You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (373)

PLAYS: (1670)

Bill O'Reilly, predictably, saw that New York Times story pointing out how the Tea Party movement has turned into a revival of the Patriot movement as just another attempt by the librul media to "smear" the Tea Parties, and brought on Sarah Palin to talk it over last night:

O'REILLY: So Governor, you gave the keynote a couple weeks ago in Nashville for the Tea Party Convention. Did you see extremism? Do you think it's a danger to the Tea Party?

PALIN: It was an honor to be able to deliver that keynote and really connect with Tea Partiers who have a simple message. A lot of people, I guess this New York Times reporter, they just don't like that message of we being taxed enough and wanting to remind our elected officials of their constitutional limitations of big government, and just kind of get government back on the side of the people. It was an honor to connect with those people.

Didn't see the extremism that, of course, those in some of the mainstream media and some self-proclaimed elites would like the rest of America to believe is encompassing the Tea Party movement. Didn't see that.

Evidently, she missed the rousing nativist speech by Tom Tancredo calling for a "civics literacy" test for voters, or the speech by Joseph Farah of WorldNetDaily promoting the Birther conspiracy theories.

Ah, but that would be because Palin doesn't consider the Birthers to be extremists. As becomes clear when O'Reilly presses her on the matter:

O'REILLY: Well, they went to Sandpoint, Idaho, [ed. note: Sandpoint is Palin's birthplace] The Times did. And then they brought in all the Nazi stuff that had been up there. And they brought in all the militia stuff, Weaver and such that had been up there.

Look, there's no doubt that The New York Times wants to brand the Tea Party as a bunch of extremist loons. There's no doubt they want to do that. But there is danger, do you agree with me, that there is danger if some Tea Party people play into that? If they do say we're getting our guns and we're going to overthrow and Obama is this and Obama is that and he isn't born here. I mean, there was a birther thing going on at the convention. You don't believe in the birther thing do you, Governor?

PALIN: No. And those wild conspiracy theories about our own government I think shouldn't have a part of the dialogue of the debate. What the debate needs to be about is the good ideas, the foundational principles that built this country into the most prosperous and healthiest and most voluntarily generous nation on earth. Safest place, too. We need to get back to those principles.

O'REILLY: But I'm unclear. I'm unclear. Do you think that the birther people should have a place at the Tea Party table? Do you think they should be a place there?

PALIN: There is always going to be an element of those who want to be a part of a movement, who have their own ideas of where the country should go or what's going on with the country.

O'REILLY: Then what do you do with those people? Do you accept them and embrace them?

PALIN: Well, one, you don't take away their First Amendment rights. And we say you cannot speak about those things or ask those questions that you want answers to. That's part of democracy at work is those…

O'REILLY: But do you see the danger that if that becomes the headline, then the mainstream American, who isn't really following it that closely says hey, you know…

PALIN: I see the danger of more of the same of the mainstream media wanting to paint Tea Partiers as radical wacko conspiracy theorists. And if we allow that to happen then, no, this grassroots movement of the people wanting their voice to be heard because there is such a disconnect between what's going on in Washington and the people that Washington is supposed to be serving.

Got that? The problem isn't with far-right extremists taking the reins of her beloved "people's" movement -- the problem is with journalists who report that phenomenon.

If the road to hell is paved with good intentions, then Barack Obama has been in the fast lane when it comes to bipartisanship. Now one year into his presidency, his near-pathological obsession with consensus has only served to resurrect a moribund GOP while leaving his agenda and his own party teetering on the brink.

It didn't have to be this way. Not if Barack Obama had understood Krugman's Law and heeded the lessons of Dick Cheney.

Listened to Cheney, that is, not on national security, but on domestic politics.

Following the disputed 2000 election, the Bush-Cheney transition team prepared to assume the White House without either a popular vote mandate or dominant majorities in Congress. But while the mainstream media consensus concluded that a "weakened" President Bush would have to govern from the center and "build bridges to the opposition," Dick Cheney had a different idea. Especially when it came to the Republican ticket's radical plan of tax cuts for the economy, Cheney insisted:

"We don't negotiate with ourselves."

As Barton Gellman details in his book, Angler: The Cheney Vice Presidency, Dick Cheney made it abundantly clear that the Bush administration would put pedal to the metal in pursuit of its radical agenda. In a series of media appearances that December, Cheney proceeded as if the Florida recount and Bush v. Gore had never happened.

His December 3, 2000 exchange with the late Tim Russert on Meet the Press is particularly telling:

RUSSERT: Governor Bush and you campaigned on a platform of a $1.3 trillion tax cut. Now that the Senate is 50-50, Democrats-Republicans, and the Republicans control the House by eight or nine votes, won't you have to scale down your tax cut in order to pass it? [...] But, in reality, with a 50-50 Senate and a close, close, small majority in the House, you're going to have to have a moderate, mainstream, centrist governance, aren't you?

CHENEY: Oh, I think so. [...] But I think there's no reason in the world why we can't do exactly what Governor Bush campaigned on.

Two weeks later, following the controversial Supreme Court decision which made George W. Bush the 43rd President, Cheney made his case even more forcefully on Face the Nation:

"As President-elect Bush has made very clear, he ran on a particular platform that was very carefully developed. It's his program, it's his agenda, and we have no intention at all of backing off of it. It's why we got elected.

So we're going to aggressively pursue tax changes, tax reform, tax cuts, because it's important to do so. [...] The suggestion that somehow, because this was a close election, we should fundamentally change our beliefs, I just think is silly."

When Gloria Borger interrupted to object that "with all due respect, the Democrats are saying that this administration cannot proceed as the Reagan administration did, for example, with a large tax bill, because you don't have the mandate that a Ronald Reagan.," Cheney fired back:

"There is no reason in the world, and I simply don't buy the notion, that somehow we come to office now as a, quote, 'weakened president.' [...] We've got a good program, and we're going to pursue it."

Which is exactly what transpired. By May 2001, President Bush and Vice President Cheney had their $1.35 trillion tax cut, courtesy of precisely the strategy Borger ridiculed as " cherry pick[ing] one or two Democrats here and there and get them to sign on to whatever tax bill you have."

But eight years later, Barack Obama did not follow the Bush-Cheney example.

As it turned out, the deadly combination of Obama's hands-off approach to legislation and unending appeasement of Republicans determined to destroy him was both futile and counterproductive.

Continue reading »

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (572)

PLAYS: (1871)

From Fareed Zakaria's GPS Jan. 17, 2010. This is one of the few segments I've seen from anyone in the mainstream media that even starts to touch on some of the reasons for the extreme poverty in that existed in Haiti well before this terrible tragedy hit their country.

ZAKARIA: We begin today with Haiti. I want to go beyond the terrible images that you've seen in the last days, tragic as they are, and try to help us understand this tragedy and how it came to be this way.

Everybody surely knows by now that Haiti is the poorest country in the entire Western Hemisphere. But that's not the whole story. You see, Haiti has been marked by violence, turmoil and tragedy from the start -- until recently, when things turned up, only to be dashed by this earthquake. And that start informed the tragedies that have befallen this country ever since.

So, a quick history lesson, one that I think is fascinating on its own merits and is essential to understanding Haiti today.

The island that came to be known as Hispaniola was discovered by Europeans when Christopher Columbus landed there in 1492. Two hundred years later, in 1697, the French gained control of the western third of this island. African slaves, growing sugar and coffee and tobacco there, became a veritable gold mine for the French.

But then, in 1791, the slaves revolted. It's been called the Vietnam War of its time, a ragtag band of insurgents defeating one of the greatest militaries of the age. None other than Napoleon Bonaparte sent tens of thousands of his French troops. They all tried to beat back the rebellion, and they all failed.

On New Year's Day, 1804, the last defeated French ship left the island, and the slaves declared victory. And Haiti, the nation that emerged, is the only nation in the entire world that was founded by slaves.

Continue reading »

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (47)

PLAYS: (164)

Bob Schieffer throws this stink bomb without naming any names. Anyone want to take a guess as to who he was talking about? My guess is if you got a straight answer out of him there would be some false equivalencies in there. I don't disagree with him that's it is good that Americans are coming together to try to help the people of Haiti.

Now maybe if his news organization decided to start doing its job and quit pretending our government had nothing to do with the state they're in now with the extreme poverty making this disaster worse, that would be something.

Transcript via CBS News.

BOB SCHIEFFER: Finally today, in a reporter's life there are stories--some interesting, some not; and then there are moments to remember. This weekend was one of those. When George Bush and Bill Clinton sat down together and said helping those in Haiti overrode politics, it symbolized that this was one of those times when the country came together. That seems to happen less often nowadays. In this day of mean and polarized politics we find no shortage of one-upmanship, pettiness, and those seeking partisan advantage. The politicians love it and have somehow come to believe it helps them when, in fact, it is has just the opposite effect.

My evidence of that, well, there was a time when people wanted their children to go up to be President. How often have you heard anyone express that wish lately? Or even that their child would grow up to have anything to do with politics.

But here is the good news. When Americans have to come together, when we have to put those things aside, we always do, as we did after 9/11. The reaction to Haiti may have been more remarkable than our response to 9/11 because 9/11, after all, was about us. This past week was about the suffering of others. Yet, with the exception of a few loonies and professional partisans, Americans opened their hearts and their billfolds and they did so even though America itself is in the midst of an economic crisis.

So it was good to see Bill Clinton and George Bush sitting together, good to know that in times past they drew strength and counsel from each other. That's how Americans want their leaders to act. Too often, they just don't.

Back in a minute.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: 60

PLAYS: 6

(Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan - At every turn, some new loose cannon)

We talk about how unhinged and fear-driven the Republican "base" is lately, but seem to forget there is a long history that goes with it. One that goes back for decades if not longer.

I almost forgot how freely and how often President Reagan invoked the Evil Empire theme and played on fears of how Russia was superior militarily to the U.S. - how we were unprepared for a nuclear threat and how a threat could come at any time.

It was the fear then and it's the fear now. Fear, it would seem, is the driving force behind the Right wing agenda and the mainstream media.

So when Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan was interviewed on Face The Nation in April 4, 1982, he displayed a goodly amount of disbelief over the lack of responsibility Reagan was showing by proclaiming the U.S. no match for a Soviet showdown during a recent Press Conference.

Daniel Patrick Moynihan: “There is a leakage of reality in this Administration. The Commander-in-Chief, what Commander-In-Chief has ever told the world that the United States is inferior to an adversary? And why would anyone say that when it isn’t even so?”

It's interesting to note that CBS Correspondent George Herman attempts to cover over the situation by claiming Reagan "wasn't really serious in his estimation" of his statement - the Mainstream Media, as always are more than willing to join in the reality leak.

. . and speaking of joining . .

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (1447)

PLAYS: (12563)

November 30, 2009 NBC Jay Leno Show

During this interview Bill Maher takes on the mainstream media, Obama's choice to raise troop levels in Afghanistan, our wonderful banking system and of course religion. Then when he gets to the "Green Car Challenge" Maher go directly after George W Bush!

[H/t Media Matters.]

As one might expect, Glenn Beck has been simply cowardly about dealing with that report from the ADL titled "Rage Grows in America", which singled him out for special attention as the nation's newest "fearmonger in chief".

Beck has been largely silent about it. He only obliquely referenced it on his Fox News show earlier this week, exclaiming that "they" call him "anti-government" and heatedly denying that he is.

But on his radio show on Wednesday, he finally crawled out of his shell a little more, drawn out by a Timothy Rutten column in the Los Angeles Times discussing the report:

Beck: I'm just looking at a story from the Los Angeles Times today. The headline has my name in it, but it's really about you: "Who's watching Glenn Beck?" And then it goes into the -- "Much like the Depression-era demagogue from -- uh, Father Charles Coughlin" --

Anybody who knows history -- yeah. Yeah. I'm just like that guy.

Um -- "Fox is promoting a mass movement. Should his bosses be pulling the plug on him?" "For nearly a century, the Anti-Defamation League" -- which has as much to do, I believe, with the plight of the Jewish people as the National Organization of Woman has with the plight of women -- it is nothing, I believe, nothing but a political organization at this point. And I -- it, it kills me to say that.

I mean -- for the love of Pete, name the person that has been more friendly to Israel. Name the person that has spoken out more against the Holocaust deniers that are running Iran. Name the person who has stood up for Israel more than I have! Name the person in the mainstream media that speaks as passionately as I do -- not for some glorified Israel Zionist movement, but because I see the Jewish people as people! And the leaders of Iran as monsters that want to finish the job that Hitler started. You name the media person, Anti-Defamation League.

Well, first things first: Nevermind how obtuse a person must be who is neither a woman nor a Jew passing judgment on whether organizations with established histories of effectively fighting for the rights of either group has "anything to do" with their "plight." What really stands out about this rant is the stereotyped image Beck has of Jews, to wit, the only aspect of their "plight" worth mentioning is the defense of Israel.

In reality, the ADL has historically been focused on the much broader "plight" of the Jews represented by anti-Semitism and its pernicious effects. As you can see from just visiting the "About" section of their website, the ADL was founded primarily to combat anti-Semitism. Yes, the defense of Israel is in fact a concern of the ADL's -- but it is only one of many items on its agenda.

Beck, in fact, is clearly suggesting that anti-Semitism isn't a problem for Jews, except as it relates to Israel. (Beck has a thing about Iran that's actually a bad case of evangelical apocalypticism.) But in the USA, the problem of anti-Semitism has little if anything to do with Israel, and almost everything to do with the spread of right-wing hatemongers, who spread their poison through the very conspiracy theories and fearmongering scenarios and McCarthyite scenes that are Glenn Beck's stock in trade.

Now, let's take a look at that Tim Rutten column, especially because Beck never really did explain to his audience exactly what the piece said.

Continue reading »

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: 1211

PLAYS: 451

(Communists were thought to be everywhere, even comic books)

When we think about paranoia, conspiracy theories and black helicopters today, we think this is a relatively new phenomenon.

Sad to say, no. During the 1950s we were knee-deep in the Red Scare, the all-pervasive paranoia, the trigger-happy finger on the doomsday scenario.

It's no small wonder anti-depressants became popular around this time. It's also no small wonder people drank themselves into comas on an almost daily basis. You would too if you had to endure that much rampant distrust of your fellow human being - convinced every other person was hiding secret marching orders from The Kremlin.

Nasty times.

And so in 1955, one of the hot topics of discussion on mainstream media was just how much freedom Americans were losing, and were we in danger of losing it completely? Was the U.S. Government overrun with Communist subversives, poised to take over at the appointed time?

Then as now, a lot of the hysteria was media manufactured, pumped up by fringe element alarmists bent on scaring the crap out of people. Sending them, terror-stricken for comforting answers.

And as Senator Hubert Humphrey pointed out during the interview:

Sen. Hubert Humphrey: “ I think there are a number of people who would like to have the American people believe that the government is infiltrated by disloyal people and subversives and security risks and that isn’t a fact either. The Government employees are, as a group far above the average employee in the country. They’ve been screened, re-screened and double screened as to their security and as to their loyalty. I do feel however, that there’s been far too much demagoguery about the so-called security risks, the so-called numbers game. Many people have been dismissed from employment that were not disloyal at all. But just were unsuitable employees and then they’ve been tabulated as security risks. I think the sooner we get down to taking a look at our loyalty security program as citizens rather than as partisans, as members of Congress rather than as Republicans or Democrats, the better we’re going to be off and the better the country’s going to be off. We need security and freedom and we can have both.”

Despite the claims and facts to the contrary, the witch hunt kept right on pointing fingers and accusing. And the alarmists kept right on sowing hysteria.

Not much has changed in retrospect. Only the enemy.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (1819)

PLAYS: (1740)

All the news yesterday out of Rupert Murdoch's interview with Sky News was about Murdoch's endorsement of Glenn Beck's claim that President Obama is a racist who hates white people. But the rest of the interview had some even more disturbing remarks in it -- especially early on, when talking about his plan to make everyone pay for their Internet content.

Rupert, Rupert, Rupert. He just doesn't understand how the Internet works. If he continues to actively try to destroy the "fair use" of content, readers from all across the political spectrum will revolt against him. Even from his own side. Murdoch hates Google and every other search engine because he thinks by having Google linking to his stories, they are kleptomaniacs and robbing him. When asked why he just doesn't remove his websites from Google searches now, he replies that he will after he turns them all into "just for pay" only sites. If he feels they are ripping him off then why doesn't he do it now? The answer is he can't afford to do that. I dare him to do it.

newsroomamerica writes:

When challenged that his news organisations could just remove themselves from the search engines, he said "I think we will. But that's when we start charging. We do it already with the Wall Street Journal. We have a wall but its not right to the ceiling, you get the first paragraph of each story. If you are not a paying subscriber of WSJ.com you get a paragraph and a subscription form.

Was this WSJ model what we can expect to see in other online publications? "Maybe, maybe. There's a doctrine called 'fair use', which we believe could be challenged in the courts and bar it all together. But it's ok, we are getting a lot of advertising revenue so we will take that slowly."

The doctrine of fair use defines the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered fair, such as news reporting, and is a content gathering cornerstone for most mainstream media, including publications owned by Mr Murdoch.

The NY Times already tried the firewall approach and failed.

Jamie Holly emailed me and said:

When a search engine goes to a website it reads a file called robots.txt. This is like an instruction manual for search engines on what to search and not to search. You can view my robots.txt file here.

So what does the robots.txt file on foxnews.com say?

Well look at that. Not only is Fox allowing Google, but they are giving specific directions to Google to read files and index those items. So in an analogy sense this is like inviting someone into your home, pointing out all your valuables and asking them to take them. You even help them carry them out the door and wave good bye with a big old smile, then go inside and call the police reporting you've just been robbed.

And Murdoch going after "fair use" is really interesting. The big question under section 107 of the copyright law has always been this:

(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

Fair use is allowed for:

for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research.

Google only shows a headline and around 128 characters, which a lot of times isn't even a full sentence for their "news" service, which is also considered a very valuable "research" tool. If he thinks some judge would rule that as not being fair use then he is dumber than I thought.

I really hope Murdoch does go after Google legally on this. It would be so much fun to watch. Of course the only lawyer that I think would take Murdoch's case is Orly Taitz.

Glenn Beck joins the Net Neutrality fight by standing with Rupert and the wealthy as usual. Beck says Net Neutrality would 'destroy the free market that created the Internet'. Oh really?

Yes ma'am, may I have another?

Glenn Beck's idea of 'freedom': Letting corporations control what you read on the Internet

Does Murdoch really believe that every other content provider in one form or another will suddenly join up with him and boycott Google and turn the net into a pay-per-view outlet?

I can only imagine the fun hackers would have at destroying his website security if he actually tried to implement it.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: 63

PLAYS: 18

(I.F. Stone and friend - even in 1958 the Liberal Media was a myth)

Our news media has gone through countless changes since this interview was conducted in 1958. It was before the days of "breaking news" 24 hour news cycles, Satellite feeds, cable and instant access. It was also the days before media conglomerates, info-tainment and reality TV.

But even in 1958 there were problems. Newspapers at the time were still the main source for getting news, with radio a close second. Most major city newspapers published twice a day. But even with that, a lot of stories just weren't covered. A lot of news items were downplayed and only given cursory mention, usually towards the back of a paper with one or two lines.

This program, part of the Open Mind series featured interviews with prominent newspaper figures of the time. Herbert Brucker, who was chairman of the Freedom of Information Committee of the American Society of Newspaper Editors. William J. Miller, chief Editorial writer for the New York Herald Tribune, and I.F. Stone, publisher of I.F. Stone's Weekly. . .

I.F. Stone: “I think the three things wrong with the American press, a very good press I think. Better than that of most countries, except perhaps England. They have a very good press. The three things wrong with it are these – first of all, as soon as you get away from the Eastern seaboard, there are very few papers in this country that run enough news matter to make possible a considered judgment on public affairs. The average city daily does not run enough news, that’s the first big criticism of it. Second thing is the newspapers, and to a greater degree radio and television are adjuncts of advertisers. Advertisers object to ideas that might disturb anybody. So there’s a tendency, not to spread wicked ideas or bad ideas, but no ideas. So as not to upset any possible customer. And the third thing is, that since it takes a lot of money to own a newspaper, except a small one like mine, most publishers are Republicans.”

So even in 1958 all was not rosy with the media. And the factors in that discontent seem to be the same, despite protests to the contrary.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: 1139

PLAYS: 840

(Republican angst - hand wringing is timeless)

As the election returns poured in proclaiming Harry Truman the surprise winner in 1948 (much to the dismay of the Mainstream Media, who had declared Thomas Dewey, the Republican candidate, the winner by a landslide, even before votes were counted), a stunned Republican Party wondered aloud if this spelled the end of the GOP.

Clearly, history proved otherwise, but in 1948 it was the subject of much gnashing of teeth, weeping and soul searching on behalf of pundits and party members alike.

On December of 1948, a few weeks after the stunning upset, The University of Chicago Round Table hosted a panel discussing the subject "Is the Republican Party Over?". The panel featured Senators Raymond E. Baldwin (R - Conn.), Ralph E. Flanders (R- Vermont) and Congressman Clifford Hope (R-Kansas). The moderator Robert Horn set the tone:

Robert Horn: “I am a Republican and I am disturbed about the future of the Republican Party. After the shock of the election, I am beginning to wonder like millions of others what the future holds for the Republican Party or whether it has any future. This year marked the fifth consecutive defeat for Republican Presidential candidates. This Presidential election was the closest one since 1916. But Governor Dewey in 1948 received fewer votes than he got in 1944, although more votes were cast this year than in 1944. And Republican Congressional candidates generally ran below Dewey this year. In fact, Governor Dewey received only 600,000 more votes than Herbert Hoover received in 1928, although there are many more million potential and actual voters now than there were twenty years ago. Moreover, this fifth consecutive defeat means that the Republicans by 1952 will be out of the White House for the longest time that either the Democrats or the Republicans have been out of power since the end of the Civil War. The Republicans can no longer claim to be the majority part of the country. Many people are saying that unless the Republican Party changes it will die. If I were a Democrat I would also be disturbed about the future of the Republican Party.”

The obvious difference between the Republican Party of 1948 and the Republican Party of 2009 is the absence of the lunatic fringe then, which today appears to be driving away all those sane and moderate voices that would otherwise aid in the healing process and perhaps steer the party in a constructive direction.

Nothing like that appears to be anywhere on the horizon I'm afraid.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: 104

PLAYS: 18

(VP Spiro Agnew - ran around threatening revoked FCC licenses)

At the height of the war between the White House and the Media, The National Press Club ran a panel discussion featuring Bill Monroe of NBC News, Ben Bagdikian and Fred Friendly of CBS. Members of the White House Communications staff were invited; Herb Klein, Pat Buchanan and Dean Burch, but declined. The subject was The Media and The Administration and a few interesting myths were put to rest.

Ben Bagdikian: “The fact is, that the press of this country is overwhelmingly conservative and Republican. We are in danger of not enough criticism of government, not too much. Most of the new that leaves this town (D.C.) is pretty much what public officials say, with not enough time and energy put into testing the validity of what they say. It’s only human that a public official wants it that way, but it happens to be lousy journalism and bad for democracy. Now Democrats weren’t in love with the press either in their time. And we shouldn’t expect to be loved. We dish it out and we ought to be able to take it when it’s given back to us. But when it comes to the press, I think there’s a difference between Republicans and Democrats. The Republicans have had a sympathetic press for so long and in so many places, that they now regard any departure from this as a theft of a natural right. Now it’s not really the Republicans fault either. It’s the fault of the majority of papers in this country who’ve conditioned their local conservative readers to believe that it is the natural born duty of every publication to support Republicans. Let me be specific: a paper’s endorsing a Presidential candidate in 1968, 80% endorsed Nixon, which is about what it’s been with one exception, for Republican candidates in every Presidential race in this generation. And its not just the small town papers. Endorsement by circulation size is about the same percentage. And if we’re talking about a press out of step, how about 80% for Nixon, while the readers vote 43 ½% for Nixon?”

Bagdikian says pretty much what most everyone felt, even as far back as 1972. The idea that mainstream media is a bastion of liberal thought is really a myth cooked up by the GOP. And it's plain to see this myth still holds true today, even more so.

It's interesting to note that the systematic dismantling of network news departments and FCC regulations being abandoned really started with the Nixon administration. It's only been the past 20 odd years we've actually witnessed the long-term effects of those massacres.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: 43

PLAYS: 26

(Tyranny Of Teenagers in 1963 - Forever going to hell in a handbasket)

A few months ago I ran a post about the supposed "teenage problem" in 1953, hosted by Justice William O. Douglas which included the collective shoulder shrug that "kids today are just messed up". Ten years later, in 1963, kids were still messed up.

Strange to think these perceived out-of-control hormone cases are now the parents and grandparents of the current crop of perceived malcontents. But some things just never change.

In 1963 the current events panel program The Open Mind tried, in their own mainstream media way, to examine just what was going wrong with the youth in America.

And so heading up the panel were Al Capp, creator of the Lil' Abner comic strip of the 1940's and 50s, Grace Hechinger, whose book "Teenage Tyranny" was the basis for the panel, and singer Paul Anka, who represented "the kids".

Anka confesses he knew nothing about the premise of the panel and denied he fit into the perceived mold since he was a: Canadian and b: no longer a teenager.

Rather than stop the panel dead in its tracks, they muddled on with Anka trying to maintain a respectful distance while Capp yucked it up with a stream of pithy anti-kid sayings.

Al Capp: “I must say I enjoy music for teenagers and uh . . . I don’t understand it, I don’t understand the fascination of teenagers with death, for instance. Most of their songs concern themselves with a sudden a violent death with the beloved who is 14 ½ years old and has stolen his fathers car and rammed it into a wall. Isn’t there a song that’s sort of like that?

Paul Anka: “That’s one of a million. If you go back a little further, I think it was the day of the balladeers the songs were more tragic. That’s how your music and poetry started. Your balladeer. I mean if you read, and I’m sure you have and remembered the minstrel that wandered through Sherwood Forest . . Robin Hood, which is now a commercial selling point, not due to the teenagers . . we won’t go into that either. But this guy sang about death and John Brown’s baby being swallowed by a dragon, I mean this is worse than the . . . .

Al Capp: “Yeah but the . . . you can talk about death in the words of Shakespeare or Shelley or you can talk about death in the language of Tin-Pan alley. One – the poet makes death a noble and immense event. Tin-Pan Alley makes death an incident on which to base some frivolous little lament, so the subject isn’t important, it’s the treatment of it and I think the treatment of poetry in teenage music is abysmal.”

And it slides downhill from there.

The panel is interesting and funny in its quaint way with Hechinger maintaining a position that is probably best described as archaic, even by 1963's standards. Capp epitomizes what became known as the Generation Gap and it's clear to see why the 60s were as combative as they became.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (1030)

PLAYS: (2885)

I went on Countdown last night to chat with Lawrence O'Donnell -- who was filling in for Keith Olbermann -- about Bill Clinton's remarks the other day about the never-ending bloodlust of the "vast right-wing conspiracy".

O'Donnell was critical of Clinton for suggesting that the power of the conspiracy was less today than what he faced -- and regarding that aspect of Clinton's remarks, I agree with him. The reality, as I explained in the segment, is that the spread and reach of the really virulent wingnuttery that plagued Clinton -- the black-helicopter conspiracy theories like Mena, or the Vince Foster suicide, or the Clinton Body Count -- was largely relegated, until later in his tenure, to the fringes of the militia movement.

Obama, by contrast, is not even through his first year as president and he's already being plagued by Birthers and Tenthers and Teabaggers and Death Panels (along with, of course, the obligatory "He's Going To Grab Our Guns" conspiracies).

And it's true, moreover, the Clinton is right that the country has changed demographically since he was president, which means they do not possess the actual political power they held during much of his tenure. But they've made up for the lack of power with a much deeper reach into the mainstream. I dunno about you, but it sure looks to me like the Teabaggers are the new Patriots -- and there's a hell of a lot more of them.

Perhaps more to the point, they've already demonstrated -- by at least temporarily derailing the debate over health-care reform with wingnutty distractions like the "death panels" and the gun-brandishing nutcases showing up at health-care town hall forums -- that they continue to have an outsize influence on the national discourse. Especially because of Fox News and the rest of the mainstream media's willingness to be bullied by them -- led, as always, by the wise media poobahs of the Beltway Village.

That is -- and you can file this under the L'esprit de l'escalier Dept., since I meant to say it in this segment -- what they lack in power they've more than made up for by continuing to pull the media reins and shape the national discourse. They're able to move the media needles still -- which is, of course, the problem. The Village gives movement conservatives far more respect than they deserve, especially at this juncture, with the movement fully in the hands of nutty populist demagogues.

Glenn Beck is as popular as he is because everyone in the "mainstream" is too busy running fawning puff pieces to point out his actual extremism. No one has the guts to explain that these people are driving the Republicans over a cliff into political oblivion.

In The Eliminationists, I do talk a lot about how vicious the campaign against Clinton got to be -- and how many bridges and alliances were built between the far right and mainstream conservatives during those years as a result, particularly in the way right-wing talkers started picking up and transmitting memes from the far right.

Finally, I should add that, while I disagree with Clinton on this point, I generally agreed with the overall thrust of his recent comments, particularly his warning that the "conspiracy" (as it were) remains a potent force, capable of undermining Obama's presidency in unexpected ways. One can't help but suspect that Obama has been naive on this front -- how many times does he have to reach out to Republicans and come back with a chewed-up hand to get it? -- and I suspect Clinton intended to point out the cold reality. To which I can only add: Hear! Hear!