Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
Halifax
Published Letters: 41 Editor's Choice: 1
The stark difference between CBS's response to right wing complaints about their Reagan docudrama and ABC's non-response to left wing complaints about their 9/11 docudrama exemplifies where the real power over big media "lies" (pun sort-of intended). If we truly had the liberal media of which Rushites habitually complain, the network responses would have been the reverse of what they turned out to be. It took hardly nothing for CBS to shunt the Reagan thing to Showtime whilst even a bevy demonstrated falsehoods could not move ABC. Of course, one has to ask why ABC used acknowledged right-wing hacks to write the script. But even more problemmatical is why anyone felt that dramatic license was necessary with a story that had more than enough built-in drama already.
It's the agenda, baby. It's the agenda.
I watched the piece that prompted Glenn's criticism and, quite frankly, didn't get from it that Olbermann was flip-flopping on this. I suppose one might get that impression from (1) the way he questioned Dean and Markos; and (2) the fact that he didn't take this opportunity to renew his criticism of the bill. I saw the piece as more of a "let's hear what these guys think", instead of "let's hear what Keith thinks". Interestingly, both guests were not drinking the kool aid about some secret Obama plan and were critical of Obama's handling of this issue. And Olbermann had no one on his show to argue that Obama was correct. So, I think Glenn's criticism of Olbermann is overdone and not necessarily valid.
Having said that, I think Glenn's take on this entire issue (sans Olbermann) is spot on. And I too am getting a little concerned about Obama's apparent willingness to compromise with what can only be described as fascist attitudes.
Glenn:
Would it be legally possible for citizens to file suit in Federal court challenging the constitutionality of this new law? The grounds would be the Fourth Amendment, of course; but also Article I, Section 9, clause 3 of the Constitution.
I've not yet seen anyone propose this course of action, which if legally possible, would appear to be the only remaining way that citizens could overcome the misdeeds of a feckless Congress.
And let me add parenthetically, even though I have been--and remain, I think--an Obama supporter, I most certainly want you to continue to monitor and publicize inconsistencies and hypocrisy (if and as it comes to that) in his publicly stated positions and subsequent actions on this and other issues.
...is one way the Democrats ended up in the minority the last time and the way the Republicans ended up in the minority this time. Don't take down the big tent. The solution is better communication and cooperation within the caucus, not expulsion for lack of adherence to an orthodoxy.
...unless Obama is proven to have some fatal character defect--something on the order of being a child killer--there should be no reason on god's green earth for McCain to win this election. I don't care how bored the polls say people are. If they elect to have four more years of "Bush-lite leadership" in the face of the disasters we already are experiencing and are destined to face in the near term on the basis that they're tired of hearing about Obama, well then this country will deserve to continue to spiral down the proverbial chute.
I suspect, however, it is not boredom with Obama the public is describing. Rather it's boredom with the brain-dead, E!-like coverage of the campaigns brought by CNN, Fox, et al that they disdain.
It doesn't matter. If you look at electoral trends over the decades since electronic electioneering first appeared, few are paying any attention and even fewer have come to an irrevocable decision. That process starts after the conventions and after Labor Day. Americans are habitually short-timers when it comes to voting. A trend you can believe in starts to emerge in October and the race either tightens (the usual scenario) or the trend gains momentum (in transformational elections) as we approach the big day. My advice: enjoy the last two weeks of the summer and chill out. There's still plenty of time to freak out when it really means something.
Excuse me, but is there really such a thing on American television anymore? Maybe in a few pockets if you look hard enough. But on commercial television? Gimme a break.
And what is this? Now that the near monopoly on commentary television (which is what passes for news today) held by the extreme right is being challenged a bit (and only because there's a perception that maybe there's money to be made from the other side of things), we are seeing the end of journalism? Hardly.
Go watch the movie "Network". Back when it was contemporary fiction, satire and social commentary, one looked, laughed and probably said, "Well, it will never go that far..." But today?
It looks like a dull rendering of today's electronic newsroom. One of my kids asked me if the movie was supposed to be saying something.
Chilling. And sad.
If you're looking for it from the extreme right wing, you'll be waiting a long, long time--if not forever. Remember, when your politics is faith-based (and I'm not even talking primarily about the religious kind), objective and verifiable facts mean nothing.
Point out the rank hypocrisy? Yes, by all and every means. But don't ever expect consistency (i.e.: honesty) in argument from these folks. And don't be surprised if the answer you get back from many of them is that it doesn't matter.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
