A discussion tonight on Lou Dobbs about Hugo Chavez made me so mad.

[pennylane100]

They were talking about his efforts to nationalize the Oil Industry. A spokesperson from the Heritage Foundation said that the more money he had in his pocket, the more trouble he will cause for the US.

What a joke, it was only a few short years ago that the US supported a coup to get rid of him. That could possibly have caused him a lot of trouble. Also, what is wrong with keeping the profits of a country's oil reserves going to the people that live in the country. He may not be a saint, but he has definitely used the oil money to help the disadvantaged. He has build schools and hospital with funds that would have gone into the oil companies coffers.

The people in this country are so brainwashed by the capitalist interests that control our media,
they are unable to recognize reality.

[TaleWgnDg]

1. And you sat there and watched the Lou Dobbs Show including

the commercials? Ummmm, that's why Lou Dobbs does what Lou Dobbs does. It holds people to the TV. It sells commercials. It gets good ratings. If not, then Lou Dobbs wouldn't have a television show, period.

.

[pennylane100]

4. No, I never watch commercials on any show.

I tape them to me tv's hard drive (I have Dish) and when I play them back, I fast forward all the commercials and boring guests.

[calzone]

6. I wouldn't blame penny and the audience...

This brings up a debate and point I've had before elsewhere.
The popularity and ratings of a television or radio show isn't really driven primarily by mkt pressure. Not at all. In many parts of the country TV and radio is dominated, utterly, by rightwing conservative programming, and when I vent my annoyance a conservative will say "well it's just the market, they're responding to what the public wants." This is misinformation relayed and parroted by the ignorant and biased.
There's no liberal programming because there's no level competition.
The rich corporations and wealthy businessmen, virtually all conservatives, do not fund, give access, or cater to liberal programming. It's takes money to break in to the media mkt and deep pockets to weather the break-in period, something liberals don't have. They could focus on this, but it's not been a priority since the battle is lopsided and one has to climb uphill to unseat the king of the mountain. But the king didn't get to the top of the mountain by climbing, he was dropped there by a corporate helicopter. All 4 major TV networks are owned by conglomerates, big, rich, republican corporations. The radio mkt is dominated by the same...clearchannel comes to mind.
These folks will lose money (on the books) to keep the airwaves dominated by the rightwing message and keep the populist, liberal message off the air.
I worked in public radio, I saw it. If people don't have any alternative, they'll tune to your conservative station and listen to your commercials. Even if they do have a choice, a certain percentage will tune in like a motorist slowing down to gawp at an accident.
In the past, public radio was mostly funded by the government, it was fair and balanced when the phrase wasn't a hackneyed joke. Then Reagone came along with his pack of wolves and defunded PBS, placing it more at the mercy of business and corporate underwriters, till what you have now is at best watered down, timid journalism with underwriter spots sounding like full-blown commercials, something anathema before.
If you sell organic and tasty cereal at a bargain price, you oughta be able to realize swift success in a free, open, fair market. But the market isn't free, fair or open. Kellogs and Post pay the grocer off in various forms of kickbacks to keep their cereal at eye level on the racks and to keep your cereal at foot level. That's analgous to what happens throughout our capitalist system, and radio & TV are no exception. This isn't just the fox & the grapes, this is in many cases fact.
Where I live in Florida there are 4 radio stations that have talk and news, and all of them are hard right, carrying the self-proclaimed EIB (excellence in broadcasting) network.
The ads are conservative, the programming is conservative, the local cut-in shows are conservative, even the news is blatantly conservative, either Fox or CBS. At several of these stations, before I knew the score I stopped in for work. I was interviewed by the owner/manager both times, and both of them grilled me for my political beliefs before any other questions about experience or training. I had come in cold, no ads were taken out for open positions, and when I applied I got the kind of exited, pleased vibes from the managers that you sense when the position has been open and they've really been keen to fill it. Didn't get either job....thankfully. But I think my point is supported.

Outfits like the Heritage foundation and the Hoover Institute (to name only two) are think tanks for the rightwing elite, they exist to to come up with talking points and misinformation, memes and myths, meant to sway and manipulate public opinion into supporting policies and measures that are not in the average person's interest but rather, the interest of the wealthy and corporate elite. They're chaired by the elite, well-funded by the elite (though they have the chutzpah to claim tax-exempt status-not only swindling the masses but freeloading on top of it) and staffed by the elite.
The reason there's so much domination in the media mkt by rightwing noise-machines is because it's planned and specifically funded that way, not because the American public wants it. The ship isn't following a path determined by the tides and currents, it's being piloted by wheel & rudder, and the folks with the money are in the bridge while the working stiffs are in steerage.

[pennylane100]

8. You are so right.

Let's hope that the new congress will eventually take up this issue. But as my father would say, "Live in hope, die in despair"

[1932]

11. Absolutely. The chance of hearing anything critical about consumption and

American corporate hegemony is about nil in the MSM.

[R_M]

2. And why do so many around here watch him in the first place?

Lou D is a conservative at heart. He is no friend to the Democrats.

[StClone]

3. Dobbs always shafts Chavez

As much and as often as possible. Dobbs can't stand that Hugo deviates completely from the Milton Friedman school of perfected Capitalism.

[Freddie Stubbs]

5. So, you are saying coups are a bad thing?

Such as Chavez's unsuccessfully coup in 1992?

[pennylane100]

7. No I am not commenting on the rights and wrongs of coups.

What I am saying is that a country that encourages the overthrow of a legitmately elected leader has no credibility when they critize the actions of that leader. They have lost any right to be heard and taken seriously.

[Freddie Stubbs]

10. So, should Chavez not be considered credible when he criticizes those

who attempted a coup against him due to his past crimes?

[calzone]

14. The two are not comparable:

Bit of a difference.
In the first coup, it was a homegrown, popular, nearly bloodless coup attempt by principled, clear-conscioused group of hybrid military/civilian officials against a criminal, brutal, corrupt, rightwing leadership. It followed widespread riots by the Venezuelan people who were suffering under the government.
The president, Perez, was the head of a kleptocracy that left the country in a shambles, and unemployment and poverty were widespread. The Perez government was anti-democracy, anti-fair-trade and anti-worker, and Perez was impeached a year after Chavez's failed coup. Chavez served his short sentence and then rose to power in the cleanest, most honest elections ever recorded in the country.
In the coup against Chavez, things were very different. It was fomented, organized and funded by the CIA and U.S. government, along with the countries rich, white elite.
The coup was not a popular response to a bad leader, just the opposite. Chavez was so overwhelmingly popular that the coup failed miserably and the populace demanded he be released back to power. Later, those that were responsible for drumming up the failed coup generated an artificially successful petition for a re-election, to which Chavez had no obligation to agree. Yet, he did. The result was another overwhelming mandate by an adoring public. recently, Chavez was re-elected again, in another scrupulously honest, record majority. In fact, he was re-elected by the largest majority ever witnessed in modern times.
Like I said, bit of a difference.

[IndianaGreen]

9. One of the good things to come out of the Iraq quagmire is that...

Bush no longer has troops to spare to keep Latin America in line with Wall Street. As our imperial armies are decimated and run ragged in Iraq and Afghanistan, progressive forces are on the march elsewhere.

As ancient Rome before, the American empire is overstretched and in peril of collapsing.

[ellisonz]

12. One word: CSPAN.

[LittleClarkie]

13. Isn't the Heritage Foundation tied in some way to Rush?

I keep thinking he has a connection to them.

[Bridget Burke]

15. The President of the Heritage Foundation wrote this in 2001.

Back when Rush told us of his hearing problem. (Don't read on an empty stomach.)

In 1985, President Reagan talked about "the American sound" in his second inaugural address. He called it "hopeful, big-hearted, idealistic, daring, decent and fair." The same words describe Limbaugh, a man whose example continually reminds us that nothing generates more power than the truth, clearly and plainly spoken.

The American sound continues. It's as strong today as when de Tocqueville heard it 170 years ago. Limbaugh just proved that a deaf man can hear it, too—and amplify its inspiring tone.

www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed103001b.cfm

Here's SourceWatch's entry on The Heritage Foundation. Lots of the Usual Suspects appear: Scaife, Coors, The Walton Family. By pointing & clicking, I'm sure you could find a link to Limbaugh. (Or I could--sounds like a job for Visio!)

www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Heritage_Foundation