EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
The Tea Party's Exaggerated Importance
2009 was the year when many journalists concluded they were slow to recognize the anti-government, anti-Obama rage that gave birth to the tea party movement.
The tea party 'movement' has little organizational structure to speak of, and its candidates have so far failed to make a dent in Republican primaries. (Reuters)
2010 is the year when news organizations have decided to prove they get it.
And get it. And get it some more.
Part of the reason is the timeless truth in media that nothing succeeds like excess. But part of the reason is a convergence of incentives for journalists and activists on left and right alike to exaggerate both the influence and exotic traits of the tea-party movement. In fact, there is a word for what poll after poll depicts as a group of largely white, middle-class, middle-aged voters who are aggrieved: Republicans.
But just read the succession of New York Times stories, profiling newly energized activists who are "bracing for tyranny." Or follow the dispatches of the CNN crews who went along with two national Tea Party Express bus tours. Or delve into the crosstabs of polls conducted in the past few weeks by the Times, CNN, and, POLITICO about the opinions and demographic characteristics of tea partiers. Or check out the blogger the Washington Post hired to chronicle their movement.
The findings have been unveiled with the earnest detachment of Margaret Mead reporting her findings among teenage girls in Samoa.
Indifference has given way to curiosity, and -in recent weeks especially- to a nearly manic obsession that sometimes seems to place the tea partiers somewhere near the suffragettes and the America-Firsters in the historical ranking of mass political movements.
Pew's Project for Excellence in Journalism, which tracks media reports, found that the tea parties consumed a steady measure of news for most of this year before exploding during tax week to compete with the Icelandic volcano for attention and outstripping health care with 6% of all media reports that week.
But various sides have their own reasons for finding something new and arresting in the spasms of outrage personified by the tea partiers. The right sees the protests as evidence of a popular revolt against President Barack Obama-proof of a changing tide they believe will bring massive victories in 2010 and 2012. The left sees them as evidence of incipient fascism and an opposition to Obama rooted in racism-proof of the beyond-the-pale illegitimacy of large swaths of the conservative moment.
The tea party "movement," meanwhile, has little organizational structure to speak of. True tea party candidates - as opposed to establishment figures like former Florida House Speaker Marco Rubio who have gladly adopted the label - have failed to make a dent so far in Republican primaries. The one true tea partier poised to make a splash, Kentucky GOP Senate candidate Rand Paul, is an imperfect example thanks to his being the son of Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas), who still commands a national following after his quixotic presidential race.
The tea parties' main expression has been public gatherings. But last week's Tax Day crowds were not representative of a force that is purportedly shaping the country's politics. About a thousand people showed up in state capitals like Des Moines, Montgomery and Baton Rouge - and even fewer in large cities like Philadelphia, Boston and Milwaukee. In some cases, turnout was less than the original protests spurred by the stimulus, bailouts, financial crisis and new Democratic president last April 15th.
In Washington, about 10,000 people showed up on the national Mall last week - a rally worth covering but far fewer than the tens of thousands who marched in support of immigration reform in March.
"If I organized a rally for stronger laws to protect puppies, I would get 100,000 people to Washington," Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell cracked on NBC's "Meet the Press" Sunday. "So, I think the media has blown the tea party themselves out of proportion."
What's more, the eruption of protest after a president of a new party takes the country in a new direction is a standard feature of modern American politics. Ronald Reagan's election produced record-breaking rallies for the now-forgotten Nuclear Freeze movement. The right, with rhetoric and occasional excesses that are almost identical to those of today, rose up angrily against Bill Clinton in the mid-1990s.
And just a few years ago, hundreds of thousands of Americans turned out to rally against the Iraq war. Now, veterans of those protests - covered largely as spot news and spectacle - wonder why they didn't get the weighty, anthropological treatment assigned to the tea parties.
"They're being treated with a lot more respect than the anti-war movement was," said Cindy Sheehan, the mother of a soldier who died in Iraq, who became the most visible face of those protests.
"The anti-war movement has always been treated as a fringe movement - even though at the height of our movement we had hundreds of thousands of people at protests and the majority of public opinion on our side," said Sheehan, who spoke to POLITICO from a bus on her way to an Oregon protest against the Afghan war.
"Nobody is poling us to find out our thoughts and opinions on things," she added. The polling has discovered what the Republican officials who have allied themselves with the tea parties already knew: That the new energy and organization is a function of an inflamed conservative grassroots already basically aligned with one party.
"There is definitely some anger at the GOP over our big spending ways, but generally this is an Obama protest vote," says Republican strategist Mike Murphy.
Polls indicated that tea party adherents overwhelmingly support GOP candidates. Over 70 percent backed John McCain in 2008, according to POLITICO's own in-person survey of those who attended the tax day rally in Washington. And a New York Times poll released last week showed that 40 percent of self-identified tea party supporters indicated a desire for a third party - less than the 46 percent of overall respondents to the survey who said they'd like to see an option besides the Republicans and Democrats.
"No one should mistake tea partiers for swing voters," said Democratic strategist Paul Begala, noting surveys that show the group largely identifies as either Republican or independents who lean toward the GOP. "Those who say they're independent do not choose that status because the Democrats are too liberal but because the Republicans are too conservative."
Other polling suggests that the protests, while much discussed within the political class, hasn't entirely pierced the consciousness of average Americans.
A new Pew poll out this week with a national sample of 2,505 found that 31 percent of those surveyed had never even heard of the tea party movement - and another 30 percent had no opinion of them.
The media fascination, trickling down from A1 of the New York Times, for instance, to A1 of the Arizona Republic, is prompting a second round of anthropology, this time from aggravated political professionals.
Murphy, who calls the attention "absolutely ridiculous," sees it of a piece with what has become the biennial compulsion in the political community to hold up a newly-discovered, and always pivotal, bloc of voters; Like the Angry White Males, NASCAR Dads, Soccer Moms of election cycles past - only on steroids.
"There is this urge to give any political development a catchy name and a picture," he lamented, adding the familiar Republican complaint that well-educated, left-leaning, coast-dwelling reporters view middle America through an elitist lens.
"These young reporters fly to the wilds of Oklahoma or Kentucky, find a bunch of folks in Uncle Sam suits hollering and come back thinking they've got some hot scoop," Murphy said.
The coverage began, notes Republican consultant Alex Castellanos, with not much more than bemused mockery: "'How amusing, the peasants are revolting'"
Now it has reached a level of worried fascination. Or, as Castellanos put it, "The peasants actually are revolting!"
In some ways, perceptions of the tea partiers have become much like the politician most frequently identified with the movement - Sarah Palin.
For both the left and the right, both have become symbols that outweigh their actual impact - thanks largely to excessive media attention. Conservatives mostly rush to defend them while liberals delight in mocking them, and reporters can't get enough of the spectacle.
And, as with Palin, the tea parties enjoy an unlikely convergence of saturation coverage from media outlets across the political spectrum.
The more ideologically-driven cable networks have something near ideal for television news in the modern era: vivid images of political activism that can either be celebrated (Fox) or mocked (MSNBC). And columnists and editorial writers from the mainstream media have something to celebrate or deplore.
"It feeds the paranoia of the New York Times and provides pictures of conflict and color for TV," said Murphy.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
88 Comments so far
Show AllYes.
I expect that most of the media, think the teabaggers are relatively harmless clowns who pose no threat to the economic interests of those who run this country. If we had a real left, well they hold the possibility of actually becoming a threat.
The left sees them as evidence of incipient fascism and an opposition to Obama rooted in racism-proof of the beyond-the-pale illegitimacy of large swaths of the conservative moment.
-------------------
This lefty sees them as a pro-corporate propaganda creation designed specifically for television consumption.
The tea-party also serves the dual purpose as a release valve designed to be THE (only) outlet for growing populist fear and anger.
Authentic discontent, based on reality, thus has nowhere else to go, and will receive no media coverage.
Bottom Line: If you're pissed off, you can either join the Tea-Party and have your ire purposefully misdirected or you can scream alone in your house.
Jill and Cygnus, apparently "authentic leftists" (as I consider myself as well): you have nailed it! The corporate forces that bring us the military operations in Afghanistan and elsewhere, that bring us an industry-dominated health care "reform," bring us as well the Tea Partiers to help marginalize genuine leftist dissent. Some of the authentic leftists even take the bait, saying we need to "capitalize" on the anger of the TPs, which is an anger against "goverment" (which, in its humane form, leftists are bound to defend) rather than against these very corporate forces and the D and R branches of their executive committee called the U.S. and state governments. Let's keep and use OUR OWN anger against those forces. There is a strong wave of revulsion against plutocratic domination in this country that will support our "authentic lefty" movement, and we won't be detracted from the same demographic and mentality of regressive "populism" that supported the rise of Hitler in Germany and of McCarthyites in the U.S.
The criminals looting the Treasury and defecating on the Constitution are not stupid.
They fear the day 'We the People' awaken and hold them accountable.
The Tea Party was invented not to give cohesion to populist anger but to DRAIN and DIVERT THE ENERGY from it instead and delay that day.
Their assets strategically placed in all major media were instructed to magnify their clownish actions a thousand-fold.
There are more Americans who identify themselves as socialists than teabaggers, yet you'll never see them on television.
The entire spectacle is as genuine as pro wrestling.
--------------
Whoever controls the media controls the country. Period.
Well said, Cygnus!
"and strengthens the system" is the operative phrase, Rich !
The tea party provides the Obama Regime a perfect boogeyman to scare the people who voted for Obama in 2008 into voting for Democrat candidates and incumbants in 2010 and voting again for Obama in 2012.
"a perfect boogeyman to scare the people"
I get far more frantic emails about Sarah Palin and teapartiers than I do about the Obama administration's agenda. When Bush was in office, anti-Bush emails came on a daily basis.
Never forget: Our attention is to be diverted. We're supposed to be afraid of our own independence, our own thoughts and analyses.
I watched it, clearly, during the duopoly's very excellent production: The 2008 US Presidential Campaign, with stellar performances by Barack Obama, Sarah Palin, and John McCain (who wandered around on the stage! calling Obama, "that one.") Again, stellar performances.
" ....idiocies about Obama being "un-American" and "taking away our freedoms."
Although I'm no teapartier, I agree, "Obama" is taking away our freedoms - habeas corpus, for one.
RE: Bottom Line: If you're pissed off, you can either join the Tea-Party and have your ire purposefully misdirected or you can scream alone in your house.
That's what they want you to think. For example, the immigration reform movement is vastly bigger than the Tea Baggers, yet they get hardly any MSM coverage (proportional to the actual size of the movement). And, that's true going into the past: the 60's anti-war movement, civil rights, anti-nuke, gay-rights, women's movement, etc.
An issue for the left is why we should think that the treatment by the MSM would be any different? Corporate media serves corporate interests. Period. We should not look to the corporate media for validation. Something that we don't think about enough is that during the 1930's the labor movement had their own media: daily newspapers from a labor point-of-view including many that were radical. The working person knew not to trust the business press.
To take your point further, Cygnus, the teabag phenomenon is specifically designed to drive a wedge between those elements of the liberarian right who make a leftish critique of the system and the left itself. If these two currents were ever to make common cause, they could constitute a formidable alternative force. I've said this before in some of my posts here, but I find to my great dismay that the teabag farce is already succeeding in its red-herring role. People on the left are far too ready to gasp at the sight of these rednecks and take them at face value, rather than look at some of the things that certain individuals that the mass media have associated with the teabaggers--such as guerilla journalist Alex Jones--actually have to say. There has been a blurring (by design, I'm sure) of the vast difference between the gung-ho pro-war, pro-troops, anti-Muslim, and, yes, antigovernment (à la Reagan/Perot, however) hicks waving their flags and hooting approval at Sarah Palin, and the profoundly antiwar, isolationist, pacifist, and pro-9/11 truth elements associated with some of the libertarian right. Though I live abroad and can only observe these phenomena via the internet, I am sure that this confusion and amalgamation is by design. The Americans I know who are of alternative-left and anarchist-leaning persuasion--as opposed to the academic and intellectual left--say they share much common ground with these libertarian trends, particularly around such issues as the imperial wars, 9/11 truth, and eroding civil liberties, and they often converge with them at demonstrations and the like. I would be very appreciative if some of the commenters on these threads could shed further light on these issues. I see none of this side of libertarian movement being addressed in MSM coverage, which simply writes them off as paranoid crazies.
One possibility these writers ignore is that, given the extensive coverage of this phenomenon by the corporate establishment it could be a psy-op...deliberately injected into the public discourse to accomplish what cygus noted above.
Never underestimate the ruthlessness of the oligarchy and its hirelings. These people are very bright and they've made a study of how to best manipulate public opinion since the early 50's. See the mind control experiments launched under MKULTRA. See Operation Mockingbird. Read A Terrible Mistake.
Inform yourself!
Incidentally. Phillip Zelikow specialized in mass manipulation techniques. He was the individual who ran, and controlled the so-called 9/11 Commission.
Operation Mockingbird v2.0 is a smashing success.
"Bracing for tyranny?" What planet are these teabagger clowns on? Oh, the planet of white racism...
Funny, we just finished eight long years of tyranny under the lying, election-stealing, war-mongering Cheney/Bush regime and not a peep was heard from these teabagger clowns. No problemo back then with torture, treason, tyranny, wars and thousands of lies. But, oh, if a black man is democratically elected President, the knashing of teeth, the tearing of hair, white racists going insane...
With our fascist corporate media always propagandizing for white-wingers, twenty gun nuts demonstrating rates more coverage than did two-hundred thousand anti-war demonstrators back in 2003. Heck of a job, white-wing corporate media clowns...
Blah blah white this and that blah blah. YOUR racism is showing.
Obama won because white people voted for him. Obama won because he fooled a plurality of all voters. He won't enjoy that support again and even if he gets 100% of the black vote, that's only 12 - 13% of voters.
You and people like you just reinforce those crazy white blah blah blahs....
They're a minority, calm down.
Yeah, it's ironic that when Obama engages in secret renditions, illegal killings of innocents, bank bailouts, etc., the far right becomes livid but when Bush did the same, it was just fine.
The duopoly is managing your thoughts. You don't think this is possible? Think again. Why else would millions upon millions of progressives cry tears of joy when Obama - who voted to give telecoms immunity, voted for war funding, pledged to escalate in Afghanistan, etc. - was elected. Progressive voters were perfectly managed.
In my 60 odd years as a human being, it has become clear, an independent thinker, a person who eschews band wagons, can end up a pariah - Ralph Nader, for example. People like John Nichols and Robert Sheer - Obama's cheerleaders - end up in the in-crowd, popular.
It's not the actual numbers that count, but the use of the movement in perception management.
In Obama's camp, the movement gives his administration cover when it shifts to the right. On the right, it gives the discredited Republicans the illusion of popular support.
In a country where reality can no longer be discerned by a large portion of the population, the tea party is a preemptive strike against a real populist uprising against the corporations and banks, hence the disappearance of alternative movements from the media (anti-war or anti-Wall Street marches disappeared, while tea party gatherings magnified).
This is indeed is a very old fascist strategy, tweeked for a new media environment.
I agree!
I agree with your analysis and most of what everyone else here has said. Beyond that, this is all part of the same operation initiated by the corporate elite in the early 70s to rollback the democratic gains of the 60's and regain control, a strategy that utilized the christian right to boost reagan into office. And ever since that time, the elites have been gaining power and the people have been losing it, year after year after year.
What we have now is a small segement of the populace who are very aware and conscious of what is going on, a much larger segment of the populace that still believes in the democrats and the 2 party system, and a small segement of the populace that seems to be completely brainwashed by a combination of right-wing christianity, corporate propaganda and a dumbed-down educational system. At the top there is the corporate plutocracy and the ultra-rich, and below them, the merely rich who benefit from the plutocratic system they work for.
I am not so worried about a bunch of old teabaggers, I am more worried about the young ones in the US military, a military that has been deeply infiltrated by a rabid form of extremist, fundamentalist christianity, a fundamentalism that also permeates mercenary outfits like the Blackwater/Xe. Think about it. The government has totally used and abused the soldiers and yet...the elites still hold the loyalty of the army after 9 years of futile war. Think about all the soldiers who "believe in the mission" - why do you think they do?
When the american economy goes down big-time - and it aint gonna be too long from now - there will probably be plenty of fanatical law enforcement and military people who will "Believe in the mission" of putting down popular revolt. I say probably because I want to believe that the people in the military and law enforcement might stop short of turning on their own people because they realize that we are all in the same boat, but I am not optimistic. perhaps the best thing would be if the government simply ran out of money and could not afford to police the country
Good post. I have a proposal for my CD colleagues. When we criticize an article we preface it with our basic POV, that is that we are commenting on it from a liberal, progressive or radical perspective. I think it could reduce much of the vitriol on CD and lead to a deeper understanding.
For example:
LP = Liberal Perspective
PP = Progressive Perspective
RP = Radical Perspective
Except these normative "pigeon-holes" are a terrible way to describe, discuss and otherwise become involved in the important social discourse required of a healthy constructive democracy. Very few well-rounded individuals will assume any label with the illusion that the label justly or perfectly describes either them or a reasoned understanding of all things important and necessary.
For the record, that same distinction is what separated Republicans from other political persuasions for decades - it has been well studied and is fairly commonly known how Republicans (almost incessantly) vote the party line. That is exactly why there is, and should be, a fear of Republicans. (And don't we know about those who vote Republican even against their own best interest as well?)
Many of us have experienced first hand how Republicans generally do not engage well in intelligent reasoned discourse, especially when it challenges their personal viewpoint (just ask Rush). Consequently, I have yet to meet a Republican who doesn't eventually resort to ad hominem argument, holding that a contradicting perspective is little more than a matter of (poorly considered) personal opinion.
For most Republicans, informed and awakened reason is a nebulous concept that, if it does exist, applies only to validate their individualized reasoning. That is, the facts are as valid or invalid as they want or need them to be. They will even purport to possess some profound insight others need to wake up to, as old rationale no longer applies (not really being conservative though, is it?) and historical revision becomes necessary.
In quest of sound doctrine, the assimilation of facts to support opinion is very different than reasoning out logical objective conclusions based on ALL the facts and actual historical record.
The political history of humanity is about the evolution of individual human rights, the self-determination of sovereign peoples, the equitable "socialization" of power, and the revolutions periodically required accordingly. Although the Tea Party attempts to exploit the idea (in name), there is little evolutionary or revolutionary about their posturing or political will.
"For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables."
2 Timothy 4:3-4
I disagree that these distinctions are counterproductive. For example, deconstructing your words: "a healthy constructive democracy" (Which places you IMO, in the progressive camp.)
LP: Everything's fine we just need to get more moderate Republicans on our side, and discipline the Blue Dogs.
PP: Our democracy is broken, we need to bring the country back to its true self.
RP: Democracy in the US is now, and always has been, an illusion.
Each one of this creates a different analysis and generates different conclusions. Without articulating the POV, effectively means no communication, just angry posts. If posters know your POV, they might say: "why do you think that"? It's just a thought. Whether we articulate them or not, they are still operative.
It would be my derogatory generalizations about Republicans that would place me in the progressive camp, except that I disagree with many of the so-called progressive posts and viewpoints expressed here. That is exactly what's wrong with these labels. The thoughtful person knows these to be generalizations, and thus will not hold them out with a universal certainty. While it may be convenient to use such terms, they have the effect of re-parametrizing and distorting the discussion.
If you really do know and understand deconstructive analysis, then you know these "labels" convey underlying assumptions, held by both author and audience, in the end not being constructive to a critical objective analysis of a specific issue. How a person "feels" in general about a platform of issues does not further the discussion of a specific issue - quite the contrary.
The phrase "a healthy constructive democracy" is just another normative term subject to interpretation by any/every camp. Unless you are inferring "a healthy constructive democracy" is NOT a desired goal? I did not talk about what "a healthy constructive democracy" is, but about the discussion required to get there.
It's funny strange to have to be explaining the fallacy of using generalizations to further constructive discussion - it verifies the increasing lack of common sense and reason.
OLP = Obnoxious Leftist Perspective
The Obamabots I associate with don't understand economics and politics and became so depressed by the Dubya Regime that when brand Obama pulled them out of their depression they assumed his chrismatic qualities meant that he was another Roosevelt or Kennedy and they didn't listen to anything he said during the campaign (beyond the hope and change, anyway).
Obamabots live in a delusional world. They are just as faith-based as the Dubyabots were.
While racism will always be a factor, the economic divide in the US in 2010 has become so wide that you cannot begin to address racial issues until the economic divide is closed. With Obama, Congress and the Federal Reserve widening the economic divide with each passing day, the problem is being exacerbated and the US is moving further from any solution.
Jill and Ray,
There are without doubt tough partisans for Obama and I have run across them even on Alternet. One thing to keep in mind though is the level of partisan loyalty. Oh Fluffington Post and Daily Hoax, it is virtually impossible to reason with them although I saw some attempts at it. On Alternet, most of the otherwise bots can be reasoned with and some consensus can be reached to where they will be forced to acknowledge their fears of the Republicans. They will admit to lack of confidence in the Democrats stopping the Republicans but will make their own mistakes of clinging to them out of fear and no confidence of being able to turn to someone else. I think I can get some of them to listen and spread the word. We may not get people who stand for us overnight but since I know what thinking like a typical average Democrat, not necessarily an Obamabot, is like and I used to be one of them, I think that I might be able to help them think like most of the awesome posters here. Stay confident on your beliefs and don't give up.
Jill,
Bravo!
Chelsea
The authors are right about the media, but then some Comments are much more cogent.
I did notice the authors' "the eruption of protest after a president of a new party takes the country in a new direction" and wonder what "new direction" BO is taking us in? While some informational roadside signs have changed, such as "Dem" and the historical marker "black", we're on the same road, actually, going in the same direction as before.
Corporate media promotes the corporate agenda. That's the fundamental truth that Politico skirts.
FAIR (fair.org) has done lots of reporting on the corporate (nee Republican) bias in the corporate media. As long as a populist movement serves that purpose, corporate media will report on it. 1,000 tea-party tax protesters get nationwide media attention, but 100,000 war protesters—military spending accounts for a majority of federal income tax dollars—are ignored.
"Hundreds of thousands of Americans turned out to rally against the Iraq war... covered largely as spot news and spectacle?" How about no coverage at all in the national media? It was as if we didn't exist.
Thousands of signs said "Osama bin Laden Wants You To Invade Iraq," "Not In My Name: Don't Attack Iraq," and "Bombing For Peace Is Like Fucking For Virginity," yet years later—when no link between Iraq and 9/11, and no WMD, were found—corporate media said "we didn't know." If millions of protesters worldwide knew, how did U.S. corporate media not know? They didn't want to know.
The rest of this Democrats v. Republicans media attention is kabuki theater. Obama-led Dems continue the Bush Doctrine of preemptive war, they produce a Nuclear Posture Review saying the U.S. can use nuclear weapons under the Bush Doctrine, they escalate the war against Afghanistan's people, kill even more innocents with cowardly drone attacks than Bush did, continue torture and indefinite detentions, continue allocating 50% of federal income tax dollars for military spending, continue corporate socialism at home (socialism for the rich, and capitalism for the rest of us), and the media pretends there are important differences between the two parties.
I had to turn off MSNBC when the evening hosts all turned into Obamabots promoting mandatory purchase of defective health insurance.
I also stopped watching msnbc, but then, I got rid of my tv a year and a half ago and dont watch anything except clips I find online.
I used to go back and forth, from online news and analysis to cable news, marveling at how scripted, contrived and predictable cable news is.
It is hard to see how Olbermann and Maddow can look at themselves in the mirror and not see that they are being hypocritical in not criticizing obama for doing the same things they critisized bush for doing. They must have internalized the corporate media game of keeping well within the accepted parameters of political analysis, a game commented upon by posters here below.
"They must have internalized the corporate media game"
No, they have internalized what it takes to keep their very good job. What do you expect from corporate news?
Democracy Now! with Amy Goodman is bona fide progressive, serious news and analysis, no corporate sponsors.
Ive been studying media for almost 20 years - there isnt a comment here that I havent thought about at least 10 years ago - I was just making a general comment along the lines of Chomsky's insight that there need be no overt control of the newscast from above - though there often is - because people in these organizations "internalize" the corporate elite value-system/worldview.
Though Olbermann and Maddow may be wrong about a lot of things, i dont think they are completely mercenary; i think they genuinely care about this country in their own way.
"i think they genuinely care about this country in their own way."
Why do you think this? Just wondering how people know what goes on in another person's mind.
I remember people telling me that Obama would never do the things Bush did. Never! "He isn't that kind of person!" Didn't you watch the "Yes We Can" video?! ... but he did and he continues to follow the Bush agenda.
oh well, people adjust ... as the US continues its move towards fascism and as the world turns.
"I got rid of my tv a year and a half ago..."
You missed this gem. Last week Rachel Maddow was a guest on the Daily Show. Jon Stewart started the conversation by saying that Obama had "fixed" health care, and now he was trying to bring peace to the Middle East. Maddow agreed with him! At that point I yelled FU! and changed the channel.
A few nights ago, Jay Leno's monologue included a joke about Democrats: they don't want to tax and spend, they want to spend and pass the bill along to our grandkids. Of course, that's what Reagan, Bush I and Bush II did—all Republicans. They were the biggest deficit spenders. Sadly, until Obama. So now, a partial truth becomes the whole truth, thanks to Republican Leno.
Still some good shows on Science, National Geographic and a few others. Frontline did an excellent program on evolution last year. There's a DVD Xmas present for your fundamentalist friends! (If you have any.)
Cheers.
""Hundreds of thousands of Americans turned out to rally against the Iraq war... covered largely as spot news and spectacle?" How about no coverage at all in the national media? It was as if we didn't exist."
This coming weekend, there are supposed to be some massive protests on Wall Street that are pressing against the financial markets as they are as well as pushing for serious financial reform.
It will be most interesting to see if these protests even make the news. I for one certainly won't be holding my breath waiting for exclusive or any other coverage on any of the MSM outlets.
Naturally,
Well stated.
Bravo!
I stopped watching MSNBC too. They're just corporate media shills--all of them.
Chelsea
The barking dog gets fed. The squeaky joint gets oil.
Too many insightful comments here to single out anyone for praise! As is often the case here, the comments elevate the mundane article inspiring them.
I guess I don't HAVE to state explicitly that I agree with the comments, since I wouldn't be calling them "insightful" if I didn't. ;)
If a news reporter gave these people a fair break and let them speak their mind... this is what it would look like.
Unbelievable!!!! I'm sure there are "left wing" infiltrators amongst them making them look bad, but I can't tell them apart.
New Left Media
http://www.youtube.com/
user/NewLeftMedia
Tea party rallies are cheap news, and that's why the media like them so much. Interview a few aggrieved people, and you have something for six o'clock. Members of the embedded mass media are always on the lookout for stranded airline passengers, miners' widows, ruined investors, and other promising interview prospects, so they don't have to do any real work on reports of impending economic collapse, war crimes, or actual events of any kind.
"Tea party rallies are cheap news"
There's far more to it that that. It's also news that will frighten progressives back into their pen. Stand back and watch it happen. It if weren't so tragic, it would be funny.
rvrwalker,
You hit the nail on the head--though I'd call these folks "Democrats" because real progressives know better.
Chelsea
The formula you describe here I think applies only to local news coverage, i.e. the local news channels will cover nearly anything that fills up time in the broadcast. But from what I understand (I left the USA a few years ago, so don't get to experience the media first-hand anymore) the tea parties are getting extensive, in-depth national coverage. This is pure propaganda, it's the media doing its part to manufacture the weather. That's essentially what the media does -- they create the rain and then report that it's raining.
I attended a recent Tea Party rally in an effort to co-opt their message and get some media attention focused on the anti-war movement. Even though we only had a handful of anti-war activists we were able to get equal billing on the local news and they interviewed one of the members of our group. They also videotaped an impromptu debate I had with a Tea Partier. Here is the link to my write up with links to the video.
http://open.salon.com/blog/alaska_progressive/2010/04/18/a_new_strategy_to_deal_with_the_tea_parties
I think this can be a good strategy to get ignored and marginalized Progressive messages out to the public by taking advantage of the media coverage the Tea Parties get.
As was said before, if the media covers it, it's not a real protest.
Radical perspective. Also my view. The job of the MSM is not to provide us with useful information, but rather "perception management", to control us for the interests of the ruling class: corporate power.
It's a distraction to keep REAL news off the news. The M$M over reports the tea baggers so to escape the realities of--Afghanistan, Pakistan,Iraq, climate change, lousy health care bill, Wall St. owns the doupoly, etc.
It's political theatre for the public consumption--resulting in the dumbing down the population/electorate.
Chelsea
The full link is
http://open.salon.com/blog/alaska_progressive/2010/04/18/a
_new_strategy_to_deal_with_the_tea_parties
I read the article, and agree with almost all you say. Especially liked your sign: "Want Small Government? End the War-Fare State."
I too, think the Tea Partiers have some concerns in common with leftists. They are confused, of course, about government spending. Far more of our tax dollars go to corporate welfare than human welfare. And wars, as you point out, cost even more. Have you seen these numbers, by the way?
http://www.warresisters.org/files/FY2011piechart.pdf
But, I didn't see any "racist" comments in the video. The people expressed some mistaken opinions, but they weren't racist ones. I have to say, as a lower 48er, it was ironic to see Alaskans—who pay no state income tax, and get a hefty, annual Permanent Fund handout from government—complaining about people getting something for nothing. Has anyone make that point to them?
In the video, the one woman says Obama doesn't listen to her because she's not from the ghetto. The man says he doesn't want his tax dollars going to drug addicts. What color person do you suppose they were thinking of when they made those comments. Veiled racism is still racism.
Thanks for checking out the post. I had seen those numbers from warresisters. I think Tom Larsen had a post the other day on CD referencing that site.