This is horrifying . . . this is why we're losing the media war

[livinontheedge]

I had no idea just how bad the deck was stacked against us. No wonder our message is getting drowned out by all the right-wing propaganda. This site explains the changes that are helping the wingnuts blast their conservative message across the country.

http://www.city-journal.org/html/13_4_were_not_losing.html

[ixion]

1. ya know, the media never was 'liberal' it was objective

and just because these creeps and their back-assward ideology couldn't get airtime, the call it the 'elite media'. That really burns me up. Foregoing bojectivity in lieu of conservative schtick has not served the journalism industry or this country well at all. These people are screwed up facists, who deplore objectivity in journalism and applaud tabloid rants as 'news'. :grr: :argh:

[livinontheedge]

2. But how do we blunt their message??

We need to do something about this before wingnut propaganda is all we get.

[Malva Zebrina]

3. Ohhh

reading that whole thing made me very very tired. :-(

[BuelahWitch]

4. I don't see this article as bad

Looks like someone is finally calling a duck a duck, even if it's one of their own ducks doing the quacking. Before this we still had the wailing, "liberal media" from the 'pugs and we were the ones on the defensive.

They're getting smug about it. We need to start looking for cracks in the foundation and chip away at them.

[okieinpain]

5. we need people like mmalloy, rrhoades, and afranken to get

there shot at the big times. they are the antidote to the oreilly, hannitys, and rush's. they are entertaining and on the money with their facts. I would be good money that if we could get one of them on tv in a regular slot, they would be a big hit, big big big hit. problem is getting them on.

[livinontheedge]

6. You're right! But why isn't it happening?

It takes time for programming to catch on with the public. We don't have much time before the '04 elections. Is there anything we can do to accelerate "liberal counter-programming". We gotta get our message out!

[Ignoramus]

11. Money money money

Funding alternative media is vitally important I think. If non-commercial media could get enough backing to have a 24 hour news channel to compete, that would be great.

Also, I think we need to work on non-conventional media, like postering. Something more informative than "vote for bob". Some street theatre ideas are good. Some are not, of course.

Right now, there's no news and no representation. So, signs and demonstrations are pretty much all we've got. An important misconception I think I see in people is that there is this thing called "the news" that they can just switch on on tv and it tells them what is going on in the world.

If people could just be made aware of it being an industry that wants to make profit that is selling the news stories the way mcdonalds sells hamburgers, it would cause massive change.

Essentially, the real task I think is just getting people to have some doubt about what they are told.

I sometimes have signs on my car, which makes people correctly guess that I'm a nut. But, if more people were willing to be the crazy guy with the signs I think it could put some dent in the disinformation.

[w4rma]

7. Yup. Big economic interests are have taken over the media.

…
Gore has shared their frustration. In an interview last December with the New York Observer, he described the conservative outlets as a “fifth column” within the media ranks that injects “daily Republican talking points into the definition of what's objective.”

“The media is kind of weird these days on politics, and there are some major institutional voices that are, truthfully speaking, part and parcel of the Republican Party,” Gore said. “Fox News Network, The Washington Times , Rush Limbaugh — there’s a bunch of them, and some of them are financed by wealthy ultra-conservative billionaires who make political deals with Republican administrations and the rest of the media.”
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,459345,00.html
http://www.observer.com/pages/story.asp?ID=6665

The Internet might soon be the last place where open dialogue occurs. One of the most dangerous things that has happened in the past few years is the deregulation of media ownership rules that began in 1996. Michael Powell and the Bush FCC are continuing that assault today (see the June 2nd ruling).

The danger of relaxing media ownership rules became clear to me when I saw what happened with the Dixie Chicks. But there’s an even bigger danger in the future, on the Internet. The FCC recently ruled that cable and phone based broadband providers be classified as information rather than telecommunications services. This is the first step in a process that could allow Internet providers to arbitrarily limit the content that users can access. The phone and cable industries could have the power to discriminate against content that they don’t control or-- even worse-- simply don’t like.

The media conglomerates now dominate almost half of the markets around the country, meaning Americans get less independent and frequently less dependable news, views and information. James Madison and Thomas Jefferson spoke of the fear that economic power would one day try to seize political power. No consolidated economic power has more opportunity to do this than the consolidated power of media

Posted by Howard Dean at 06:31 PM
http://blog.deanforamerica.com/archives/000683.html

Amanpour: CNN practiced self-censorship
CNN's top war correspondent, Christiane Amanpour, says that the press muzzled itself during the Iraq war. And, she says CNN "was intimidated" by the Bush administration and Fox News, which "put a climate of fear and self-censorship."

As criticism of the war and its aftermath intensifies, Amanpour joins a chorus of journalists and pundits who charge that the media largely toed the Bush administrationline in covering the war and, by doing so, failed to aggressively question the motives behind the invasion.

On last week's Topic A With Tina Brown on CNBC, Brown, the former Talk magazine editor, asked comedian Al Franken, former Pentagon spokeswoman Torie Clarke and Amanpour if "we in the media, as much as in the administration, drank the Kool-Aid when it came to the war."

Said Amanpour: "I think the press was muzzled, and I think the press self-muzzled. I'm sorry to say, but certainly television and, perhaps, to a certain extent, my station was intimidated by the administration and its foot soldiers at Fox News. And it did, in fact, put a climate of fear and self-censorship, in my view, in terms of the kind of broadcast work we did."

Brown then asked Amanpour if there was any story during the war that she couldn't report.

"It's not a question of couldn't do it, it's a question of tone," Amanpour said. "It's a question of being rigorous. It's really a question of really asking the questions. All of the entire body politic in my view, whether it's the administration, the intelligence, the journalists, whoever, did not ask enough questions, for instance, about weapons of mass destruction. I mean, it looks like this was disinformation at the highest levels."

Clarke called the disinformation charge "categorically untrue" and added, "In my experience, a little over two years at the Pentagon, I never saw them (the media) holding back. I saw them reporting the good, the bad and the in between."

Fox News spokeswoman Irena Briganti said of Amanpour's comments: "Given the choice, it's better to be viewed as a foot soldier for Bush than a spokeswoman for al-Qaeda."

CNN had no comment.
http://www.usatoday.com/life/columnist/mediamix/2003-09-14-media-mix_x.htm

Why Isn't Randi Rhodes Syndicated? The Dilemma of a Liberal Talk Show Host.

RHODES: Oh, I am so glad you asked. I am a ratings and revenue queen. Number 1 or 2 in the ratings usually. So what are the “mainstream” talking about? Well, they say Liberals don't make money because no one wants to hear them. Okay, let's think.

First, remember that more Americans are registered or identify themselves as Democrats than Republicans. So here's the dirty little secret of news talk. There are advertisers making huge “buys” on really low rated shows that air nationally. If advertisers only go where the listeners are why do they buy cable news, Oliver North, or Rush Limbaugh who has horrible ratings?

They are buying CONTROL of CONTENT. It's leverage, whether it's radio, cable or network. They control millions of dollars of any company's revenue source. So that if something is said or done to disrupt their global business, they take their advertising elsewhere, or threaten to and then shut down the message.

And, think about this . . . how many products are on TV that you can't even buy? Plastics, computer chips, prescription drugs, soybeans. I mean honestly. This is the story that NEVER gets told. People just think, “Well, if your good enough, you'll have a big audience and that's what advertisers want.” “Whose being naïve now Kaye?” I am always number one or two in the market. Rush is somewhere around 21st. I replaced G. Gordon Liddy!

I hope this gets told over and over because it is how they control our news, our Information Awareness. Get it?

BUZZFLASH: Explain the allegations that Rush Limbaugh has stated, that if Clear Channel syndicated your show, he would take his program to another company. Could there be a Democratic or Progressive Rush Limbaugh type personality on the airwaves?

RHODES: Not at Clear Channel.

First, let me tell you where the story came from. I had two meetings with middle managers who both liked me and what I had done for our 'pod'. (At Clear Channel the territories are split up into 'pods'.) In two separate meetings I was told “The Rush story.” Additionally, I should never expect to be syndicated by Clear Channel because Rush had said he'd just do what advertisers do. He'd go somewhere else. I was an unknown, he was a known.

I begged for and got (6 months later) a meeting with a senior manager. He told me the “Rush story.” So that's where it comes from. Now, when Oliver North was on the air, he stated that Rush was syndicated because Rush was a better talent and got better ratings. (This is insulting because of the fatness of the lie) . . . I then told him that Rush had threatened to take his show elsewhere if I were to be syndicated by Clear Channel. He said “I've heard that but I can't comment.” So everyone does seem to know “The Rush Story.” (North and Rush are friends).

Control the Content . . . we have business that cannot be disturbed by a questioning public.
http://www.buzzflash.com/interviews/03/01/03_Rhodes.html

Meanwhile, the Web site www.allyourtv.com posted a commentary on Wednesday by Rick Ellis saying that he had been leaked an internal NBC study that described Donahue as “a tired, left-wing liberal out of touch with the current marketplace.”

The report allegedly said Donahue presented a difficult face for NBC at a time of war, saying a nightmare scenario would be one in which his show becomes “a home for the liberal anti-war agenda at the same time our competitors are waving the flag at every opportunity.”
http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/entertainment/5263274.htm

While “Donahue” does badly trail both O'Reilly and CNN's Connie Chung in the ratings, those numbers have improved in recent weeks. So much so that the program is the top-rated show on MSNBC, beating even the highly promoted “Hardball With Chris Matthews.”

Although Donahue didn't know it at the time, his fate was sealed a number of weeks ago after NBC News executives received the results of a study commissioned to provide guidance on the future of the news channel.

That report--shared with me by an NBC news insider--gives an excruciatingly painful assessment of the channel and its programming. Some of recommendations, such as dropping the “America's News Channel,” have already been implemented. But the harshest criticism was leveled at Donahue, whom the authors of the study described as “a tired, left-wing liberal out of touch with the current marketplace.”
http://www.allyourtv.com/0203season/news/02252003donahue.html

NOW In Depth - Massive Media PBS
Solid Ratings Don't Protect Progressive Radio Voices
What's Wrong With This Picture?
Podvin on the Media 1-31-02
Harper's editor laments rise of corporate news purveyors
Commentary: The Surrender Of MSNBC
The Wayward Media

HUSTLER: What has happened to the the news media in this country?

PALAST: I vomit every time I see Tom Brokaw.

HUSTLER: And Dan Rather-

PALAST: I feel sick at heart when I see Rather, because he's actually a journalist. He came on my program, Newsnight and said, “I can't report the news. I'm not allowed to ask questions. We're gonna send our children and our husbands into the desert now, and I can't ask a question, because I will be lynched.” This is what Rather said in London. He looked defeated and awful, and I was thinking, Why am I feeling sorry for this guy who is worth millions? He should turn to the camera and say, “Well, now for the truth. Over to you, Greg, in London.” The problem is that he can't report the story of the intelligence agents who are told not to look at the Bin Laden family, not to look at Saudi funding of terror.

HUSTLER: What makes Rather afraid to do his job?

PALAST: It's not just that there are brutal shepherds like Rupert Murdoch out there to beat the dickens out of any reporter that asks the wrong questions; it's all about making news on the cheap. You know, for some of these editors, cheap and easy is a philosophy of life. To do a heavy-duty story on Bush, and his oil and Bush and his gold-mining company is beyond them. A little bit of the Harken stock scandal came out, but that story was already seven years old. To some extent they know that there are certain things you cannot say. Rather says he would be necklaced for telling the truth.

HUSTLER: He said that? What did he mean?

PALAST: In South Africa, under apartheid, if someone didn't like you, they put a burning tire around your neck. That was called “necklacing.” On my show, Rather said, “If I ask any questions, I'll be necklaced.” And I'm thinking, Oh, that's a good image. It's sad, but if Dan Rather doesn't have the cajones to ask a question, then you name a reporter who's gonna step out and ask about what's going on. It's not that the corporate guys say, “Don't run that story,” although that has happened to me many times in North American media, but also the shepherds pick the lambs who won't ask the questions. For example, there was a reporter, some poor producer, who wanted to run a story about how Jack Welch had lied about polluting the Hudson River. The story didn't run. Shockeroo. That was for Dateline NBC, owned by General Electric, of which Jack Welch was the chairman of the board. Or as in the case of Venezuela, I was stunned to come back from Caracas to find a picture on the front page of the San Francisco Chronicle of 100,000 people marching against the president of Venezuela. Sounds like he's a terrible guy and people hate him. What they didn't say was that half a million people were marching for him. At least the Soviet Russians knew that the stuff in Pravda was coming out the wrong end of a toilet, whereas, we live under the pretense that The New York Times prints all the news that's fit to print.
http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=181&row=1

…
Robins was talking serious politics on a morning chat show - and clearly hackles went up. By 8:24 Robins was explaining “We're fighting for freedom for the Iraqi people right now so that they can have freedom of speech, yet we're telling our own citizens they have to be quiet”

Lauer could have called it quits there -but he went on “When you see pictures of Iraqi's dancing and celebrating -does it change your mind?” “No” Said Robbins - “I'm ecstatic that they feel this freedom, I hope we have the resolve to get in there and make it work.”

It was at this point that something happened that has perhaps never happened before in the history of morning television.

The music swelled under Robbins... Mid-sentence answering a question that had been asked just 10 seconds earlier... “We have a terrible track record” said Robbins, clearly not able to hear that music was coming up to literally 'play him off the stage'.

The camera cut to a wide shot. Lauer was leaning in and very much in conversation. Either Lauer was ignoring what must have been the deluge of invectives in his earpiece, or he just determined that he wasn't finished with this line of questioning.

But the music ended. The bumper music ended and the studio was in the two shot as Robbins said...“It's for some reason not in our best interest to keep it going and pursue it to the next level.” Lauer nodded, and the camera faded to black as Robbins - mid sentence - had his microphone turned down.

A conversation about free speech. An anchor asking reasonable questions. A guest responding in equally reasonable tones. No attempt to close out the discussion - to say “Well thank you Tim”. This was not a filibuster. Robbins was not hogging the spotlight.

Someone in the control room simply decided that it was time to pull the plug. And without grace or ceremony, or even the face saving of letting Lauer say “We're out of time” as morning shows do on so many occasions.

A conversation about free speech and free expression was cut off mid sentence as the network went to black.

Television history was made, as million of Americans got to watch in real time just how powerful and inescapable censorship can be. Robbins wasn't revealing troop locations, or giving aid and comfort to the enemy. Remember the war has been won - by all accounts. He was discussing freedom, free speech, and why his appearance has been canceled at the Baseball Hall of Fame. NBC should invite him back and let him finish his thought - or admit at least who was on the phone to master control demanding that they pull the plug.
http://www.rense.com/general37/dark.htm

Tampa cable won't air ad criticizing Bush tax cut

TAMPA - (AP) -- A TV commercial critical of President Bush's tax plan won't air in Tampa after the city's major cable provider expressed concerns about the script.

The commercial was produced for MoveOn.org, an online political activist group, and was slated to air about 10 times a day this week on cable systems in 23 cities, said Lanicia Shaw, executive assistant for Zimmerman and Markman, a Santa Monica, Calif., advertising agency handling the commercial.

The ad is a reenactment of an event in Eugene, Ore., a month ago in which 50 parents lined up outside a clinic to sell their blood plasma to help pay a teacher's salary.

''George Bush's tax cuts for the rich have meant less money for education,'' the commercial contends.
…
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/state/5862591.htm

3. How important is “truth” in mass media reporting compared to ratings?
The media doesn't care about outing the real stories - nor about ratings. The truth GETS ratings - but it doesn't win friends in high places. We got more information about the war in Vietnam through “MASH” and “Star Trek” allegories than on CBS news.
The corporate owners of the networks will make a killing on their stealing the digital spectrum, given away for nothing by the Telecommunications Act. (For details, see my website www.GregPalast.com) They are willing to give up ratings points by serving up snooze-news with Tom Brokaw rather than gain audience share but lose their tickets to White House dinners.
http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=145&row=1

Wall Street Journal:
War Produces Rift in Media Between U.S., Other Nations
… British television reporter Geoff Meade asked the officer what he would say to Iraqis and other Muslims who might welcome such images. Some U.S. reporters looked stunned at the aggressiveness of the question. A hush fell on the room. The general eyed him coldly and parried the query. Afterward, says Mr. Meade, a veteran correspondent with Sky News, a service of British Sky Broadcasting Group PLC, “Somebody joked to me that I'd find myself at the back of the room along with the French and the Germans.”
…
“We believe people need to see the truth, and there's no need to make the truth cosmetic because it's not pretty,” says Nawal Assad, a producer at al-Jazeera's London office.

… callers on Italian talk shows criticized as censorship the U.S. government's request to U.S. networks to refrain from showing the images. In Germany, the press has engaged in lengthy dissections of U.S. news organizations, often concluding that the U.S. media has gone through “Gleichschaltung,” an ominous word used to describe how the Nazis took over key public institutions, including the media (rough translation: “bringing into line”).
http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB104854123024458400-email,00.html

[NashVegas]

19. Coupla Things

First, I wouldn't let that article get me depressed, it's not a news article, or even an opinion piece, really, it's a news release. It's designed to get attention and disseminate. Period.

Second, about CC/Rhodes. CC could oh-so easily destroy Rush (even before the drug meltdown) and promote Rhodes at the same time with a huge publicity campaign over the fact that Rush was walking specifically because of her. Rush could be made to look *very, very* bad for walking if CC wanted to. Conclusion: it's not just Rush that doesn't want Randi on nationally, but also CC who don't. And they never well.

If her ratings are *that* good and CC refuses to syndicate her, her only option is to find another gig and break free of CC, who is not going to promote her more than they already have. She probably has a no-compete clause but I'd bet my cat that can be tossed out of court on grounds that her career is being hampered by CC.

[snooper2]

8. Faux News Tactic...

They say sarcastically before a news break things like:

Partial Birth Abortion, new law really needed? coming up next...
Medical Marijuana, Is this a state issue?....
War in Iraq, time for the troops to come home?....

They do it every time, it's so scripted it's sick. Ask the question in that type of format like (do the stupid liberals have a point?), then they come back from break with some stupid right wing pundits explaining why everything Chimpy does is wonderful and correct....

[Ignoramus]

16. Yes it's the old multiple choice isn't freedom of choice deal

Fox news: we fabricate two seemingly opposed views, you decide which to believe.

It's so blatant I can't see how anyone can take it seriously. The fake debates have the same tone as those informercials that pretend to be talk shows.

A simple notion that could be hammered on somewhere is that it is incredibly idiotic for a news organization to make the utterly absurd claim that they are "fair and balanced'.

Obviously, to claim you are fair in an absolute sense implies that you have perfect knowledge. It's as if they are claiming that they know all sides perfectly and are now presenting those sides to you so that you can decide. It is the same as stating that you are a propagandist. It's like saying: fox news, belive us becuase we know what is true.

[TennesseeWalker]

9. Frightening.

I knew it was happening, and I know it's bad for the country. But all liberal all the time probably wasn't helping either. It left the LEFT complacent and snooty.

I think the arguement HAS to be there. All progress comes from winning the arguement. And taking a step backward is sometimes a necessary action to advance the cause. Having said that, I think we've moved back far enough. Time to get pissed off and fight back.

No Barney the Freaking Purple Dinosaur for me. And I still like South Park. It keeps me from getting to full of myself and taking everything too seriously. Keep things in context, people, or you'll drift so far out from reality you'll never get back inside you head.

I worry very much about America becoming too conservative. But not all things conservative are necessarily bad. Living within a budget and conservation of resources are all TRUE conservative measures. Don't get CORPORATE confused with Conservative.

[tom_paine]

15. The Busheviks ARE NOT CONSERVATIVES

Conservatives believe in smaller government
Conservatives believe in fiscal responsibility
Conservatives resist Big Brother-type programs.

Busheviks ARE NOT CONSERVATIVES. They are Totalitarians, monarchists, they don't know what they are except to obey what their Masters tell them. If the Bushevik Masters tell them to hate deficits, then they'll hate deficits. If they then turn around and tell their Propagandized Puppets to LOVE DEFICITS, then, as we recently witnessed, they will do so en masse and without question.

I don't worry about Amerika becoming too conservative. That I could live with. But Amerika is rapidly becoming and Orwellian-Totalitarian Empire who's Consttituional Remnants like the Imperial Senate are becoming as useful as a veriform appendix in the govbernance of the Bushevik Empire.

How can you understand the answers if you can't even ask the right questions. Busheviks used the term "liberal media" to frighten and bully media who dared to print what it was they DID as opposed to Orwellian spin. That, combined with the institution of Goebbels v2.0 and the rise of the Party-Loyal Right-Wing Sub-Media (if the Busheviks hate Commies so much, why are they constantly mimicking them?!?), gives us a parasitized and disgusting Corporate TV Pravda incapable of doing anything but covering whatever the Right-0Wing Sub-media shrieks about and parroting Bushevik spoin almost exclusively. When they deviate from this even momentarily, the shriek from the Bushevik "Mighty Wurlitzer" brings bullying to a new dimension.

Would that it was just a matter of correcting the liberal slant of the media. The Busehviks are up to much more than that.

[kodi]

27. they're opportunists using a veneer of morality 2 hide their whoring ways

they have no philosophy, no ideology. its just a grab bag mix of adam smith, hobbes, and ayn rand used in any set of circumstances to legitimize their grabs for power.

all one has to do is hold in relief their contrasting opinions on states rights versus federalism with their support of the SCOTUS decision 12/12/00 versus federal/state environmental regulations or voting rights issues.

the republicans are no longer conservatives, they are "reaganists".

[E_Zapata]

10. why should the media listen to liberal grumbling......

everyone still watches all their crap on TV and tunes into their radio programs and reads their newspapers.

I am amazed at how much CNN and FOX is watched by DUers. You have to believe me - a person can stay fully informed without supporting those organizations. Granted, I get a lot of the updates about CNN and FOX and Hate Radio here on DU from your commentary, but before I came to DU, I ONLY read foreign news sources and I am just as briefed as you guys who also tune in to American media sources.

You vote with your dollar, folks. And the media needs to be cut off at its knees. And that means......NO CNN.

Sure, I haven't seen but 3 little clips on local news about the fires in S. Calif, but I don't think I am any less informed than a person who watched CNN and Fox all day yesterday. The only thing I am, really, is less sensationalized about it.

I challenge real liberals to just TURN the crap off.

[LibertyorDeath]

23. If Liberals turned off Fox & CNN they would both go under in short order

We have the power everyday people are way more powerful than they
realize.

The elites play divide and conquer with emotional issues we are no more than consumers to them. They have co-opted the American political process & with this current neocon administration they are having a feeding frenzy.

This will continue as long as Americans stay divided over the issues that face them,

but and this is what scares the shit out of the powers that be if enough people come together and unite to change the status quo nothing can stop them. You can use the army and the police and all the legal and illegal means at your disposal this will by some extra time but the people will win out this is a Historical fact.

The main tool they use to divide is the Media in all its forms.



This is what Marshall McLuhan meant in my view with his famous observation

"The Medium is the Message".

Karl Rove knows this as fact & uses it like a pro. It's only a matter of time before a large enough group of Americans say NO MORE.

That's why the neocons are doing so much so fast they know what happens when public opinion turns.

They just want us all to consume obey and shut up.

It's doomed to failure anyone who knows enough History knows that.

[phaseolus]

12. Talk about "filtering"...

...so, all the hip young kids are Republicans now???

[Fuzz]

13. “Fox reporters almost never condescend to viewers,”

Has this guy actually watched FNC?

[Touchdown]

14. He's wrong about the SCLM, but he's onto something...

There are people who would rather have their information packaged for them. You can see it every day here when they praise Al Franken, Joe Conason, Michael Moore, John Stewart and all the rest.

The iconoclastic idea of a news agency that's based with bias, such as what the British have been used to all these years is fairly new to this continent. The idea of a liberal version of Faux News seems attractive to me.

Imagine shows that ridicule all the things we complain about on CNN, FOX, BSNBC, etc. and buying the term "Media Whores" for the show's title. They have talk soup on E so why not the "Donkey Network"? The big difference would be that our network will be unabashed liberal with no obvious skewings like "Fair and Balanced" to pull over people's eyes, which would also go a long way in refuting this liberal madia myth, because our network will be way to the left of what you get anywhere else. Imagine one that "infotains" with humor, working class personalities, irreverent and confrontational, while also being folksy and fun.

I thought of a tag line for the channel launch: "If you think the news media is liberal, you ain't seen nothing yet!"

[phaseolus]

17. I think I figured out the point of the article --

Upon reflection, it's all just advertising. A brand loyalty thing.

There's no hard data in that article, it pretty much just tells us that Drudge exists, there's something called 'Fox News Channel', some jerks are printing books, and there are a bunch of bloggers who take the repuke viewpoint. It doesn't argue any issue.

Remember a few years ago when swing dancing was the rage? It was a trendy thing. This article is written for the reader who might be a conservative because (in part) they think it's hip, happenin', now. All it's doing is to try to reinforce the idea that they're cool & that our side is made up of a bunch of out-of-touch, stupid, humorless, overly PC, aging boomers.

A puff piece.

[stevedeshazer]

18. *ding*

This article is crap. It reflects nothing but the writer's wishful thinking of his world.

It amazes me that so many of you read this and then want to roll over and die because you think this idiot has a point.

Will you please take a look at where this crap is coming from?

Here is his organization's logo:


How about their mission statement?:


Get that weak crap outta here. It don't belong.

Don't believe me? Just do a Google search on Brian C. Anderson.

[stevedeshazer]

20. kick

'cause I wanna know what others think on this.

[phaseolus]

21. Um ... we have to realize that the forces of evil see this as a war?

...and become ruthless opportunists, like them, to effectively shape the national debate?

If we can engage them in battle, keeping true to our values, we can fight them - and win - without having to resort to lies like they do. Part of this is seeing articles like the above puff piece for what they are so we can either court the same demographic, only using the truth, or so we can deconstruct their stuff & ridicule it. Or both.

BTW, I skimmed that Harpers' Mag article at the airport the other day and it seemed full of good ideas for getting a true liberal mass media outlet going. I need to give it a more careful reading soon

[livinontheedge]

22. It might be a puff piece, but I think it points out how uneven the playing

field is becoming. That is my only concern. How do we level the playing field when there are so many right-wing propaganda outlets? And they keep growing in volume and reach? I just read where FOX Radio is going to expand into the radio equivalent of 24 hour Faux News. As if we need more Faux.

[stevedeshazer]

24. The market is saturated

There are so many radical right talk show hosts that they are eating each others for ratings.

There is a satuaration point beyond which they will be no longer gaining market share, I think we are almost there if not already past it.

[Festivito]

25. At least this is well expressed propaganda for & from the RW.

It seems we have become two seperate cultures, the one expressed in the article seems to me to be implementing form over function, expression over content.

But, again, at least this article is written in complete sentences.

[JHB]

26. Funny how in every other sphere...

...FOX is condemned for pandering to the lowest common denominator, yet suddenly that becomes a validating stamp of legitimacy regarding Fox News.