Saturday, March 14, 2009

3 QUICK THOUGHTS ON THE MYTH OF “THE LIBERAL MEDIA”

1. Through the year and a half the stock market spiraled downward and the Bush Junior administration ruined the world economy, none of the so-called mainstream news media ever used the term Bush or W. Bear market, ever.

In the few weeks Obama has inherited the downward spiraling stock market and world economic situation, the so-called mainstream media have referred to the “Obama Bear market” (once they got their cue from the rightwing propagandists) over and over again!

2. During the past week when the stock market rebounded and began to climb, did any of the market experts or media commentators attribute it to Obama’s policies or statements etc.? Nope. If it goes down it’s his fault. If it goes up, it’s somebody else’s.

3. The terms “Communist” and “Socialist”—once they began to be thrown around repeatedly by the rightwing propagandists—in connection to Obama have been used over and over again (24 times last count by Fox, six by CNN etc.).

The term Fascist in relation to the Bush/Cheney administration though used repeatedly by the leftwing media was never associated, not ONCE, in the so-called mainstream media with Junior and his cronies.

Once again proving that the so-called mainstream media in the USA is controlled by rightwing owners and managers in most cases and where not by centrists and moderates afraid of the rightwing Republicans and easily manipulated by them.

[Just after I posted this I was cruising the blogs I recommend down to the right and on rj eskow's night light I found his latest post more or less addresses the same topic only as usual with more humor and insight, check it out.]

12 comments:

AlamedaTom said...

Eskow's post is devilishly clever.

Here's my two cent's worth on your topic, from the CBS new website, March 11, 2008, lest we forget:

"President Bush recently spent his 879th day at his ranch in Crawford, Texas, since the Supreme Court, in all its great wisdom, elevated him to the presidency. This according to NPR's "Wait, Wait Don't Tell Me," which noted that Bush broke former President Reagan's record for taking vacations from the White House. It's interesting to recall, all these wild years later, that George W. Bush did not decide to buy the ranch near Crawford until after he decided to run for president. Apparently, after Ronald Reagan's example, it seemed presidential to cut brush on a ranch, and Bush was seeking a brush with history. Or something."

Lally said...

Yeah that whole "rancher/cowboy" business was always jive. As other real ranchers pointed out, he didn't even own any cattle! A Yalie cheerleader from one of America's wealthiest and most powerful families and the media let him get away with that whole "rancher" bit. We have to come up with a system of email trees that can swamp the network and cable shows with objections when they genuflect to the right's lies and distortions and propaganda.

JIm said...

Jack Welch, Warren Buffet, Andy Grove (former Intel CEO, Jim Carmer have a couple of things in common. The most timely, is that they supported Barack Obama for president. All have voiced concerns with the Socialist push of the Obana administration at this time. The may agree with some of the principals of Socialized Medicine and green alternatives to hydro carbon, card check , tax increases ,but they all have objected viomently to the insane timing of the huge liberal push in time of great economic peril.

When your house is on fire you probably do not want the firemen to save a kitten up a tree rather than put the fire out. This five day rally started when Citigroup said that they made money in the Jan/Feb from continued operations. The large banks surged 20% plus, pulling the market with them. During the week Obama floated the possibility that the administration might be open to corporate tax rate reduction. The Chinese are threatening out loud that they may not buy our debt because of the insane US economic policy of the Obama administration. I have no problem calling this an Obama Rally when his policies contribute to our economic well being rather than harm.

A ray of hope for economic sanity is that Obama’s poll numbers are falling. He is less popular than George W. and Jimma Carter at this time in their presidencies’. Hopefully the Blue Dog Democrats will support sane conservative economic policies and defeat the craziness of Pelosi, Reid and Obama.

Lally said...

We can always count on Jim to give us the rightwing version of reality. None of those people he quotes have called Obama a "socialist" (Jim, I and many other more leftist supporters of Obama wish he actually WAS a socialist, but in fact he's a pragmatist) and the fire analogy was first used by Obama's spokesman Gibbs who pointed out that concentrating only on the economy and not on the underlying causes, like health care costs etc. would be like the fire department coming to a burning house and choosing to only save the kitchen and let the other rooms, the rest of the house, burn down.

JIm said...

They have not called him a Socialist. I call him a Socialist. They have called his policies misguided and wrong for America in the middle of an economic crisis. That you like socialism, does not make the history of socialism any prettier. The only place where it has worked is in convents and monestaries. As long as your goal is not to feed your family and build a prosperous life, socialism works fine. The effect of socialism is to pull the prosperous down so that every one is miserable. I believe it is best for government to make conditions favorable for the economy so everyone has the opportunity to excel. Socialism and Pelosi, Reid, Obama policies are losers and destructive, if history is any guide. However I am open to persuasion. Maybe you can mention at least one socialistic society that have proven as succesful as American Capitalism.

epaminondas said...

after capitalism would socialism be so bad? especially if it was directed to benefit the working class and the poor rather than restoring the coffers of the plutocrat.

epaminondas said...

after capitalism would socialism be so bad? especially if it was directed to benefit the working class and the poor rather than restoring the coffers of the plutocrat.

JIm said...

Mike,
I have noticed that no one has offered an example of a socialist state that has outperformed the US. While you are doing your research may suggest Grimm's or Aesop as source material.

Lally said...

We're ignoring you Jim, because your rightwing propaganda jive is just too endlessly boring. Socialism is an approach to organizing governments to serve the common good. It's a political ideology as well as a philosophy. You want to compare this with some abstract idea of "capitalism" which implies reliance on a "free market" which has never existed purely in any nation or on any lesser governmentally organized level. There have been numerous success stories under the aegis of "socialism"—including the public school systems in all kinds of countries including this one until it was eviscerated by rightwing Republicanism under Nixon and extended under Reagan and Bush Junior. But the public park you and i played in as kids Jim is an example of socialism at work. If it was under the dictates of pure capitalism, we would have had to pay to play in it, etc. etc. etc. Too boring to continue your education. But for an example of an attempt to practice pure "free market" or "laisse faire" capitalism as it was interpreted in the 19th Century, we can take the so-called "famine" in the Ireland of our ancestors, which wasn't a "famine" of course because Irish Protestant landowners and their ilk, as well as the Anglo-Irish and English landlords and government officials etc. all ate very well thank you very much, while the Irish Catholic natives starved to death, despite ships full of corn and barley and other foods blockaded by the English off the Irish coast (sent by groups all over the world trying to help the Irish natives, including some sent by Native American tribes and by ex-slaves under the leadership of Frederick Douglas). The English, practicing what they believed to be pure capitalism, let the corn and etc. rot in the ships while my ancestors starved to death. Et-endlessly-cetera Jimmy boyo. And by the way, to the extent that socialism has been practiced in many countries, including at different times in Sweden and the other Scandinavian countries as well as in aspects of other countries, i.e. England pre-Thatcher etc., it proved very successful in many many ways, including improvements in health, mortality, etc. (in fact today the USA ranks well below countries with "socialized medicine" such as England and France etc. in infant mortality rates in life expectancy etc. etc. et. The closest we came to having a federal government influenced by some socialist policies was after WWII. None of you rightwingers who romanticize the 1950s as such a great time for "America" ever note that it was a time when the graduated income tax was highest on the wealthy and unions were the strongest etc. etc. which made it possible for the wealthy to enjoy a great lifestyle while still being relatively not that distant from the average worker who was able to afford a house, and a college education for their kids, in only a one income household. But once Nixon began undoing some of that and Reagan carried it much further and than Bush Junior extended it almost into infinity, the disparity between the rich and the average working family in the USA grew to the same distance it was in, hmmmm, this is interesting, 1929! I could go on endlessly Jim, but this is my last response to you for at least a few months, because it's a waste of time, No proof satisfies an ideologue, which is what you are. I'm not. I would like to see pure democratic socialism applied to much in this country, including health care (as it already is to some extent in the areas of Social Security and Medicaire), but I accept the benefits of other alternatives as well, which is why I support Obama, because he is a pragmatist who understands the limitations of ideology from either side. Unfortunately, the rightwing Republicans don't, which is why they keep the negativity coming, a giant contributor, I believe, to the economic downturn itself, all their naysaying and doom and gloom predictions etc. Tiresome and juvenile and truly unintelligent.

AlamedaTom said...

Lal:

That last comment of yours was epic and brilliant. I was going to jump in before that, but now I feel like the opening act on a Rolling Stones tour. But I'll plunge ahead in a condensed version:

We begin with Jim's challenge:

"However I am open to persuasion. Maybe you can mention at least one socialistic society that have proven as succesful {sic} as American Capitalism."

I took a great course in college where we studied the various types of propaganda. Jim's challenge falls into a category known as "Victory by Definition." Here, he has defined American Capitalism as "successful." Your preceding comment shows us all that it is only "successful" to the extent that Jim gets to define "success!"

I cannot say what the Scandinavian socialist countries are like now, but I'm guessing they are not much different than when I had the privilege of visiting them in 1972. I especially enjoyed Sweden, and I still rate Stockholm as the most beautiful city I've ever visited: No homeless on the streets; beautiful public buildings, scrupulously maintained; tons of public art on display, indoors and out; clean streets; ample public amenities; smiling, polite people, who are well-clothed and apparently have nice homes to live in; an alcoholic drink costs 4 or 5 times more than in Germany, but a quart of milk costs 4 or 5 times less: I could go on but you get the point. Gee, how unsuccessful can you get?

JIm said...

Guys and Girls,

Economic success can be measured by growth in Gross Domestic Product and unemployment rates etc. Natan Schransky(sp) posits that the degree of freedom of expression can be observed in availability and safety of being able to speak for against the government in the "Public Square". Mike, your acclaimed boffo reply, is lovely and stirring language as befits an English major, but lacks an economic awareness, expression or clue.

JIm said...

Socialism and Crickets

Asked to support the ideal of socialism with economic numbers, the liberal Mike and Tom respond with 150 year old Irish history of British abuse and vague memories of Sweden a generation ago. I suspect you both realize that the economic numbers of Sweden and Old Europe do not support your idealized vision of socialism. If this was the
OLS school yard, it would be time to call you chicken.