EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Media Misreading Midterms: As Usual, Press Urge a Move to the Right
With the Democrats suffering substantial losses in Tuesday's midterms, many journalists and pundits were offering a familiar diagnosis (Extra!, 7-8/06; FAIR Media Advisory, 2/3/09): The Democrats had misread their mandate and governed too far to the left. The solution, as always, is for Democrats to move to the right and reclaim "the center." But this conventional wisdom falls apart under scrutiny.
In the end, the elections were covered the way elections are often covered--poorly. As Dean Baker of the Center for Economic and Policy Research put it (Politico, 11/2/10), "Until we get better media, we will not get better politics." (photo by Flickr user Rob Boudon For months, the problem for Democrats was correctly identified as the "enthusiasm gap"--the idea that the progressive base of the party was not excited about voting. The exit polls from Tuesday's vote confirm that many Democratic-tending voters failed to show up. How, then, does one square this fact with the idea that Obama and Democrats were pushing policies that were considered too left-wing? If that were the case, then presumably more of those base voters would have voted to support that agenda. It is difficult to fathom how both things could be true.
But reporting and commentary preferred a narrative that declared that Obama's "days of muscling through an ambitious legislative agenda on [the] strength of Democratic votes [are] over" (Washington Post, 11/3/10). "The verdict delivered by voters on Tuesday effectively put an end to his transformational ambitions," announced Peter Baker of the New York Times (11/3/10).
Some thought Obama's post-election speech was still missing the point. As the Washington Post's Dan Balz put it (11/4/10), Obama was "unwilling, it seemed, to consider whether he had moved too far to the left for many voters who thought he was a centrist when he ran in 2008." On CNN (11/3/10), David Gergen said, "I don't think he made a sufficient pivot to the center today. He has to do that, I think, through policies and through personnel." Gergen went on to cite Social Security "reform" as an ideal way to demonstrate he was "taking on his base."
The Washington Post's David Broder (11/4/10) advised Obama to
return to his original design for governing, which emphasized outreach to Republicans and subordination of party-oriented strategies. The voters have in effect liberated him from his confining alliances with Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid and put him in a position where he can and must negotiate with a much wider range of legislators, including Republicans. The president's worst mistake may have been avoiding even a single one-on-one meeting with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell until he had been in office for a year and a half.
USA Today's Susan Page noted before the election (10/29/10):
During his first two years in office, Obama often acted as if he didn't need a working relationship with congressional Republicans. With big Democratic majorities in Congress... he could court a few moderate Republicans such as Maine Sen. Olympia Snowe in hopes of peeling off a GOP vote or two to block a filibuster or give legislation a bipartisan patina.
This view of Obama's politics meshes poorly with reality. Much of the Democrats' maneuvering over the healthcare bill, for example, was devoted to trying to find any Republicans who might support it, stripping out elements of the bill--such as the public option--that were drawing more enthusiasm from the party base. (A true single-payer plan was rejected from the beginning.) The dramatic escalation of the Afghan War was a major disappointment to the progressive base, along with Obama's embrace of nuclear power and offshore oil drilling. And critics on the left often expressed disappointment with the White House's timid approach to Wall Street reform and economic stimulus.
Yet after the election, it was difficult to find TV pundits who would argue against the media conventional wisdom about an agenda that was too left-wing. Instead pundits were offering plenty of suggestions for Obama to move even further to the right--Time's Joe Klein recommended building more nuclear power plants (FAIR Blog, 10/29/10) and Washington Post columnist David Broder floated a war with Iran to boost the economy and promote bipartisanship (FAIR Blog, 11/1/10).
Bill Clinton, whom media likewise counselled to move right after heavy midterm losses, was frequently held up as an exemplar: "If there is a model for the way forward in recent history, it's provided by President Bill Clinton, who established himself as more of a centrist by working with Republicans to pass welfare reform after Democrats lost their grip on Congress in 1994." (Associated Press, 11/2/10). The advice to move to the "center" was accompanied by reporting and analysis that wondered if Obama was even capable of doing so. "Obama has not shown the same sort of centrist sensibilities that Mr. Clinton did," explained the New York Times (11/3/10).
Of course, Clinton's first two years were centrist--and a disappointment to his base, seriously dampening Democratic turnout in the midterms (Extra!, 1-2/95; FAIR Media Advisory, 11/7/08). And the "Clinton model" failed to build broad Democratic electoral success.
Meanwhile, the pundits had right in front of them, in the sweeping Republican victory, an example of how a political party can organize a comeback--not by moving to the center and alienating its base, but by "using guerrilla-style tactics to attack Democrats and play offense" (New York Times, 11/4/10).
The Economy, Stupid
Much of the election analysis sought to ignore or downplay what was inarguably an election about unemployment and the state of the economy. Reporting that sought to elevate the federal budget deficit (FAIR Action Alert,6/24/10) as a primary issue of concern served as a diversion--and drove the election narrative into Republican territory, where rhetoric about "big government" and cutting federal spending were dominant themes. "If there is an overarching theme of election 2010, it is the question of how big the government should be and how far it should reach into people's lives," explained the lead of an October 10 Washington Post article. There was little in that article--or anywhere else--to support that contention.
With the economy the overwhelming issue for the public (Washington Post, 11/3/10) the media should have led a serious discussion about what to do about it. Instead, there was a discussion that mostly adhered to a formula where the left-wing position was that nothing could be done to improve the economic situation (when the actual progressive view was that a great deal more could have been done), while the right offered an attack on federal spending but was never required to offer a coherent explanation of how such spending eliminated jobs. As the New York Times' Baker (11/3/10) framed it: "Was this the natural and unavoidable backlash in a time of historic economic distress, or was it a repudiation of a big-spending activist government?"
There were some exceptions--MSNBC interviews with top Republican officials on election night (11/2/10), for instance, revealed that many could not offer a coherent plan for reducing spending or the budget deficit. This should have been a larger part of the media's coverage of the election.
Who Voted?
Some election reporting and commentary treated the results as if they represented a dramatic lurch to the right. AsAlternet's Josh Holland noted (11/3/10), reporting like a New York Times article that talked of "critical parts" of the 2008 Obama vote "switching their allegiance to the Republicans" distracted from the main lesson--that many Obama voters of two years ago did not participate in 2010. Republican-leaning voters, on the other hand, did. That fact, along with the disastrous state of the economy and the normal historical trends seen in midterm elections, would seem to provide most of the answers for why the election turned out the way it did.
But much of the media commentary wanted to turn the election into a national referendum on the new healthcare law or the size of government. The exit polls provide some clues about the sentiment of voters, but the lessons don't seem to fit neatly into those dominant media narratives. Asked who was to blame for the state of the economy, most picked Wall Street and George W. Bush (USA Today, 11/3/10). As a New York Times editorial noted (11/4/10), "While 48 percent of voters said they wanted to repeal the healthcare law, 47 percent said they wanted to keep it the way it is or expand it--hardly a roaring consensus."
Some attention was paid to the exit poll finding that 39 percent of voters support Congress focusing on deficit reduction--which would appear to lend some credence to the media message that voters cared deeply about deficits. But the same exit polling found 37 percent support for more government spending to create jobs. Given that polling of the general public shows stronger concern about jobs--the New York Times reported (9/16/10) that "The economy and jobs are increasingly and overwhelmingly cited by Americans as the most important problems facing the country, while the deficit barely registers as a topic of concern when survey respondents were asked to volunteer their worries"--if anything, this finding serves to reinforce that citizens energized by Republican talking points were the ones who showed up to vote (FAIR Blog, 10/18/10).
In the end, the elections were covered the way elections are often covered--poorly. As Dean Baker of the Center for Economic and Policy Research put it (Politico, 11/2/10), "Until we get better media, we will not get better politics."
- Posted in
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...
99 Comments so far
Show AllThis article is titled: "Media Misreading Midterms
As usual, press urge a move to the right"
I think the naive assumption that renders this article superfluous is that the "reading" of the midterms by the media was "misread". This would infer that the interpreters were ever really doing the job of interpretation, and that due simply to an oversight, or poor analysis the media got it wrong.
Its not poor analysis, its expert and highly cunning analysis intended for one purpose – to trick the masses into going along with the accepted, status quo frame and dialog.
These guys who control the pictures plugged into our eyes, and the sounds plugged into our ears, have the US public pegged, and as compliant and controlled as one of Pavlov's puppies.
–SS
I am so glad you said this. It's exactly what I thought, reading the headline here.
The "media" is doing precisely what its owners want it to do.
When is it going to sink in? Why do liberals continue to think the "media" is not doing its job?
The news was canceled a long time ago.
Salusa and Bodie, I agree. It's deliberate manipulation by the corporate puppet masters, not a misinterpretation or misunderstanding of the election results. What I would like to ask these "pundits" and commentators, like Gergen, is: if the electorate supposedly wants Obama to be all things Republican - cut social security, bomb Iran, etc. - why the hell did they vote for a Democrat in 2008?
Agree with you all above.....the article should be renamed Media Misleading reading of Midterm Results. There is much that has been said about whether the Dems should move more to the right, or be more centrist, or be more Repub like. But the truth for me is that the Dems and Obama need to TAKE A STAND FOR SOMETHING and not just use the convenient tactic of trying to be more like some fiction they believe is expected of them or defined by spurious polls and the propaganda media machine or whatever bankroll is being dangled in front of them. It's such bulls..t. There is no compromising with the devil.
There are many reasons why the Repubs/Baggers were as successful as they were in this election. One reason is clear: at least they were consistent in their messaging - shrink government, cut spending and dismantle any programs/legislation that the Dems could claim as successful, as well as a couple of other local issue related slogans. It made it easier for the less critical minded and easily deceived public to latch on to those campaigns slogans and let's not forget the jingoism...Amerika-the greatest nation on earth crap. If the media had been able to or were willing enough or independent enough to ask the hard questions like those offered by the above, previous posters, perhaps the spell of the spin masters could have been broken....perhaps I am being too naive.
The real winners in this election are the Koch brothers; the PR firms and the Rovian strategists; and the corporate interests who planned this takeover. The rest us can analyze all we want about what happened. But it doesn't matter unless we can create a real, viable alternative in leadership that has the courage to shove the barbarians back into their caves and be willing to stand for peace and prosperity for all who believe that another way is possible.
I didn't get back to this thread til today, but I missed a couple great posts... here's one of them.
Cheers
You are most likely correct. When Mr Chaney said to be afraid I was, not of foreign nationals but of the people running our nation, of them I am truly afraid.
Why then is this misreading, a perception you reject, going on not only in centrist media, like the NY Times and WaPo, but also on allegedly progressive media channels like MSNBC? It makes sense that Fox would frame the results of the election to favor guiding Obama and the Dems further to the right, but why the hell would their counterparts at MSNBC do the same damn thing? Lawrence O'Donnell was saying this, that the Dems took a beating because they're trying to govern too far to the left, thus urging them to steer a more centrist course, which is EXACTLY what Boehner, McConnell and the other fascists want.
What's wrong with this picture is what defines the Bizarroworld we now inhabit. The only media figures that get any serious exposure, who profess to be VERY progressive, like Olbermann, O'Donnell, Maddow, Schulz, even Matthews sometime, are saying the same things the far right pundits are saying--that the Democrats have to move more to the right if they expect to get reelected. The fact that the OPPOSITE is true utterly escapes these beltway geniuses.
Ephraim, I don't consider the people you mention to be truly progressive, though they call themselves that. I consider them to be Obama apologists, who are owned by GE and other corporate puppet masters. If they said the truth, they'd be toast. They have their marching orders. Dave Lindorff has a good article out today that, like this article, lays bare the truth: the Democrats got trounced "because they have long since abandoned whatever principles they had, and more important, they’ve pissed on their most important supporters--the left, real liberals, African Americans, women, unionized workers, and workers in general. So I say hooray, all those groups have struck back!" It's a good read.
http://counterpunch.com/lindorff11042010.html
Thanks Anne. There's nothing progressive about this administration, those television channels, any of this crap that's being 'sold' as progressive by the mainstream. Monopolistic corporations will take any good concept, co-opt it, then turn it into the exact thing it used to be against. Like the media in general.
ITS SUPPOSED TO BE LIBERAL...
"Inform the public."
"Empower public decision making"
"Expose criminal wrongdoing, wherever its found"
"Act as a Voice of The People"
The job is liberal, but the orders, and the management of it is criminal through complicity. The media is a left-wing industry, completely co-opted and run by a bunch of right wing bourgeoisie plutocrats. And there's nothing Liberal, or progressive about that.
–SS
"also on allegedly progressive media channels ..... who profess to be VERY progressive .....
There's your answer - "allegedly" and "profess", which allegations are untrue and whose professions are false; these are the folks who give "progressives" a bad name in lefty circles .....
EPHRAIM: And don't forget, it's also hip and cool to blame liberals/the left/ and/or progressives for all the ills of the land. Look, some of the elite liberal pundits have played a role in normalizing a very sick status quo; but the real power brokers are the deep pockets who operate behind the scenes. They pull strings that move mountains, these modern corporate pharaohs. Their enablers may deserve PART of the blame, but hardly all. The media--from all sides--is crucifying the few that at least have the right ideas and understand the mechanisms necessary for turning the sinking ship of state around.
We're all ACORN now!
They want to disappear us! ...figuratively, so far.
Actually, I'm not sure which show of Rachel's you saw, because she gave great talking points tonight putting the lie to that "move right" perception.
When Mr. Bernays minions state we should move to the right, then that becomes the truth, and we will move to the right. In the USA opinion equals fact. What the man on the electronic picture box says, is the truth. His knowledge is unquestionable. He talks, you listen. You don't talk back, you can't talk back, there is no microphone on a TV. Just sit there isolated in your soon to be foreclosed house and listen to what he says.
It's your fault, you looser, that you don't have a job. Just make the bush tax cuts to the rich permanent, and you'll get one. You yell back at the guy in the box, that the tax cuts have been around for 10 years, and they haven't helped. The man in the box just keeps talking. You yell at the box that your job was outsourced by the guys getting the the tax cuts. The man in the picture box ignores you. What you say is unimportant. Only what the rich say should be heard. The supreme said that is the way it should be, Bernays says it should be that way. You are the consumer. Your job is to consume the crap they sell you both physically, and mentally and shut f*$k up.
The picture box has told you everything you need to know. The more money the rich have the more jobs they will make jobs for all us little folk. John Kerrey was coward, a liar about his service in Vietnam. There never was a terrorist attack on Bushes watch. A socialist takes money from regular people and gives it to the rich. A socialist is a fascist, a fascist is a communist. The President is a fascist communist who was born in Nigeria.
We have the best health care system in the world. We live the longest, we are the smartest. We are the best. We are so good that we invade countries to bring them democracy. They hate us for our freedoms.
Conservatives hate gays, hate arabs, hate illegal aliens, hate liberals, hate people that don't look like they do, or don't believe what they do. Conservatives are good. I am good, so I am a conservative, oh and a Christian. It is good and right to hate those people.
WWJD? Ask Glenn Beck, he'll tell you.
I know all this to be true because the rich man in the talking picture box says it is, and that is all I need to know.
Not much more to add to that.
I stream and download my video content only – no commercials (or very few) and definitely no mainstream newsmedia... Even MSNBC? Oh, definitely.
All mainstream media is like corn syrup drizzled over saturated fat. Its only after you stop eating the crap that you realize how much it was actually killing you.
Kill your TV, don't let it be the distraction that helps kill us all.
Use a computer to serve yourself only the content you want... its almost 2011 people, we have the technology!
–SS
"Whoever controls the image and information of the past determines what and how future generations will think; whoever controls the information and images of the present determines how those same people will view the past.
--George Orwell
Ignorance is strength! Slavery is freedom! War is peace!
Amen, Brother!
Great point and observation that I share.
I'm just posting this here so people can see that my home state of Hawaii is going in the other direction. Big mainland republican (Rowe, etc) came here with their money and negative attack ads from the bottom of their blacked hearts but Hawaii is still small enough to actually know at least something of their candidates and what's going on. We especially don't like any race baiting because we are truly a multiethnic society.... not without problems but certainly non to the extent of the mainland.
We switched from a two time Republican governor to a newly elected Democrat: Neil Abercombie
Here is the new Governor elect Neil Abercombie acceptance speech, which may start out a little slow but quickly picks up steam into a powerful progressive direction he hopes to steer Hawaii towards. Come on over and join us and lets see what we can do.
http://www.kitv.com/politics/25616692/detail.html
Go, Neil!!!! I'm glad he's in the governor's seat!! Met him 27 years ago when I was a legislative aide to a State Senator. Yes, Hawaii has a lot to offer that could neutralize the mainland's insane infatuation with style over substance. Opening day at the Capital in Honolulu is a beautiful community experience and one in which ohana is the norm, not slick, backstabbing and scheming snake charmers. Can you imagine opening day of Congress in DC, if everyone would present leis and shake hands with each other and have open honest conversations about how to improve the quality of life for their constituents rather than enrich themselves and their slimy supporters? ALOHA!!!
Let Hawaii secede. Seriously! It would set a powerful tone for the rest of us. A little Shock and Awe of our own.
Quite accurate Salusa Secundus. There is a world of difference between legitimate media and a ministry of propaganda.
Is there any truth to the rumours that Bechtel is trying to acquire the rights to Melange? There's not much news out of Arrakis these days.
Obama has proven to be a rabid supporter of voodoo (neo-libveral) economics and has always intended to extend the deficit-ballooning, depression-deepening Bush tax cuts, because he is now, and has been ever since he was elected, owned by the corporations. He wanted to wait until after the mid-terms to make it appear he supported tax cuts for the middle class and opposed continuing the tax cuts for the wealthy, believing that to be the popular position. It's obvious that once the tax cuts are extended, whether it's for a year or two years, they'll never be permitted to end, especially with the right wing Congress that's coming in.
Obama is as much of a warmongering supporter of the policies of transferring wealth from the Middle Class to the wealthy as his predecessor. He's just more dishonest than his predecessor and lies to make it appear he supports the Middle Class.
Appeal don't ask don't tell. Financial reform that doesn't break up too-big-to-fail. Health insurance bailout that taxes working people and provides a trillion to the health insurers and drug pushers of Big Pharms. Credit card reform that permits the credit card companies to raise rates with impunity. Supporting an unaffordable defense budget that is larger than the combined defense budgets of the 14 next most powerful countries in the world, while suggesting the deficit be cut by raising the retirement age and reducing already poverty-level social security benefits.
The above is the legacy of Obama and the 59 Senate Democratic Caucus, 75 Democratic House majority Congress. The right-center Democrats Obama, the Clintons and the heavily Democratic Congress have long worked under the assumption that progressives are stupid and will act like Pavlov's dogs and vote for them as "the lesser of the evils" no matter how badly they crap on us. The mid-terms prove they are wrong. Just the way the Dems courted right-wingers as they served their corporate masters, they now have to understand they must court us with substantial progressive change or simply lose their elections, as we will no longer bow to shrill, useless Democratic Party hacks blaming us for not voting for Democrats who are far to the right of Richard Nixon. Good riddance.
the most sensable investment we can make at this time would be to tighten our consummer-oriented belts and make a long term investment to repair the damage we've caused to our habitat. give up on the greed motivated ponzi get rich schemes; make an investment for preservation and posterity. it'll pay off in the long run!
the voter is impatient, big industry is impatient, obama doesn't have as much sayso as you think and lets face it--
the sensable thing isn't politically popular.
show me the money!
[misplaced post deleted]
Policy shifts rightward, no matter who is in office. The last two years ought to underline this. The health-care reform abomination was clearly a victory for the insurance parasites, yet so many so-called progressives still think it is a wonderful thing. The poor sods, it is really sad to see folks hoodwinked into undermining their own interests, yet that seems to be a tradition in merka.
The Corporate Media propaganda machine is only acting to support their interests. Nothing surprising about that.
For Democrats Bill Clinton is a great idea of what to do. When he took office the Dems controlled the Presidency, both houses of Congress, most governorships and state legislatures.
He turned right, as advised, and when he left office the Dems controlled none of those things. Very productive.
As it stands now, after all the "lesser evilism" since the nineties and before, if Obama wants to move to the center, he'll have to move left!
Its ANOTHER "its not our fault", "we didn't spend enough", "Obama dind't move far enough to the left", "people don't understand or are too stupid to" or "we just didn't explain it well enough"
And heck no, this wasn't a referendum on the new healthcare law or the size of government or the out of control spending.
And here is the most pitiful of all..."Until we get better media, we will not get better politics."
As if media at this point has that much influence.
There is nothing worse than getting whipped than trying to explain that you really didn't or that the guy thast just kicked your ass really didn't.
Pathetic.
At least that's the charade. Both "guys" are laughing all the way to the bank behind the curtain while taking money from the Banksters and the Corporate Mafia.
Don't be afraid to look behind the curtain, what you see might be disturbing and will destroy any superficial ideas of how politics really works here, but please look anyway.
Read up on some Wolin, Hedges, Hill, Hudson, Wolff, and even Chomsky.
"As if media at this point has that much influence."
You have GOT to be kidding, right?
The real question is: what happens when TPTB believe this charade has outlived its usefulness?
Is there a Plan B?
Or should we take solace in the fact that our market-based politico-economic world only deals in short term gains and fixes?
Yes, Americans are slow on the uptake but more and more are seeing through this sham and it's only a matter of time before this orchestrated nonsense loses its effectiveness.
Cindy Sheehan had a great opinion piece on al jazeera about the election...
What would it have been like if John McCain had won two years ago?
I wonder why it is not on CD? (Hint - it does not put our God-King-Obama in a good light.)
Full line:
http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2010/10/2010103175555761506.html
Broken line:
http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/
2010/10/2010103175555761506.html
Wouldn't it be nice if we could trust at least one source of news in the US? And even al jezeera sometime has a right-wing tilt as they try to provide balance.
One way to continue the backlash is to convince yourself those ignorant folks (voters) are being deceived. While reading conspiracy theories about corporate black-ops may be titilating, it is in reality.. mostly fiction.
If you don't understand the inspiration behind our Constitution and Bill of Rights, then I doubt you understand how to inspire confidence in the folks who make our economy go. The battle between Good and evil has always existed. The author of all things Good was the inspiration for those documents.
I debate whether to cast pearls before swine. It is probably best to amen this wonderfully paranoid world view. Yep, we're just too dumb to understand the people's utopia that you progressives have worked so hard to build... using our money. Double down guys, 2012 is closer than you think.
The Tea Party is right about one thing, the liberal elites hate them.
The deception lies in their not realizing that all elites hate them.
Some elites hate them so much that they are taking their jobs, their educations, and their opportunity to advance their lives.
It is truly amazing how ignorant people can be proud to represent the people who hate them the most.
Truly sad, just one big nation under stockholm syndrome.
Why should FAIR be surprised at this reporting after years of spot-on reporting on the Main Stream Media, (yet ignoring the elite economic table-setters who own it?)
Hey, Jeff Cohen are you still at the helm?.....or is it that the staff is now becoming overstaffed but underfunded?
Stop whining like babies here and do what the right does-- bitch at the media ... DEMAND THE MEDIA STOP THE RIGHT- WING BIASED REPORTING AND ANALYSIS.
Media Ph Numbers
NYT Ph: 212-556-1234 DC Bureau Ph: 202-862-0300 Fax: 212-556-3690 Letters to Ed (for pub): letters@nytimes.com Write to the news Eds: news-tips@nytimes.com Corrections: seniorEd@nytimes.com
USA Today Ph: 703-854-3400 Fax: 703-854-2078 Letters to the Ed: Ed@usatoday.com Give feedback to USA Today
Washington Post Ph: 202-334-6000 Fax: 202-334-5075 Letters to the Ed: letters@washpost.com
Ombudsman: ombudsman@washpost.com Contact Washington Post Writers and Eds
Time Ph: 212-522-1212 Fax: 212-522-0003 Letters to the Ed letters@time.com
While I would like to agree with you, we don't have enough legally-defined "free-speech" to make much difference ($$$$). Don't be so naive.
The only way to get their attention is to reduce their almighty profit$: Just DO NOT WATCH or READ the Corporate Media! BOYCOTT!
Why is this an "either - or" situation? If you never contact / complain to the media and keep your displeasure/ boycott all quiet and to yourself, how pray tell will THAT make a difference?
True, however if you call and write them to try and convince them to not serve their own interests I am afraid it will fall on deaf ears. One has to damage their interests, and like all action it has to be collective. I am not the only one who is boycotting the corporate media. I cancelled my subscription to NYT and SFC, Comcast, etc. So if you call/write also boycott otherwise it is ineffective.
Don't stop there, cancel any subscriptions to the Nation and the Progressive. Even the Progressive Populist, last time I looked, was endorsing "lesser evil" candidates. Hartman is of the same ilk. Even Goodman, in her failure to cover Greens in NY when they were, literally, on her doorstep, has demonstrated, to say the least, a lack of candor. Now that DN has its fancy new high tech digs, it has gotten more "respectable". Even before the elections in '08, DN failed to uncloak Obama when the red flags were all over the place. I don't think there is any "progressive" media out there, except, perhaps, online ......
I am going to email DemocracyNow.Org.
I am shocked that Goodman had all these Democratic apologists on her show this week.
Her reporting on the war, Haiti and envirnomental issues have been very good, however, she seems to be an arm of the Democratic Party--and I don't like it.
I have NEVER seen Independents(other than Nader) or Greens on her show.
Michael Moore seems to be a frequent guest as are journalists from The Nation and Fluffington Post--all apologist/supporters of the corporate Democratic Party.
She never had a guest on to the explain this disastrous health care reform bill.
I'm sick of it.
Independents Amy could have: Alan Grayson, Sen. Mike Gravel, Al Sharpton, Noam Chomsky....Phil Donahue
they might have some politically incorrect things to say.
Good for you, Chelsey! More folks need to do it.
DN is good at critiquing Reps and Dems, to a point, but when it comes to furthering the cause of those on the left who would actually challenge the Dems at the polls, or doing anything that would seriously upset the Dems apple cart, Amy and Juan are noticeably AWOL. They are like the farmer who spends all day in the barn milking the cows and then gets up and kicks the bucket over. They're not quite as obvious as Hartmann in this regard, a bit more subtle, but after awhile you notice the pattern. They may have Greens on, but not those running around election time, when they need a boost. When Nader was on the morning of the elections, a couple of times during the interview he gave Hawkins a boost; Amy let the reference drop, never asked any questions about his platform or issues, didn't, as i recall, even mention his name. They will go just so far - but never far enough to indicate they are interested in, let alone dedicated to, actually rocking the boat. They are always complaining about the MSM, but when it comes to using their venue to promote or even highlight progressive alternatives to Dems at the polls, i.e. when it comes to taking that last crucial step, fuhgetaboutit ....
They pride themselves on being "alternative" media, except when it comes to alternatives at the polls. It's too bad, i had hopes for DN at one time, but no more ....
Absolutely!
And get your money out of the big banks. Credit Unions are the way to go...
You obviously haven't been involved very long.
Go ahead. Write your letters, your email and give 'em a call. They love free content--if they chose to use it.
Thanks, myreps _ this is one of the most useful posts I've seen here in months.
I've worked with the 'msm' for more than 20 years. Reality in newsrooms and admin offices is that if they get even a few reasoned, articulate letters, e-mails or phone calls claiming that they're missing a point in coverage, they do pay attention. If they get two or more within one day, they'll act. If they get 10, they'll crap themselves.
A key point here is the 'reasoned, articulate' part. Crazy rants are a dime a dozen, but something that comes in with no spelling errors, gramatically correct, less than a full page, short paragraphs and _ this is important _ is NOT intended for publication as another 'letter to the editor' but is addressed to an administrator, for background _ is like hitting them with a board. You'd be amazed at how incredibly few there are. Again, 80-page manifestos, single-space and no paragraph breaks, typed on a manual, come in a lot. Angry froth is all over the place. Rational, specific advice from a serious reader is more sobering to an editor than you'd believe.
Some of the brief, succinct posts I read on this site every day are brilliant and would certainly make a senior editor set down his latte for a few seconds. A couple dozen, and they'd be holding a meeting next Saturday morning, and pacing around the office with no shave and a migraine.
Just simply laying out the fact that they're missing the point of the recent midterm _ that Obama and the Dems are being punished for being too Conservative, not for being too Liberal _ could actually influence their daily coverage, IF it comes in a level-headed, brief, grammatical and mature way. It sounds way too simple, but there's more to it than you'd imagine. I've been in the room when such things come in, and if they're correctly done, they carry. You'd be amazed at how isolated from reality some of these folks are, how lost in the echo chamber. It's not always the case that they're deliberately perverting the truth _ sometimes they're just cut off from the obvious, due to the way they function. PR companies feed them most of their info. Those companies LOVE it when you think it's no use to try, as an ordinary consumer, to go around them and approach media outlets directly.
In the broader sense, the media are lackeys of the Corporate State and Military Industrial Complex. They're not going to make a principled stand for progressivism, despite the honorable convictions of a lot of good individuals working within them. However, there definitely IS some room for them to nudged into devoting more coverage to the fact that these elections slapped the Dems for being too Conservative. The Far Right is pushing the opposite and incorrect narrative very, very hard, as is FOX News. However, there is some wiggle room in insitutions like the NY Times, CNN, Washington Post and your local urban paper. There's nothing to lose in telling them what's going on, except for the prerogative to say 'I told you so.'
Zell November 5th, 2010 5:05 am -- You and myreps4sale (November 4th, 2010 6:24 pm) make a lot of sense. I appreciate your insider perspective. Of course, one wishes that the MSM types would recognize that poor spellers, people who don't know how to punctuate, and (worst of all) people who can't write succinctly and to the point, often have great ideas and better understanding than those who work for the MSM.
By all means, whatever it takes!
By the way, I save my own posts, and those of other CD contributors who impress me, with the idea that these sometimes experimental writings, especially if they pass muster with CD critics (about as tough as you can find anywhere), can be adapted for MSM use.
Obama doesn't need to move to the right. This midterm was bought and paid for by the wealthy elites who are stealing our American dream inch by inch. It began with the fake Teabagger movement and was aided and abetted by the Citizens United finding of the far right Supremes. Let's face it, the people of the United States of American have been dumbed down and/or economically pushed down to the point of having no say whatsoever in their government. I am sickened by the outcome of this election. People, wake up before it's too late.
ECHO... Echo... echo...
;^)
Almost all the Progressive Caucus Democrats were re-elected while the Blue Dog Democrats lost half of their members… The Democrats didn’t move *far enough* to the left or the election would have gone better.
Of course the corporate media isn't noting that factor.
Yes, and we need to remember that moving "farther to the left" on the new playing field is really moving to the "old center."
Since the time of Reagan, as I have said before, the left has moved closer and closer to right field, and the right wing has moved out into the parking lot with the Crazies,
Moving to the left is moving back to some level of sanity and common sense in this country.
However, the corporate media wants us all to keep compromising with the more and more extreme right wing, and Obama has made it clear that is exactly what he has been doing and intends to keep doing. Note, for example, his decision today to accept the conservative position on the separation of church and state.