Joseph Palermo's excellent recent article provides compelling details about the degree to which our corporate-driven media environment is slanted in favor of right-wing interests.
Among other things, he notes the absurdity of comparing MSNBC to FOX. Yes, MSNBC has genuinely liberal voices in its evening line-up -- Schultz, Olbermann and Maddow. But to compare it to FOX is a joke. FOX has a single editorial mission, pumped through the airwaves 24 hours a day, seven days a week and that is to propagate a hard-right agenda.
FOX repeatedly provides a platform for Republican candidates to receive free air time to push their preferred campaign themes. What is the equivalent practice at MSNBC?
How does Joe Scarborough's three-hour show every morning on MSNBC fit a similar mission statement at MSNBC to the one evident at FOX? What is the FOX equivalent of CNBC, the pro-business sister cable channel to MSNBC that features prominent right-wingers like Larry Kudlow?
The problem of false equivalencies and the related premise of a liberal media is pervasive, of course, and not new. The right wing's success in promulgating a disturbing factual relativism that relies on the most shrill, fact-free assertions possible in service of their political objectives is only possible because of the way in the supposedly liberal mainstream media, in its mindless practice of he-said, she-said journalism facilitates that strategy (here's a typical recent example).
And it's not just the right, or the mainstream media that helps perpetuate these kinds of false equivalencies. There is a certain relish that some on the left side of the political divide take in attacking progressives in a way that ensures that the boundaries of political discourse will be policed consistent with an information environment slanted in favor of the right-wing.
One recent example: last summer, Glenn Greenwald wrote about the likelihood that the Obama administration had struck a secret deal to kill the public option even while it was publicly indicating support for it.
Jonathan Chait of the New Republic responded to Greenwald's suppositions by calling him a "fanatic." Now, as it turns out, Greenwald was almost certainly right. But even if he weren't, how was it fanatical for him to have suggested this possibility? That Jonathan Chait personally couldn't imagine, based presumably on his intimate knowledge of the President, that such a thing could happen in our political system? Isn't that kind of failure of imagination -- that sort of blindspot -- closer to fanaticism than any suggestion Greenwald made on the subject?
It's an audacious use of language really, to use "fanatic" in this context. Fanatic might be appropriate for people who heckle outside soldiers' funerals because the United States military tolerates "fags" and therefore the soldiers "deserve to die." Or perhaps it is an appropriate word for anyone calling health care reform Stalinist when the reform, among other things, clearly benefits major private economic interests. Or cheering over the burning down of a house while the fire department stood by and watched because the homeowner hadn't paid a small fee. Or for insisting that the current President has a "deep-seated hatred for white people," notwithstanding that the President's own mother, who by all accounts he loved dearly and with whom he was very close, was herself white. Or screaming about death panels. Or for insisting that a hug between the President and his chief of staff is a sign of weakness indicative of deeper, dire problems facing the country (this one's from CNBC's Kudlow, mentioned above). Or comparing school children in New Jersey singing about the President to the Khmer Rouge.
Many on the right complained bitterly during the Bush presidency that liberals engaged repeatedly in unhinged condemnations of President Bush. And of course there was vituperation directed toward W including some over-the-top comparisons to certain 20th century tyrants. But here's what there wasn't -- a constant drumbeat of inflammatory characterizations from people in high profile positions, an endless stream of the most inflammatory and fact-free assessments of Obama, issuing forth by the hour and the minute from the likes of Beck, Limbaugh, Gingrich, Hannity, Savage, Palin, members of Congress and others on the right with broad platforms, not from the deep nether reaches of a comment section on a blog.
These exercises in false equivalency serve to legitimize the extremism that is now so mainstream on the right -- reducing fear and resentment-fueled fanaticism to a tactic or a 'side' in our over-heated politics debates. And the problem is only made worse when smart liberals imply that this sort of fanaticism is really no different from raising serious and evidence-based questions about the degree to which powerful private interests might influence major public policy debates in this country.
Follow Jonathan Weiler on Twitter: www.twitter.com/jonweiler
And for it to change, the Dems and the left must push for a change.
"The left side of the political divide relishes attacking progressives in a way that ensures that the boundaries of political discourse will be policed consistent with an information environment slanted in favor of the right-wing."
Worthy of C. Wright Mills- memorize it.
...hold on, let me catch my breath from that whirlwind of truth telling.
However, they are successful and facilitated and that remains a problem.
"But here's what there wasn't -- a constant drumbeat of inflammatory characterizations from people in high profile positions, an endless stream of the most inflammatory and fact-free assessments of Obama, issuing forth by the hour and the minute from the likes of Beck, Limbaugh, Gingrich, Hannity, Savage, Palin, members of Congress and others on the right with broad platforms, not from the deep nether reaches of a comment section on a blog."
Exactly!
The "media", corporate or not, isn't slanted right or left. It's slanted lazy
For each good investigative article there are thousands of so called opinion pages, such as this one, that drown real useful information under a hailstorm of pointless arguments.
Fox has more people watching because they provide both sides on their news shows. Apparently Glenn Beck with his chalkboards, video, and print proof of what he exposes is trusted more than the MSM or the other cable channels.
Other than Fox the Right has no voice on TV. All of the others have a definite Left-Progressive slant. Americans aren't stupid and apparently they like to hear both sides and make up their own minds.
About 1/2 of Americans are below average in intelligence.
Fox has 2 philosophies: You can fool some of the people all the time and you can't cheat an honest man.
A right newspaper has a business section while a left paper has a labor section. How many left daily newspapers are there?
The culture war was won by the liberal/progressives.
Despite all the loud crying, an attempts at the ballot box...the clock won't turn back. Progressive thought rules in pop culture, if not DC culture.
It's why Democrats need to double down on social issues and not shy away from them. That billionaire funded minority gets so riled up about these issues because THEY LOST THEM. Long ago.
I don't recall anyone suggesting re-instituting slavery. It was the Republican party who freed the slaves.
Keep in mind that it is the Left-Progressives who support illegal immigration which is essentially modern day slavery.
Feudalism is a close relative to socialism, compare them and see for yourself.
I assume you are talking about Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Let me ask you this...were the Iraqis better off with Sadam?
Afghanistan, well now before we went in they shot women in public arenas for showing an ankle in public. Before the Taliban took over, Afghanistan was moving into modernity. Men and women went to college. What did the Taliban do to improve the country? How did they move the population forward?
You talk about torture. Water boarding? Our soldiers go through this as part of their training in some instances. How are our prisoners treated by the Taliban and Al Qaeda?
Who is homeless because of the Right? People who bought houses they couldn't afford? People need to take responsibility for the choices they make, no bailouts.
The Republicans had a little help winning the Civil War; in fact had it been Republicans against Democrats (instead of North against South) they would have been outnumbered and probably lost .
I've never heard any politician support illegal immigration.
Christianity as preached by Jesus is closer to socialism.
The 500,000 dead ones were better off alive.
And after 10 (that's ten) years are the Afghans better off.
Are we not better than the Taliban? If not shouldn't we be?
If we blame government policy for the homeless, all of them except some of the insane put on the street by the liberal policy of closing the inhumane asylums.
People need to take responsibility for their choices: oppose health care - don't use it, oppose bailouts/stimulus- don't take the money and don't use the bridges, don't want social security - don't cash the check.
There is no accountability for the lies, propaganda, inciting hatred and fear and violence towards the President. How is this different than domestic terrorists? (using fear to coerce an agenda)?
A democracy requires an educated electorate. Talk radio hosts are corporate prostitutes that use patriotic, populist, religious and fearful rhetoric to manipulate their listeners, but at the end of EVERY issue they protect the special interest groups (Big oil, Wall St, Pharma, War profiteers etc) that we have allowed to own our airwaves. What can be done? Free speech is one thing, but this is akin to yelling fire in a crowded theatre every day all day with no consequences. Teapublicans say this is squelching free speech. The Fairness Doctrine still allows them to speak, but gives a different viewpoint time to rebut or fill in the omissions of these hosts.
Right now, talk radio hosts get to debate themselves or like minded people on 90 percent of OUR airwaves. When can the other team be heard.
The Dems aren't doing any better-but at least they don't make me want to get guns and ammo and fortify my position. These other nutbags do.
Reinstate the Fairness Doctrine and public funding only for elections could turn this mess around.
Plus, the few times I have shot a gun... it wasn't pretty
I criticized Lady Gaga, but apologize. She made me remember.
The liberal/progressive/left point of view OWNS pop culture.
Use pop culture as effectively as was done in the past.