[thunderous_funker]

A few months back, Bill Moyer gave a tremendous speech that stole the show at the Progressive Caucus. It was about the legacy of Progressive politics--drawing on the courage of progressive leaders from all major parties and persuasion--and its role in shaping America as a land of opportunity.

Well, Moyers has done it again. His keynote speech at the national conference on media reform is a thing of total beauty.

Along with a necessary rant about the perils of today's corporatization of "free" speech, he reminds of the gritty and courageous history of a critical press and spells out the steps for offering a challenge to the dangerous status quo.

A thing of beauty. Worth the read regardless of your political persuasion.

[finboy]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:

A thing of beauty. Worth the read regardless of your political persuasion.

My political persuasion and experience with the artist in question leads me to believe that Bill Moyers would have a hard time ordering at a Chinese restaurant, much less providing a coherent argument worthy of anyone's notice. In fact, if I were a journalist, I'd probably get irate at the thought that he calls himself a journalist too.

Nonetheless, I was shocked. A good read. Coherent, even. Maybe old age has focused the man.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by finboy:
Nonetheless, I was shocked. A good read. Coherent, even. Maybe old age has focused the man.

That made me smile. Honestly.

Glad you liked it, finboy. Some things truly are in everyone's interest.

[finboy]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
That made me smile. Honestly.

Glad you liked it, finboy. Some things truly are in everyone's interest.

Let me be clear. He's a conspiracy freak. A real bona fide Leftist wingnut.

But he knows how to write a speech. And he doesn't hide his biases (or paranoia). I can respect that.

[Millennium]

In other words, one side accusing the media of being biased toward the other side.

Nothing new, and frankly a sign that we may in fact be getting it right. It was said of Clinton that each side of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict believe that he was on their side, because he told both sides what they wanted to hear. And in diplomacy, this is good.

Now, in the media, it seems that both sides are being told what they don't want to hear, and so they accuse it of bias toward the other side. And certainly individual media outlets, from the Yellow Times to the BBC to CNN to FOXNews, are by definition biased one way or another, differing only in direction and degree. But if every side hears the things it doesn't like, then as a whole, something is right. Media moguls try and buy up outlets to shift the overall bias towards them, but even as they do this, new outlets spring up for The Other Side, whatever The Other Side may be. It all balances in the end.

You might say that the days when you could get unbiased news from a single source are gone, but you would be wrong: those days never existed. All that the current situation has done is throw this reality into the light.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by finboy:
Let me be clear. He's a conspiracy freak. A real bona fide Leftist wingnut.

Coming from you, I'd consider that a compliment.

Originally posted by finboy:
And he doesn't hide his biases (or paranoia). I can respect that.

I think Moyers makes a good point that bias isn't a bad thing as long as people are clear and up front about it and as long as there are plenty of opportunities to hear the opposing viewpoint. The danger lies in those who pretend to be unbiased and in the scarcity of diverging viewpoints.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by Millennium:
You might say that the days when you could get unbiased news from a single source are gone, but you would be wrong: those days never existed. All that the current situation has done is throw this reality into the light.

I think you miss Moyer's point. He clearly indicates that bias always was and always will be present. The difference today is they pretend to be objective when they are merely self-serving and they are effectively stiffling a diversity of views.

The press has become stenographers to authority rather than the "muckrakers" and "seditionists" they once were.

This is not about Left/Right bias in the media. If that is all you heard, I fear you really missed the point.

[kvm_mkdb]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
I think you miss Moyer's point. He clearly indicates that bias always was and always will be present. The difference today is they pretend to be objective when they are merely self-serving and they are effectively stiffling a diversity of views.

The press has become stenographers to authority rather than the "muckrakers" and "seditionists" they once were.

This is not about Left/Right bias in the media. If that is all you heard, I fear you really missed the point.

[Krusty]

WOW !!

Great read .. thanks for the link TF. Maybe these forums aren't quite the waste of time I always thought they were.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
I think you miss Moyer's point. He clearly indicates that bias always was and always will be present. The difference today is they pretend to be objective when they are merely self-serving and they are effectively stiffling a diversity of views.

Actually, from the way he speaks, it seems more as though anything he disagrees with, he calls "censorship" of "the truth".

It is all well and good to state differing views. But remember that thinking, rational adults may still come to different conclusions than you. Different views are not censorship.

The press has become stenographers to authority rather than the "muckrakers" and "seditionists" they once were.

Looks more to me like the pendulum merely swung the other way. Except that it didn't, because in the time period of the muckrakers, many of our modern media did not exist. It is easier now then it has ever been to get your views published; short of being imprisoned, you cannot be effectively censored.

This is not about Left/Right bias in the media. If that is all you heard, I fear you really missed the point.

Actually, that's all this is about. Moyers is very skillful in wording things in such a way that it doesn't seem like that on its face, but it's only slightly less transparent than a Rev. D iMac. It doesn't take much reading between the lines to see that.

[thunderous_funker]

How is corporatization of the media a Left/Right issue?

How is massive consolidation of the media a Left/Right issue?

How is the fact that even major newspapers in the capital don't bother having reporters who cover entire departments of the federal government a Left/Right issue?

How is the almost total disappearance of local politics on broadcast news a Left/Right issue?

How is an instance where a newspaper relies on faxes from the Police Dept to inform it which stories should be in the Police Beat section of the paper a Left/Right issue?

How is the incestuous and imbred relationship between content creation and content delivery a Left/Right issue?

[finboy]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
How is corporatization of the media a Left/Right issue?

How is massive consolidation of the media a Left/Right issue?

How is the fact that even major newspapers in the capital don't bother having reporters who cover entire departments of the federal government a Left/Right issue?

How is the almost total disappearance of local politics on broadcast news a Left/Right issue?

How is an instance where a newspaper relies on faxes from the Police Dept to inform it which stories should be in the Police Beat section of the paper a Left/Right issue?

How is the incestuous and imbred relationship between content creation and content delivery a Left/Right issue?

Because the RESULTS of most of these things (not all) is an unrestricted propaganda advantage for the Left. I'll accept criticism of Fox News for their conservative views (they learned from the pros), but the "corporate media" such as the Big Three definitely has a leftward slant. And maybe more than they used to have; they don't even pretend to be objective any more on any of the news shows I've watched. The choice of words Peter Jenning uses at every opportunity reveals a lefty bias, same with Rather. Brokaw is less obvious about it, but it's there. And PBS -- just forget it. Every newspaper I've read in the last 10 years had more of a lefty slant than a conservative one. Even folks such as Andy Rooney have begun admitting it -- the mainstream "corporate" media has a bias. The idea that Rush and Hannity and others are a threat to the constant bombardment from the left is insane -- it's another example of people with an agenda misrepresenting the issue to draw attention away from the reality.

As I've said before, if you can't see the bias, chances are you either 1) don't want to, or 2) will NEVER be able to see it. It's there, and it's a primary reason, I think, for the revitalized conservative movement in this country. In fact, try explaining the mass rebirth of conservatism some other way.

[thunderous_funker]

So I guess we can surely count on your support in our efforts to Reform the media? A great chance for you to put down the Red Menace.

[petehammer]

Originally posted by finboy:
In fact, try explaining the mass rebirth of conservatism some other way.

The failure of our education system?

[finboy]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
So I guess we can surely count on your support in our efforts to Reform the media? A great chance for you to put down the Red Menace.

I'm not sure how one would go about "imposing" reforms on free speech. I don't see a need to reform it, either -- the truth generally prevails. Sooner or later we'll swing back in the other direction, as a nation -- and even now no one who actually makes decisions pays any attention to the mass media and things work out fine. As with other things, it's something to distract the masses, but it doesn't get in the way of actual progress.

[finboy]

Originally posted by petehammer:
The failure of our education system?

So the rise in conservative thinking is based upon ignorance? I'd argue that mass acceptance and denial of the current media bias is evidence of the same.

All of the bright folks I've ever met were conservatives. All of the rich folks I've ever met were conservatives. All of the successful folks I've ever met were conservatives, at least in terms of their actions (they may have advocated some other way for everybody else, but their behavior was conservative). Maybe I don't travel in the right circles.

[Krusty]

Originally posted by finboy:
So the rise in conservative thinking is based upon ignorance? I'd argue that mass acceptance and denial of the current media bias is evidence of the same.

All of the bright folks I've ever met were conservatives. All of the rich folks I've ever met were conservatives. All of the successful folks I've ever met were conservatives, at least in terms of their actions (they may have advocated some other way for everybody else, but their behavior was conservative). Maybe I don't travel in the right circles.

Yeessh .... dude, the media bias is so far right (Fox News, et al) its not funny. What passes for "liberal media" these days is little more than some pseudo Abbott and Costello routine where centrists appear to be leftist because the mainstream is so right-wing.

I will agree with your second paragraph. I'm not particularly rich or successful (and maybe not too bright, I dunno) ... but I am definitely conservative in my day to day actions ... though I'd probably vote socialist at the polls if there was a candidate. Honestly most people I know who call themselves liberal OR conservative seem pretty similar in day to day life. Guess I need to hang out with more freaks

[nvaughan3]

on the subject of media bias, a guest editorial wed. in the WSJ unveiled a new study that showed that reporters at virtually all major paper, when using the terms "conversative" or "liberal" to describe congressman, use "conservative" at a rate of nearly 3 to 1 over "liberal". Not only that, but it's more frequently used in a derogatory fashion as well.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by nvaughan3:
on the subject of media bias, a guest editorial wed. in the WSJ unveiled a new study that showed that reporters at virtually all major paper, when using the terms "conversative" or "liberal" to describe congressman, use "conservative" at a rate of nearly 3 to 1 over "liberal". Not only that, but it's more frequently used in a derogatory fashion as well.

LOL!

ok, let me get this straight, blenderizing the last dozen or so posts....
There is a rise in conservatism due to the overwhelmingly liberal media.

So....it would seem to me logically conservatives would be in complete support of a liberal media, right?

[gadster]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
LOL!

ok, let me get this straight, blenderizing the last dozen or so posts....
There is a rise in conservatism due to the overwhelmingly liberal media.

So....it would seem to me logically conservatives would be in complete support of a liberal media, right?

Nice one, Lerk.

[thunderous_funker]

I still think anyone thinking that Moyers is talking about Left/Right bias in the media must have not read more than the first 3-4 paragraphs.

Journalism has traditionally played a roll as a challenge to power, regardless of rather that power was Left/Right or Martian. The current state of massive consolidation and corporatization has stiffled journalism into being a tool of power.

When a Defense contractor owns several major media outlets in key markets around the country, you can bet that scrutiny of federal pork to the defense sector will be under-reported by those outlets.

This isn't conspiracy theory, this is simple conflict of interest.

This isn't about Democrats and Republicans. This is about America's most noble traditions of dissent and challenging authority being undermined by media oligopolists.

Activists and civically minded people of every party are constantly confronted by the rampant apathy and ignorance of the general electorate. Every party bemoans that if only poeple knew more about the issues, they would see it more clearly or at least stop being so damn passive about issues that really matter.

Why is that? Access to information. When more people know which celebrity is married to which celebrity than know who their congressional reps are, we have a problem.

And before someone spouts the usually cynicism about choice, let me remeind you that you can't pick what isn't on the menu. Just take a look at the recent FCC ruling concerning station ownership. It minor bereaucratic ruling suddenly became a massive grassroots campaign-why? Because it was actually reported.

Americans do care. They just don't have the time to do their own sluething. And the number of honest slueths is at an all time low.

[vmpaul]

from Late Night with Conan O'Brien:

"Yesterday the Administration announced they were starting a a new television network in Iraq. The goal, sources said, is to provide an unfiltered broadcast of the administration's message. Not surprisingly, the new network will be called the Fox News Channel."

A little off-topic but too good not to share.

[Sven G]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
[...] Activists and civically minded people of every party are constantly confronted by the rampant apathy and ignorance of the general electorate. Every party bemoans that if only poeple knew more about the issues, they would see it more clearly or at least stop being so damn passive about issues that really matter. [...]

... The same in Europe - and probably also in almost any place in the world, today, - sadly...

What could a possible solution to this problem be, BTW? Maybe, IMHO, some form of individual (and, thus, also unavoidably collective, if in a dynamic context) constructive dissent - and, so, the gradual and progressive construction of a "society inside the society" (see some thoughts of Camus, for example), which eventually (even in our lifetime - who knows...) could lead to a peaceful revolution - and evolution, of course! - of some kind. Maybe...

[Spliffdaddy]

The 'issues' are what's on the minds of the voters. You can try to create an environment where your issue gets attention - but don't lose sight of the fact that most voters aren't concerned about anything outside of their front door.

Many folks are quick to condemn the 'uninformed' voter - as if it was the voter's fault for not supporting the right 'issues'.

Sorry, it doesn't work that way. What's important to you isn't always important to others. If I had my way we would all stop work at 4:20pm to smoke a joint. That's important to me. I think it would make the world a better place. Too bad all those ignorant mofos don't understand these important issues when they vote.

How do you know if your issue is weak?

You hafta promote it.