land and breaking up monopolies? How come she hasn't used it?

[JayB]

summary: The market will figure it out.

 

"The Market" in this and every other case is an aggregation of individual's choices and preferences.

 

The counter argument is that the subset of individuals in some centralized body with coercive legal powers would give us a media landscape that's a better match whatever arbitrary standard for media excellence that you happen to believe in.

 

That's certainly possible, but there's no objective standard of merit or utility that you could appeal to to prove that your preferred standard should be granted any more political weight than the next guy's who has a different vision.

 

Even if everyone in the country could agree on what an ideal media would look like, there's no reason to believe that it would be possible to implement it in a politically neutral fashion. Again - I give you Corn Ethanol.

 

Hell - take even more prosaic matters like bail bonding and red-light cameras. If the standard for determining which offenders should be released on their own recognizance instead of being incarcerated, or red-light enforcement can't be implemented without being significantly compromised by corruption and self-dealing, then the odds of using the getting some ideal media landscape in place without it being compromised by the same factors are indistinct from zero.

 

 

[JayB]

BTW -at what point in history was the media landscape as close to perfection as it ever got before being hopelessly corrupted by corporate regressive shills and their handservant's in congress?

 

I thought that pining away for some mythical and completely arbitrary point in the past when things were objectively better was the preferred vice/fantasy of political conservatives......

[Jim]

As usual you're making the straw dog argument that the choice has to be unfettered markets or a politburo of media. Coherent folks understand that there is a reasonable medium.

 

We're always making choices on how markets work - either through regulation or tax policy. It's just a matter of what type of behavior is encouraged by these parameters. Your example of ethanol is a good one - horrible energy policy, great for Iowa and their senators. Our tax policy currently provides 30 times the benefits to fossil fuel exploration and production than renewable energy. That's a choice that benefits the old fuel network and their corporate structure, but harm as a nation regarding a sustainable future and contributes to greenhouse gas production.

 

Regading a perfect media world. Wrong framework to start, but here's and example of how things have changed. Under FCC rules televsion stations are required, as part of their license, to provide benefits to their community. This was more broadly enforced in the past (maybe you're too young to remember) when stations were required to provide a certain portion of their air-time to public affairs, local political debates for free, and citizens could and did apply for several minute long opinion spots. Somehow the public benefit clause has now come to mean participating in the Walk for whatever disease of the moment, or sending the weatherman to the local schools. Anything but freeing up valuable commercial air time.

 

I think similar requirements for TV including cable channels would be beneficial. Before you start going in the weeds, no, the Food Channel could be exempt. And yes, some decisions would need to be made.

 

Right now there are few choices. The media is dominated by moneyed interests. Even if you're working for the NYT and you're a young reporter, if you stray off the centerline to much you will be put on notice. And if you want a career then you don't rock the boat.

 

I think JB's example is a good one. Why wasn't there a peep from the US media on the UN report on the Israeli boarding, and executions, of those protestors? The right-wing dominated media doesn't want to put out that message; and the center media was scared to death of the shite storm and loss of advertisement revenue. Is that in the public interest? I guess you can argue, in some twisted logic, that it is because folks would otherwise boycott these supporting companies.

[JayB]

You mean like this kind of no coverage?

 

"U.N. panel endorses report accusing Israel of executions aboard aid flotilla

 

 

By Colum Lynch

Washington Post Staff Writer

Thursday, September 30, 2010

 

UNITED NATIONS - The U.N. Human Rights Council voted Wednesday to endorse the report of a U.N. fact-finding mission that accused Israeli commandos of summarily executing six passengers on a Turkish aid flotilla in May, among them a 19-year-old Turkish American dual citizen who was shot five times, including once in the face.

 

Upon its release last week, the 56-page report was dismissed by Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's office as "biased" and "distorted." Israel's deputy foreign minister, Danny Ayalon, characterized the report in a radio interview as "a big lie."

 

The United States, the only country to vote against Wednesday's action, criticized the panel's findings as unbalanced. But a U.S. official said that Washington has asked Israel to thoroughly investigate the killing of the Turkish American, Furgan Dogan, and to share the findings with the U.S. government.

 

After the vote, a senior U.S. official faulted the Human Rights Council for rushing the creation of the panel and failing to make adequate efforts to secure Israeli cooperation. "The report's language, tone and conclusions are..."

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/29/AR2010092907110.html

 

Anyone who can use Teh Google has immediate access to ~2K articles from all over the world.

 

Much better than the days when you were effectively limited to network news coverage and whatever wire service article that may or may not have landed in your paper.

 

 

[JayB]

Even if you believe that the public benefit is best maximized by forcing local network affiliates to broadcast Chomsky lectures or a local bearded activist hectoring people into recycling with hand-puppetts - wasn't their impact in reality limited by the fact that the public wasn't terribly interested in watching the content that the networks were forced to broadcast for the public's benefit?

 

Is there any objective standard that one can appeal to to prove that forcing Ron Jenkins to watch 1/2 hour of the local "Potlucks for Peace Poetry Slam" will benefit him more than watching a half hour of "Lost" and a series of ads for beer, Pop-Tarts and the new Humvee?

 

Given current media trends why exclude youtube, bloggers, and every other website from spamming their users with content that satisfies whatever arbitrary definition of "public interest programming" emerges from the sausage-factory?

[j_b]

The UN report was published on September 22. As of yesterday, no corporate or public media outlet had said a word about it (more than a week later) according to Google, which I personally checked, and the video above.

[Jim]

If that 5 paragraph note on the website is your example of widely disminated news, well then... And half of the article was about how Israel denied it was true. Likely this was on page B4 of the hard copy and not their leading story on the webversion.

 

A more applicable example would be: during the day this news broke, which story got more attention - this or Tiger's divorce proceedings?

[Jim]

Even if you believe that the public benefit is best maximized by forcing local network affiliates to broadcast Chomsky lectures or a local bearded activist hectoring people into recycling with hand-puppetts - wasn't their impact in reality limited by the fact that the public wasn't terribly interested in watching the content that the networks were forced to broadcast for the public's benefit?

 

There you go again. Straw-dogging it. The general goal, was, and it worked moderately well, to get broad community viewpoints and news out to the community by using the public interest portion of the license provided by said public. Conservative, liberal, and middle all had access. Common sense tells you that some screening would be required to keep nut-jobs off; and yes, that would actually take some vetting and thinking - what a concept.

 

What we have now is one voice - that of money.