According to this post at MediaBistro (2/10/11), CNN is adding three new contributors. Two are right-wingers: Dana Loesch, a Tea Party radio host and editorof Andrew Breitbart's BigJournalism website. Will Cain is a commentator at the National Review website. And the "left"?Hisname is Cornell Belcher, a pollster and advertising/messaging consultant for various Democrats.
Beyond the 2-1 numerical tilt in favor of the right, this is a goodexample of how corporate media often pick their pundits. The right-wingers are true believers, drawn from the ranks of the conservative media world. TV leftists are generally not well-known advocates for the left, familiar to Democratic party insiders. Thatisthe type of left/right debate they prefer.
About Peter Hart
"TV leftists are generally not well-known advocates for the left, familiar to Democratic party insiders." – Poorly written sentence. Better: "TV 'leftists' are generally do not represent a left-wing viewpoint at all, but instead a centrist viewpoint common to Democratic party politicians and insiders."
To be fair, this has, in recent years, improved, and you do sometimes see genuine liberals on tv from time to time. Only a few years ago, it was always some mushy moderate, playing liberal-for-the-day, pitted against some true-believing conservative. Or two. Or three. On the rare occasions when actual lefties did appear, they were almost always outnumbered. Back in 2003, I wrote a short piece about a segment Joe Scarborough did on "liberal media bias," on his then-newly-minted MSNBC show–the complaint around which it was built, incredibly enough, was that pro-Iraq-war demonstrations weren't getting as much press as anti-war demonstrations. FAIR's own Steve Rendall was present to represent the left, but he was alone against two conservative guests and the conservative host. This was only a week after MSNBC had fired Donahue for being liberal. Even on Donahue's show, MSNBC management had dictated, toward the end, that conservative guests must heavily outnumber liberals. That's how it was only a few years ago. Things have at least improved.
You may see "genuine liberals" from time to time. Your chance of seeing a genuine LEFTIST is about as big as your chances of seeing a Polar Bear in the Sahara.
I'm astonished and appalled that CNN would give Andrew Breitbart the time of day, much less a public forum, based on his history of unfounded accusations against Shirley Sherrod last summer.
"You may see 'genuine liberals' from time to time. Your chance of seeing a genuine LEFTIST is about as big as your chances of seeing a Polar Bear in the Sahara."
True enough. When it comes to the far ends of the spectrum, radicals are pretty much non-existent (unless they're being attacked), whereas reactionaries regularly appear all over the place.
When will the media include voices from the Libertarian Left (Greens) and Libertarian Right (Libertarian Party) on a regular basis — as well as Independents (i.e., Nader, et al.) with opinions that fall outside the 2 wings of the Corporate War Party?
Improved? Ha! The whole "debate" thing is pretty much a fabrication. I canceled my cable because I used to watch it and be furious. No one would come up with any real solution that would address the causes and consequences of real problems in our country on these so-called "debate" shows. Even though most Americans can think of ways to solve real problems in areas that matter, finance, healthcare, etc, we are treated to a host of pretentious nonsense from experts with media "careers" who know better… Why? Because real solutions that address the fundamental problems with real policy, and enforcement of policy, threaten the foundations of greed that the establishment runs on. So we're left listening to continual newspeak about numbers and "forecasts" that create general confusion, or drivel about the tea party as a "grassroots" movement.
I'm still waiting for a forum where there are NO righties on the panel, whatsoever. They already own 99.9% of the media. I'm starving for an uninterrupted debate by intelligent individuals with common sense, a grasp of reality and the facts, and superior critical-thinking skills. I'd like to see Alan Grayson, Russ Feingold, Dennis Kucinich and Bernie Sanders get together for panel discussions.
They could invite guests on like Hugo Chavez…Now THAT would be awesomely interesting and informative!
Who watches CNN anyway?
Dream on, BB. The placement of genuine reactionaries and radical statists (Noam Chomsky's term for people like "Big" Dick Cheney and most of the Bush regime) continues unabated. Were not talking about two "conservatives" to one middle-of-the-roader, but rather two crazy, often ignorant reactionaries to one (or none) DLC conservative Democrat. Not good, and sure to get worse, as the internal conflicts that are tearing apart our democracy become harder and harder to elide or ignore. That's the job, after all, of these talkshows. They are there purely for distraction.
P.S.: I'm not sure if there's something that can be called the "Libertarian" left, Justin. Libertarianism is, like it or not, an anti-government (insofar as government regulates various actors in the corporate or business world), pro-business/Corporate gang of radicals. Believe me, the Libertarians (people who believe they are Libertarians, such as Alan Greenspan, or Rand Paul) have plenty of time in the media to express their beliefs. Don't forget about the Koch brothers–their recent pow-wow attracted a lot of right-wing, libertarian types. They themselves understand what libertarianism means–the destruction of the government's ability to rein in the worst impulses of capitalism. Indeed, they want to essentially destroy the government (our government) to further enrich themselves. This enrichment comes at the expense of our already damaged democracy.
Re: Eli Stephens' "Poorly written sentence" comment:
Your "Better" suggestion is just as poorly written. "TV 'leftists' are generally do not …."
Really?
There is NO REAL LEFT in the U.S. We threw the baby out with the bathwater during the brainwashing of the better-dead-than-red era (not apologizing for my repeat). Why is "liberal" treated like a dirty-word? Why is "socialist" a dirty-word? I am a legal resident in France. Recently the former Secretaire General of the Communist, Robert Hue, said the party needed to be "de-Stalinized". Still communists are given media coverage and elected to office here in France. / When my French husband did his paper-work to come live in the U.S., I was momentarily flabbergasted when reading that he could be denied entry if he had any known Communist connections. Then I remembered my own b-d-t-r family. Code-terms like "socialized medicine" and "redistribution of wealth" still infect our political dialogue. Special Interest appeals to the fear of these terms and we lose our ability to clearly analyze the political/social dynamics. The working-class citizens are pitted against one another and we shoot ourselves in the foot. // Jean Clelland-Morin
"I'm not sure if there's something that can be called the 'Libertarian' left, Justin. Libertarianism is, like it or not, an anti-government (insofar as government regulates various actors in the corporate or business world), pro-business/Corporate gang of radicals."
No, what you're describing is the peculiar American "pro-business/Corporate gang" found at the fringes of the Republican party and that make up the Libertarian party and outfits like the Cato Institute. They've made a grand effort in recent decades of appropriating the word "libertarian" to describe themselves, but "libertarian," for about 150 years or so, has been a synonym for anarchists–anti-state socialists. That's still what it means everywhere else in the world. Those in that faction of righties started applying it to themselves, mostly in the late 1960s, but a "libertarian," by the traditional meaning, holds to politics that are the opposite of theirs. Some other elements of the left have attempted to give it a broader meaning, using it to describe themselves, and that's fine, I suppose. They certainly have a more legitimate claim on it than those righties you're describing.
You see plenty of righty "Libertarians" on tv. You never see any real libertarians, unless it's news-helicopter footage of them setting fire to something at a financial conference or international trade summit.
Sorry guys but Im afraid libs are loosing out in the arena of ideas.And that translates into market share.I would love to see 25% be Rs…25%…….Ds……25%Libertarians…….25% tea party or whatever mix you want to dream up.That why i listen to a variety of things.In the real world when the majority of this country listens to Combs or Carvil or Olberman or Garofalo ,or Rosie,or Pelosi,we wanna puke.Except for the coasts that is pretty much the rest of the country.Ever see the new breakdowns of red blue area land mass?No body is running a charity here.Market share.Free markets.Name of the game.Want air head America back?No body is stopping you.But they have to pay their own way.
I think I see your problem Michael. You don't appear to be listening to very much other than Beck or Limbaugh if you think liberals are taking their marching orders from the list of personalities you give. (Rosie O'Donnell and Nancy Pelosi….equal in the eyes of all thinking people)
By the way Michael….are we voting based on land mass now? Shoot for voting rights based on low IQ scores and you got it made.
CNN sucks.
This is yet another reinforcement of my decision to tune out of cable news altogether. It's become so rife with bias, corporate/political agendas, fear, hate, and sensationalism that I just cannot stomach any of it anymore. Turn off the TV, folks, and read your news instead.
Well, if you're standing all the way over to the right, EVERYTHING else looks like its over on the left.
Why do right wing media personalities make so much money? Because you can't expect them to destroy every last shred of human decency they ever had for mere peanuts.
Pam who are you taking marching orders from?The clowns I named are just a few names in your blue blue world.By the way if you don't think the left has been taking marching orders from madam speaker up till the moment we tossed her out on her skinny trust fund butt…..you are off your rocker.And Im sorry you think only those with low IQs will be voting against Obama.That red tide you see coming…how does it look from your window? Private citizen Obama….Has a nice ring to it wouldn't you say?
In my comments to Justin, Classicliberal2, I wrote, among other things, " . . . people who believe they are Libertarians, such as Alan Greenspan, or Rand Paul . . . ." You can argue that certain political actors have appropriated the term Libertarian for their own ends, but it's pointless. "Libertarian" in this country has a certain meaning (not just to me), and that's the meaning I'm suggesting when I said that "Libertarianism is, like it or not, an anti-government (insofar as government regulates various actors in the corporate or business world), pro-business/Corporate gang of radicals." This is absolutely the case. Really now, do you think that what I'm describing is "the peculiar American "pro-business/Corporate gang" found at the fringes of the Republican party and that make up the Libertarian party and outfits like the Cato Institute."(?) The fringes? They most certainly not are at the fringes. To me, what you're trying to call Libertarianism (clasical Libertarianism, perhaps?) is simply anarchism. The radical, "free-market" loving, government-hating, Ayn Rand worshipping lunatics who call themselves Libertarians won the semantic battle, Classicliberal2. And they're poised to win far more than that, if we let them.
P.S.: I often think, especially lately, that libertarianism is the last refuge of a scoundrel. Did you know that Glen Beck considers himself to be a Libertarian? Of course he does . . . .
"To me, what you're trying to call Libertarianism (clasical Libertarianism, perhaps?) is simply anarchism."
I'm not "trying to call" it anything. I merely explained the history of the word, and its usage everywhere except among this one faction in the U.S. "Libertarianism" is a synonym for anarchism. Anti-government socialism. Some on the left have tried to expand it to cover a broader range of lefties. The righties who use the word are misusing it. I realize I may be fighting a losing battle in insisting on its traditional meaning, but I'm not making up anything when I explain that meaning.
The "radical, "free-market" loving, government-hating, Ayn Rand worshipping lunatics" are not "mainstream" anything. They're a micro-faction in American politics, and are only a factor in it at all because they have, behind them, millions of dollars from a handful of sympathetic–and fantastically rich–admirers. They've never managed to get a single candidate even close to the Republican presidential nomination. Their hero (Ron Paul) was doing well when he could break 1% of the vote in the primaries. When it comes to the party bearing the name, the most successful Libertarian party presidential candidate (who ran 31 years ago) couldn't even draw a million votes; the second most successful was about half that; the third was, again, Ron Paul, and he received even fewer votes. Their only significant influence is through their various (lavishly financed) think-tanks, and even that influence is limited–they get cited like crazy in press coverage, but they're routinely attacked by conservatives because they argue for things like civil liberties and a non-interventionist foreign policy in the face of Bush (and, before that, in the face of the Cold War).
Contrary to many assorted assertions in the press, the teabaggers aren't of this faction, either. They're mostly just traditional conservatives and reactionaries, gathered under a new title by a few astroturf orgs. Ron Paul, whom the press absurdly set up as virtually the figurehead of their "movement," was primaried last year by no less than three teabagger challengers.
Glenn Beck is a product of the conspiracist right crossed with the religious right (the latter, btw, still being the biggest and most active faction of the right by a huge margin). He doesn't have a "Libertarian" bone in his body.
Um, Michael…
What is it exactly that you are doing–other than embarrassing yourself and all who read this forum with your atrocious grammar and sentence construction?
Why is it that rational voices have to be a by-product of "marching orders"?
You see, your mindset is one that believes it is war all the time, in everything. You and your ilk have turned political discourse in this country into a team sport.
You are on the team that wears red colors and sees the country like a giant map on a cable television show where the coasts are colored blue, and the good, non-evil part in the middle is red.
Simple answers for simple minds. I could hope the blinders would come off some day, but I think I hope for too much.
So now, you will respond with a typical response crafted from what you hear on AM talk radio on daily basis.
You will continue to benefit from the government supported programs put into place several decades ago, yet you'll complain about them.
You'll continue to tune into charlatans who make six figure salaries on right wing cable channels, yet you'll talk about them like they are "just folk."
Someday you'll die and some neighbor or someone in your church will say what a nice guy you were. But that will all be a facade, won't it? Why? Because your entire tenure on this planet was spent selfishly fighting to keep others from knowing the privileged lifestyle that you never deserved in the first place.
You are dismissed.
If there's someone here, that will find fault with what I've tried to say, let him come to my aid, and make things clear. As I've come to see it, the Left is the enemy in mainstream media, because media have fast become anti-democratic. Media are little more than a loudly, and constantly, bellowing selling machine for the business sector. The business sector ought to have its voice, but not if that voice snuffs out the obligatory and pre-eminent voice of democracy, from media. The Left, as I see it, ought to be associated with, one with, democracy, unless someone can explain to me how there can be a rift between the Left and a Democratic system of government? But these are principles, after all. Apparently, many people in this country, believe that you can be a citizen in a democracy, without supporting democratic principles, most of them, because they have only the poorest understanding of our political philosophy. This is why I also believe that there ought to be 3 political parties: A Constitutional party, for those that support, "unequivocally," our system of government; a Dissenting party (call it what you will), i.e., those that make no secret of their desire to nullify our system of government, to one "significant" degree or another; and the Centrists, or those that can't make up their minds, or otherwise, cannot bring themselves to commit to democracy or to those that seek to nullify it. With these three parties, we'll know, once and for all, if their remains enough of a committment to democracy in this country, to keep it alive, or, if we are forced by democracy itself, to vote it out of existence. Mainstream media have, for its own convenience, managed to create the illusion in the public mind, that the Left is too radical, and otherwise inimical to our best intersts, and this deception has been carried forward to the extent, that the so-called democratic party is made to appear Leftist. But this is all an illusion, a deception. The Left needs to make its committment to our Constitution, its guiding light and its creed. Unless there's a difference between the Left and our Constitution, I'm not aware of? But if the Left is satisfied to align itself with our Constituition, what sense does it make to speak of it as a Left? We've grown accustomed to speak of the Left as representing a radical philosophy. But how can it be "radical" to be an ally of our Constitution? It's not just in mainstream media, that the Left is virtually absent, it's also in the democratic party. Media must be pro-democratic, and, it follows, will, logically, "allow" right wingers and conservatives, freely, to espouse their view that our constitutional democracy ought to be limited. These dissenters from democracy can also live their lives, withing legal limits, in accord with their anti-democratic outlook, but they cannot require other citizens to do so. If we live in a democracy, how can things be otherwise? But media have turned this situation upside down. It's democracy that is denied a voice, and those views that seek the destruction of democracy, are the ones given a full voice. It's not just the Left that's absent from media, if what has been said here, up till now, has any credibility, it's democracy that's absent from media. A Democracy "can't" allow a philosophy of government to prevail, that seeks to obliterate democracy itself. The so called democratic party, has come, by virtue of its majority, two-faced, membership, merely, to be "slightly less" inclined, than republicanism, to undermine our professed democratic system. As usual, throughout history, State, and now, mass media sponsored, forced ignorance, and deceit, makes our downfall, our devolution, toward a return to a
friendly-faced dictatorship, a near certainty, if we're not already there.
Chris the only point you made is in effect calling Pelosi a rational voice,and all those she strong armed to do her bidding as rational people.I just spit my fine wine across the room,dropped my cuban stogie and knocked my plate of kobe beef over.Let me make it simple for elite- simple minds.Obama was not rational.Pelosi was not.The democratic regime was not.So he and "DEM" be gone soon.And your microphone will be clicked off or at least turned way down.And we will move forward.How did that line about being dismissed turn out?I mean two years ago when you said it it had a little hope behind it.How ya feeling about it now?Somebody is most def gonna be dismissed."We" are measuring the drapes for our new offices.You will be reading the train schedules….out of town.
God bless America .God bless the Tea party.And ya know what Chris….God bless you.
I'm not saying that you made up anything, classicliberal2. I'm simply saying that "libertarian" has a certain meaning that I've come to understand over the years. Everything you wrote above I completely agree with; perhaps someday the meaning of the word will regain it's original shape, but for now, the Rightists who have appropriated it own it, and it's current meaning. As far as the libertarians being a small faction, they may be, but they continue to constitute a force all out of proportion to their numbers. I'm not talking about their power at the voting booth–libertarians have trouble getting elected dog-catcher–I'm talking about economic power.
It's unfortunate that in our badly degraded political discourse, words often have lost meaning, or more likely, vast ignorance renders talking about things virtually impossible (see the exchanges above and below ours). The fact is, I'll bet not one in 100,000 Americans can tell you what a "conservative" or a "liberal" is.
Tim this how I define a liberal/conservative to children…..I say well little Sally you are a straight A student, and your best friend Debbie is getting all F(s).Would you be willing to drop to a C so that she can have a C?Then you are both equal.But but but -little Sally squeals, I worked hard for my grade.Welcome to the conservative party.
To an adult it is much more complicated.Because half the population does not understand that broke means you cant buy anything anymore.Half the population believes that everything you own ,is not actually yours no matter how hard you worked to earn it.EVerything is on loan from the government.To be taken at any time for redistribution.HAlf the population supports those who believe the government should support them ,at others expense.Half the population is not concerned by an ever growing government with massive power to effect individual rights in deference to the whole(because their candidate is in charge).HAlf the population supports those who believe the constitution is a "Mean document that inhibits the FEderal government.Half the population does not understand that socialism IS A dirty word in a free market capitalist economy.HAlf the population believe the shite the left writes about the TEA PARTY, and the Sarah Palin's of this world.THis half is un fortunately being guided by half wits!And at the center ring is a "quarter wit' named Barock Obama who's new motto"we got what it takes- to take what you got" is so much better than Change you can believe in.(And I still remember a friend years ago using your words that he could not get elected dog catcher)So never say never.But discourse we must have Tim.CPAC showed that many on the right as well as left still don't get it.THE 3 and a half trillion dollar budget shows our president is gone mad.WE need to work together in some manner though IM at a loss how