mainstream media bias, continued...
By now, everybody in America knows about the Joe Lieberman/Ned Lamont primary battle. It would be almost impossible not to know about it; the media has been hyping that one, tiny primary in one, tiny state as a national referendum on Bush war policy for months. The outcome of that primary was the lead story in most major media outlets nationwide. In the aftermath of the primary, the media has continued their wall-to-wall coverage of this tiny primary election by doing post-mortem analysis on Lieberman's political future, the effect of this tiny primary election (less than 300,000 total voters, all of whom are Democrat and who don't like Bush) on GOP chances in November, and predictions for Lieberman/Lamont II. I think it's safe to say that, by now, everybody in America has heard of Ned Lamont.
Raise your hand if you have ever heard of Jonathan Tasini?......I don't see any hands out there. Don't tell me that all of you have missed the wall-to-wall media coverage of Jonathan Tasini! Well, the term "wall-to-wall media coverage" might be a little bit of an exaggeration. Actually, there has been ZERO media coverage of Jonathan Tasini. Mr. Tasini happens to be the far-far left senatorial candidate running against Hillary Clinton in the New York Democrat Primary, coming up on Sept. 12. He has the public endorsements of Medea Benjamin of Code Pink, actress Susan Sarandon, and filmmaker Barbara Kopple, among others. Why, then, has he been barred by NY1, New York's 24-hour news channel, from participating in the Town Hall Debate with the other candidates that they are broadcasting? Why has Tasani been ignored by The New York Times? Is it possible that the mainstream media feels they have a vested interest in making sure that Queen Hillary wins reelection to the Senate? After all, if she were to be defeated in the primary, and not even make it to the November election, her 2008 Presidential Campaign would be on life support. Heck, her presidential bid would be DOA! Tasani has complained loud and long about what he calls the "Big Media Censors", but to no avail.
Don't get the wrong idea here. I am not a Jonathan Tasani fan. If he's being supported by people like Susan Sarandon and Code Pink, that tells me evrything I need to know about Tasani, and none of it is good. That's not the point, though, is it? Big Media chooses to cover Lamont like he's the most important political figure of the 21st Century because they are mad at Lieberman for supporting "Bush's War." They can afford to sabatoge Lieberman because he has no future in the Democrat Party and everybody knows it. Big Media chooses not to sabatoge Hillary, because they consider her to be a viable candidate for President in 2008. Very interesting. Sometimes media bias raises its ugly head the highest when the media is at its quietist.
Raise your hand if you have ever heard of Jonathan Tasini?......I don't see any hands out there. Don't tell me that all of you have missed the wall-to-wall media coverage of Jonathan Tasini! Well, the term "wall-to-wall media coverage" might be a little bit of an exaggeration. Actually, there has been ZERO media coverage of Jonathan Tasini. Mr. Tasini happens to be the far-far left senatorial candidate running against Hillary Clinton in the New York Democrat Primary, coming up on Sept. 12. He has the public endorsements of Medea Benjamin of Code Pink, actress Susan Sarandon, and filmmaker Barbara Kopple, among others. Why, then, has he been barred by NY1, New York's 24-hour news channel, from participating in the Town Hall Debate with the other candidates that they are broadcasting? Why has Tasani been ignored by The New York Times? Is it possible that the mainstream media feels they have a vested interest in making sure that Queen Hillary wins reelection to the Senate? After all, if she were to be defeated in the primary, and not even make it to the November election, her 2008 Presidential Campaign would be on life support. Heck, her presidential bid would be DOA! Tasani has complained loud and long about what he calls the "Big Media Censors", but to no avail.
Don't get the wrong idea here. I am not a Jonathan Tasani fan. If he's being supported by people like Susan Sarandon and Code Pink, that tells me evrything I need to know about Tasani, and none of it is good. That's not the point, though, is it? Big Media chooses to cover Lamont like he's the most important political figure of the 21st Century because they are mad at Lieberman for supporting "Bush's War." They can afford to sabatoge Lieberman because he has no future in the Democrat Party and everybody knows it. Big Media chooses not to sabatoge Hillary, because they consider her to be a viable candidate for President in 2008. Very interesting. Sometimes media bias raises its ugly head the highest when the media is at its quietist.
posted by hondo at 9:24 PM
2 Comments:
I've heard Tasani. I mean, heard his voice, on Sam Sedar's show on Air America Radio last week. (Thank goodness for podcasts!) I like him. I wish he'd kick Hillary out of the Senate. She's too right-wing for me.
And the same ignoring of Tasani which you cite as proof of liberal media bias, I see as proof of CONSERVATIVE media bias. You see, the mass media is inherently with the people in power, whether they be right or left. It's power they worship. So they kiss up to Hillary, even though she's a Republican in disguise. That's why Rupert Murdoch, the worst thing ever to spew forth from Australia, held a fundraiser for her. (That and the fact that Murdoch/Fos News WANTS Hillary to be the Dems presidential candidate in 08 because she will give Reoublicans someone to hate...) The groups organising debates won't let Tasani have a fair go at Hillary. In a real democracy, there would be equal time for challengers to confront the powerful. But the U.S. is not a democracy. Tasani is regarded as "not a serious candidate" because he doesn't have a lot of money. So he's shut out. I repeat: America is not a democracy -- it's a plutocracy. Even on the Democratic side.
So you're the one who's listening to Air America! I wondered who it was!
I must say, I had to chuckle at your characterization of Hillary as a Republican in disguise. Queen Hillary has a lifetime conservative rating of 9 (out of 100), as rated by the American Conservative Union. The ACU, America's oldest and largest conservative lobbying organization, annually rates all members of Congress in economic and budget matters, social and cultural issues, and defense and policy issues. She scored 9 out of 100 and you say that she is too right-wing for you? Wow!
I do agree with you, however, on a couple of points you made. You said that America isn't a democracy. You are correct, sir! America is a republic, and was never intended to be a democracy. Our Founding Fathers were deeply distrustful of democracies, and they certainly weren't going to establish a democracy here. They chose the republican model because, in the words of James Madison, "It is evident that no other form would be reconcilable with the genius of the people of America; with the fundamental principles of the Revolution; or with that honorable determination which animates every votary of freedom, to rest all our political experiments on the capacity of mankind for self-government. If the plan of the convention, therefore, be found to depart from the republican character, its advocates must abandon it as no longer defensible." Read The Federalist Papers: No. 39 for more on the subject (in answer to your question, I'm a Social Studies teacher, and a very good one too, in my not-so-humble opinion). Although you are also correct when you say that our nation is controlled by the wealthy, you are not correct in calling America a "plutocracy." In a plutocracy, rule by the wealthy is mandated by the government and by the law, and access to wealth is strictly limited. We don't have that here in the U.S. Any American who is willing to work hard and save can accumulate wealth, and absolutely anyone can participate in the political process. A constitutional republic? Yes. A plutocracy? Absolutely not!
Post a Comment
<< Home