RSN August 14 Fundraising
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment

Right Wing Thought Police - An Analysis

Print
Saturday, 10 July 2010 22:29
George W. Bush with Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff, 05/15/07. (photo: Getty Images)

George W. Bush with Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff, 05/15/07. (photo: Getty Images)

 

 

Reader Supported News | Perspective

he American right wing is achieving its long-term goal of becoming the nation's thought police. They are realizing this goal through the timeless practices of extremists (be they on the right or the left, religious or secular), which are intimidation, slander and harassment. In the past several months, conservative outbursts have ruined the careers of journalists, most of whom were of the political center, but who were indiscreet enough to say something that ran counter to the right's version of political correctness.

The latest victim in this on-going campaign is Octavia Nasr, who for the last 20 years worked at CNN and, up until July 7, 2010, was the network's Middle East News Editor. She made the mistake of expressing appreciation for Sayyed Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah, a recently-deceased and important member of Hezbollah. What she liked about Fadlallah was his stand on women's rights in the Middle East. That was enough to release the dogs of war on the right. No matter that no one who complained about Nasr knew anything about Fadlallah as a person. His association with Hezbollah was enough. Typically, CNN caved in to the attack without a struggle. Almost immediately upon receiving the protests the network executives decided that Nasr's "credibility" had been destroyed. Nasr herself commented that she had learned "a good lesson on why 140 characters [the length of her statement on Fadlallah] should not be used to comment on controversial or sensitive issues, especially those dealing with the Middle East." She misses the point. It is not the length of her comment, which was expressed as a private "tweet," that did her in. It was the fact that she expressed a considered opinion that showed respect for a man the American right, with little or no accurate knowledge, had decided to hate. In truth, it is CNN's credibility that is called into doubt by this incident. But there is little new about that.

As noted, Nasr is only the latest victim. Last month it was Helen Thomas, whose 60-year career as a journalist abruptly ended when she expressed her frustration with Israel. She said that the Israeli Jews ought to go back to Germany and Poland. All hell broke loose on that one. No one seemed to notice that a good many Israeli Jews are in fact going back to Germany and other European countries. Indeed, more Jews are leaving Israel than are coming in. Also, no one dared mention that while Helen Thomas was indulging in wishful thinking, the Israelis have spent the last sixty years in fact making refugees of as many Palestinians as they could. But such facts are of little interest to the right. Helen Thomas was quickly forced into retirement.

Here are the names of some other victims. The details of their cases can be had by following the links provided by Glenn Greenwald's piece on this same subject posted at Salon.com (July 8, 2010). David Weigel was fired by the Washington Post for expressing scorn for the likes of Rush Limbaugh. Eason Jordon was fired by CNN for publicly expressing concern about the US military's appalling habit of shooting at journalists not officially "embedded." Back in 2003, NBC fired Peter Arnett for remarks on Iraqi TV raising doubts about Bush Jr's invasion of that country. The right had accused him of treason. MSNBC fired Ashleigh Banfield for suggesting that the American media were all becoming mimics of Fox TV. Even Phil Donahue got axed because he was perceived as being critical of President Bush Jr.'s war. This list of notables is only the tip of the iceberg. Who knows how many non-notables hit the unemployment lines because of the revival of McCarthyite tactics by the American far right?

Why is the screaming right so effective? Is it merely the volume? No, it is more complicated than that. Here is my explanation:

First, the Background:

1. In their daily lives the vast majority of Americans are apolitical. They really don't care about left or right politics because it doesn't seem to have much to do with their local lives. They are, however, the consumer audience for which the media outlets compete.

2. While inherently apolitical, this audience does not live in an apolitical media environment. In my opinion, there is no "objective media," much less a "liberal" one. The majority of the media outlets are one of two kinds. They are either: a) overtly conservative because they are owned by right-wing ideologues who are interested in inserting their ultra-conservative worldview into the heads of their audience (the Murdoch/Fox News bunch), or, b) they are "politically neutral" media operations (often owned by bigger businesses like Westinghouse and Disney) whose foremost interest is making a profit (CNN and its ilk). You do also have a few left-leaning media organizations out there, mostly in print (i.e. The Nation), but they are on the fringe and don't reach a mass audience.

3. Since the end of World War II, leftist ideas have been demonized almost out of existence in the US. And, since 9/11, the "commies" have been transformed into Muslims. These simplistic stereotypes set the parameters for correct and patriotic thinking in this country, and they are delivered to you at different levels of intensity by both the conservative and "neutral" media systems. No matter how apolitical one might be in one's daily local life, these notions are in the media air, so to speak. You take them in almost by osmosis. They mess with your mind without you realizing it.

The Foreground:

1. This situation gives the political right a very big head start when it comes to shaping public opinion and then policing the "neutral" corporate media to make sure it does not step out of line. The right is very good at this because their leaders and spokespeople tend to be bullies and authoritarians. On the other hand, American political liberals are really centrists who are trying to hold together a conglomeration of different groups. That might get them votes when it counts, but it doesn't make for principled backbone. The liberal centrists tend to be accommodating rather than resistant to right-wing bullying.

2. The "neutral" media that is primarily concerned with the bottom line, their owners and bureaucratic operators, readily sacrifice the principles underpinning a free press if they are seen as hurting the company image. There are, of course, occasional exceptions to this rule (just remember the Washington Post and Watergate) but they are rare and momentary.

3. So, you put together a for-profit, largely unprincipled, "neutral" media with an aggressive political right run by loud-mouthed thugs, throw in a liberal political class that has very little backbone, and you get the present day situation.

What I have described here is a general situation that is working at two levels. At the corporate level, the right-wing bullies seem to be in charge and regularly force the firing of those who purposefully or inadvertently challenge them. Inside the beltway the same sort of sordid business goes on through the pressures put upon politicians by wrathful special interests. At the popular level, the initially apolitical masses get largely right-wing influenced storylines coming through the system described above. Over time, this of course influences their collective worldview.

However, there is another factor to watch for. This propaganda machine can be overwhelmed by events. That is what may be happening when it comes to Middle East policy and perceptions. For instance, the behavior of the Israeli government has been so brutal and uncompromising that it is becoming more difficult for the US media to rationalize it away. Different storylines, coming from pro-Palestinian, Arab-American and Muslim-American movements are catching on among select audiences, such as those on college campuses. These counter-perceptions have the potential of spreading into the public at large. If and when we reach that stage, the "neutral" for-profit media will have to choose between a growing skeptical consumer audience and the bullies on the right.

 

Lawrence Davidson is a professor of Middle East history at West Chester University in Pennsylvania, and author of the works listed below.

Contributing Editor: "Logos: A Journal of Modern Society & Culture"
http://www.logosjournal.com

"Foreign Policy Inc.: Privatizing America's National Interest"
http://www.kentuckypress.com/viewbook.cfm?Category_ID=I&Group=55&ID=1490

"America's Palestine: Popular and Official Perceptions from Balfour to Israeli Statehood"
http://www.upf.com/authorbooks.asp?lname=Davidson&fname=Lawrence

"Islamic Fundamentalism"
http://www.greenwood.com/catalog/GR2429.aspx
Keep your eye on the language: When South Africa assigned rights according to race they called it apartheid. When Israel assigns rights according to religion they call it the only democracy in the Middle East.


Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.

 

Comments   

We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.

General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.

Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.

- The RSN Team

 
-66 # Guest 2010-07-10 20:24
Why is there no mention of the "left wing media elite" like ABC, NBC, CBS, CNBC, etc.???
 
 
+36 # Guest 2010-07-11 03:18
Sigh - maybe because they're not. Step outside of the U.S.

Come to Canada, or Australia, or the UK, and you'll be amazed at how right-wing the media is in the U.S.

To describe ABC, NBC, CBS, CNBC as 'left-wing media elite' shows you're being brainwashed now, just like the U.S. media (particularly) wasn't being 'fair and balanced' when it followed George W. Bush and told you that there were WMDs in Iraq.
 
 
+6 # Guest 2010-07-11 12:11
The reason they all caved instantly is due to one cause that you left out: the Israel lobby, AIPAC-- and their entourages in the media and government. About time this author read Mearsheimer's & Walt's famous expose of AIPAC's maneuverings and money in our politics in the London Rev. of Books.
 
 
+1 # Guest 2010-07-15 10:18
You are exactly correct. To really a get a sense of the political imbalance in the US, check out the political compass (politicalcompa ss.org) and compare the mainstream US candidates in the 2008 election to the political parties and candidates in any other country (they have Germany, the UK, and Australia). In spite of the rhetoric in the US, the mainstream political spectrum is quite narrow (and becoming narrower) and this is reflected in the mainstream media.
 
 
+13 # Guest 2010-07-11 03:44
Quoting Ted Apelt:
Why is there no mention of the "left wing media elite" like ABC, NBC, CBS, CNBC, etc.???


They are all included in the "Neutral only interested in profit" category. Even reports with a bias t'word truth are mostly employed by companies with a bias t'word profit.
 
 
0 # Guest 2010-07-11 04:58
Please feel free to provide an example of your claim.
 
 
+13 # Guest 2010-07-11 05:07
Quoting Ted Apelt:
Why is there no mention of the "left wing media elite" like ABC, NBC, CBS, CNBC, etc.???


Answer 1: there is mention of "'politically neutral' media operations (often owned by bigger businesses like Westinghouse and Disney) whose foremost interest is making a profit".

Answer 2 in the form of a riddle: Clark Kent, Peter Parker, the "left wing media elite", and the corporate media are all chasing a story. Which one breaks it first?

Answer 3 to answer 2: the corporate media, because the others are all fictional characters.
 
 
+28 # Guest 2010-07-11 05:32
Ted, there IS no "left wing media elite". There is marketing, there is entertainment, there is yak yak. There is no operating outside corporate dictates on any network. Corporations that are connected to the government and those truly in power, namely those covered in this article. CNN has often been called liberal, but as you can see, they caved in to those powers.

Many of us have been warning of this for a long time. There is no left and right. There is only the organized groups marketing for more power through propaganda the likes of which the world has never seen.
 
 
+5 # Guest 2010-07-11 05:32
Because there is none.
 
 
+3 # Guest 2010-07-11 05:48
You mean like when Mr. Davidson says "they are "politically neutral" media operations (often owned by bigger businesses like Westinghouse and Disney) whose foremost interest is making a profit (CNN and its ilk)." Yeah, I don't know why he didn't mention them in his article, other than when he spoke about them.
 
 
+20 # Guest 2010-07-11 06:12
To Ted Apelt -- calling the corporate media like ABC, NBC, CBS, and others "left wing media" is part of the right wing rant. In fact, all of the corporate media outlets you name are right wing and they are profit driven. Probably you would not know what a left wing media actually looked like or what it said.

Ask yourself -- why would General Electric, the owner of NBC, run a left wing media operation? Does NBC constantly run stories against the wasteful Bush/Obama wars? Do you think Gen. Elec. doesn't control the newsroom?

Limbaugh and the rest of his crowd are carried on ABC, NBC, and CBS radio all over the country.
 
 
+8 # Guest 2010-07-11 07:50
Because they are not left wing, at best they are, as the above article describes, like CNN and their ilk, and at worst they tend to fall in with the right wing bullies.
 
 
0 # Guest 2010-07-18 12:35
Quoting Ted Apelt:
Why is there no mention of the "left wing media elite" like ABC, NBC, CBS, CNBC, etc.???


Because there is no "left wing media elite." Never has been. It's simply a ploy from which the Eastern Establishment's elitist faction use to operate, manipulate, and control public opinion. For example, the Harriman family, would choose to embrace the left wing, liberal, or democratic ideology, simply for the number of constituency who'd cast their votes in their direction. Once they've secured their position, and the trust of those who've voted for them, they could set about making changes within the Constitution, via their lobbyists and corporate lawyers who've been assigned to D.C. for the specific task of shaping the rule of law to jibe with their own vested interests, and personal agendas. Like the old adage, "Money talks, B.S. walks." You can take that to the bank [or your Wall Street financial houses], laughing all the way.

Does anyone remember the Luces, Henry and Claire Booth, specifically, and supposedly of the left wing liberal and "unbiased" Fourth Estate, owners of Time Magazine? They were "assets" and I shouldn't have to point out to whom, at this stage of the game. Therefore, for the sake of simplicity, let's educate ourselves to the obvious facts of life, here. There is no bi-partisan political parity of parties happening here. Nor, has there been, most especially, since the Watergate fiasco. Because, it's basically been a "1 party-2 branches" system ever since. Why do you think Nixon became so paranoid late into his term of office?
 
 
+26 # Guest 2010-07-10 20:57
Frighteningly on target. So, are we destined to go the way of Weimar Germany?
 
 
0 # Guest 2010-07-15 09:56
Sorry to say, most probably.
 
 
+29 # Guest 2010-07-11 02:04
The public had never heard of "Brain Washing" until the Korean WAr but it had been practiced for many years in secluded rooms.... Now it is in the open used every day..BY THE Corporate owned MEDIA.
Someway recently asked what has happened to Journalism? The media do not want truth they want to CONTROL the THOUGHTS and Ideals that are the domain of "RIGHT>..So the MEDIA is the Greatest Brain Washing device in our nations..
 
 
+7 # Guest 2010-07-11 03:22
Is it actually worse than before? Looking back at the mass media during the 2nd World War and Korea, the US may actually have made some progress. Back then the media was in lockstep behind the government. You also didn't have to be a suspected enemy combatant or terrorist sympathizer to suffer detention without trial. Japanese ancestry was enough to get you locked up.

Israel not only calls this country "the only democracy in the Middle East.", government officials and the local media also calls the Israeli system 'Hafrada', which means 'separation' in Hebrew. It's interesting to note that the Africaan's word, 'Apartheid' also means separation.

Perhaps the progressive forces in the USA should start using the Hebrew term to describe Israel - turn it into a dirty word!
 
 
+20 # Guest 2010-07-11 03:53
Excellent, instructive article. And now, here in the U.S. of (greed and power) A.(ddiction), instructive is considered to be destructive by our millionaire, neo-con rulers. They (the likes of ABC, NBC, CBS,etc., the corporate "mess" media, and hardly liberal) don't instruct we the sheeple via good investigative reporting and coverage.

Instead, we're mesmerized and diverted quite well, and spun a la karlrove and Faux News style into believing caca beneath contempt. Say it often enough, over and over, and the sheeple will believe it (i.e. "it's gonna be a close election, and the right's gonna take over"). Such caca serves a purpose - it's needed to help cover up election fraud,

And failure to mention and cover so much more also serves the same purpose: keep the military/indust rial/corporate/ terror complex rulers of ours with their billions flowing in, and in POWER.
 
 
+2 # Guest 2010-07-11 04:03
What about MSNBC? Isn't it a little bit better?
 
 
+1 # Guest 2010-07-12 14:16
meh, they are critical of Bush, but I would hardly call them left wing in general. They parrot much of what the right has to say without applying any critical thinking and they allow that the rightist starting point is the neutral ground.

For example they never challenge the right wing myth of "job creating taxcuts", they allow that propaganda to unquestioningly be pushed as fact on the airwaves. the reality is quite different, the tax cutting administrations have some of the worse annual job creation statistics of any administration. Bush is by far the lowest on the wrung in terms of job creation, reagan is only slightly better. Clinton, Carter and johnson saw the most substantial gains in job creation under their administrations . Look up "Job Creation by Administration" on google, the Wall Street Journal has a nice table with the data.

The next fight they will let go unchecked is the tax increases, when in fact they will be letting bad tax cuts expire.
 
 
+16 # Guest 2010-07-11 04:33
The reason there is no mention of the so-called "left wing media elite" is that it is non-existent. It is a leftover boogeyman that was once used to scare larval conservatives with, and has subsequently been proven to have no credibility. ALL corporate owned media is center-right, or fully right. The ONLY "elite left wing media" left is in print, and as noted in the story above, has too few subscribers to count compared to the consumers of television.
 
 
0 # Guest 2010-07-13 10:39
Quoting eldoryder:
The reason there is no mention of the so-called "left wing media elite" is that it is non-existent. It is a leftover boogeyman that was once used to scare larval conservatives with, and has subsequently been proven to have no credibility. ALL corporate owned media is center-right, or fully right. The ONLY "elite left wing media" left is in print, and as noted in the story above, has too few subscribers to count compared to the consumers of television.


some "left-wing media" still exist on the radio ... it's called "Pacifica" ...
 
 
+19 # Guest 2010-07-11 04:40
Time will show that the Soviet "Iron Curtain" was nothing compared to this "American Curtain". It's fortunate for the right wingers that so many people can be so easily led by lies...

The internet is the last frontier of truth... here's hoping it stays free of corporate imposed restrictions.
 
 
+17 # Guest 2010-07-11 05:47
Which tv 'news' station talks against the war? NONE
Which tv 'news' station tells the Palestinian side? NONE
Which tv 'news' station talks of about reducing spending for militarism, curtailing enthusiasm for militarism or doesn't have the red, white and blue in the background? NONE

Folks, this is nationalist socialist amerca and you don't have a hope in...
 
 
+2 # Guest 2010-07-11 12:46
Exactly. Be prepared kids.
 
 
+4 # Guest 2010-07-11 05:53
You're joking, right? It's because there's no such thing at those so-called "news" outlets!
 
 
+9 # Guest 2010-07-11 05:54
Ted Apelt - Because it doesn't exist.

I was disappointed that the did not document the massive influence the Reich-wing 'think tanks' put their stamp on the coverage by corporate media.

“The point of the big lie that the news media has a liberal bias is perpetrated so conservatives can then out of hand disregard any negative things said about conservatives.”
 
 
+10 # Guest 2010-07-11 06:14
Quoting Ted Apelt:
Why is there no mention of the "left wing media elite" like ABC, NBC, CBS, CNBC, etc.???



Because it doesn't exist. “The point of the big lie that the news media has a liberal bias is perpetrated so conservatives can then out of hand disregard any negative things said about conservatives.” Rack Jite-

I was disappointed the professor didn't touch on the influence of the highly subsidized Reich-wing think tanks have on the content & converge by main- stream corporate media.
 
 
+14 # Guest 2010-07-11 06:19
THE WHOLE BUNCH AT FOX NEWS COULD BE NICKNAMED "GOEBELS."
 
 
+13 # Guest 2010-07-11 06:26
Follow the money: cue bono? Who profits most from the metastasizing worldwide police state, inane airport regimentation, using the word "war" to refer to our illegal invasion of sovereign nations (Afghanistan, Iraq twice) in order to loot them and/or establish military bases (or, in Afghanistan, to pursue the illusory safe oil pipeline). If evil loves the dark, around whom do the dark clouds cluster? Israel? The U.S.? (Our enhancement of Israel's nuclear capability, and India's -- two countries that won't sign the NPT?) Our own NP, even though we signed the NPT? The fact-free propaganda from most "news" stations? The ugly rich, who now control more relative wealth than they did in 1929? We've been propagandizing our citizens since at least Bernays and Lippman in the 1930s. Who benefits? Not the 95% who are sliding toward the edge of what looks like an abyss. Cue bono?
 
 
0 # Guest 2010-07-11 06:54
Would the Professor care to name at least ten Israeli Jews who have "returned to Germany" in the past five years?
 
 
+12 # Guest 2010-07-11 09:26
Mitch, I found a number of sites with such information. One is www.somethingjewish.co.uk

An excerpt from 2005:
The most frequent reply to why people left is: “The question is not why we left, but why it took us so long to do so.”
Israelis in Australia wrote that “maybe it’s the lunatic working hours; the lack of leisure culture, a government that cares more about its minorities (settlers, ultra-Orthodox, etc..) than us; political intrigue, the gridlock at the Glilot junction while the Jewish settlements have bypass roads to their bypass roads.”
 
 
+16 # Guest 2010-07-11 07:36
This just underlines the importance of something like Reader Supported News, The Nation, Democracy Now and going to foreign sources. I guess I ought to be reading the Guardian in the UK too.

I still like the bleatings of Keith Olbermann and Rachael Maddow as they comment on our nutty nation.

This is a dead on analysis of the situation.
 
 
+6 # eddiethelip 2010-07-12 00:18
Please don't forget John Stewart - another voice in the wilderness
 
 
+8 # Guest 2010-07-11 08:38
Please send this analysis to CNN. For a long time now they have been trying to copy Fox Noise and although not succeeding, they have managed to completely destroy their reputation of being a reliable news service.
 
 
0 # Guest 2010-07-11 09:34
Dear Mitch -

http://www.acjna.org/acjna/articles_detail.aspx?id=406
 
 
+8 # Guest 2010-07-11 10:29
This is one example of why I refuse to sit tight and let them lie to our faces. I confront the lies and bullying every time I get the chance. I'm not the media, but I have some small skill with words, so I'll use it to good effect when I can.

The Right Wing, including its media outlets, is made up of myopic, generally bigoted bullies. The left has very few people who can speak up in response with nothing to lose.

And, of course, one mustn't forget the RW media's habit of painting anyone to the left of Nixon with a "far left" paint brush--ignoring , of course, that there IS no "far left" of any consequence in this country. Of course, when you're standing on the far right side of the world, it's easy to be confused by where the center might be.

Aren't many articles that cover this info with such accuracy. Great job.
 
 
-8 # Guest 2010-07-11 12:23
Left wing journalism is often as guilty as right wing journalism in terms what Larry Davidson refers to as right wing
journalistic 'thought police' If Lawrence Davidson thinks that it is ethical and fair for a journalist reporting on events to tell Israelis to move back to Europe and adds commentary in support of this idea than his bias is clear about what he really thinks about Israel and Israeli related issues. How is Larry Davidson different than the right wing journalists that he criticizes?
 
 
+6 # Guest 2010-07-11 16:21
Quoting J Weiner:
Left wing journalism is often as guilty as right wing journalism in terms what Larry Davidson refers to as right wing journalistic 'thought police' If Lawrence Davidson thinks that it is ethical and fair for a journalist reporting on events to tell Israelis to move back to Europe and adds commentary in support of this idea than his bias is clear about what he really thinks about Israel and Israeli related issues. How is Larry Davidson different than the right wing journalists that he criticizes?


Umm...the "commentary" was actually something called "facts," and it confirms Davidson's theory that you are unable to recognize facts as such, and instead call it bias. It is continually brought home to me that the true division between right-wingers and the rest of the more reality-based world is that right-wingers have no concept of irony; this also makes their own hypocrisy difficult to recognize.
 
 
-5 # Guest 2010-07-12 02:28
Speaking of fact versus commentary, would Larry Davidson and you support the idea of sending all the Israelis to Europe even though a very significant percentage of the population is from North Africa, the Middle East and countries other than in Europe from which they were forced to leave after the creation of Israel or more recent events because of a very threatening situation. One problem regarding the dogmatic liberal/left is that in terms of analyzing the right they are often on target in terms of the criticism rendered but when it comes to the left/liberal bias there is too often a failure to even think that maybe there is a possibility that the issue is more complicated or that statistics or facts are often manipulated for political purposes.
 
 
0 # Guest 2010-07-11 13:07
While I agree with Prof. Davidson's basic premise that the current media moguls and political operatives are contributing to the successful dumbing-down of the American body politic, it is a shame that he backs it up with such flimsy and/or easily refutable or laughable "proof." It's to the disadvantage of those trying to improve the system when they use overly simplified or easily disregarded or discredited "facts" upon which to base their arguments.
 
 
+3 # Guest 2010-07-11 13:41
I happened upon a Christian TV station, the preacher, whose name I don't know, talked about Obama abandoning Israel. His comment was to the affect that if the U.S. didn't support Israel, God would punish the U.S. severely. Good Luck with that.
 
 
+1 # Guest 2010-07-11 15:34
There's always PBS' News broadcast which is fairly neutral but seldom asks the hard questions or goes after stories that might stir things up. The people they invite to comment are almost all mainstream--wit h slight tendencies toward conservatism vs. liberalism. They do also get academics to weigh in but most of them have a slant. But with Bill Moyers gone as well as David Brancacio (sp is wrong) nobody's taking on the tough questions. I wonder why.

There is always Air America and a few programs I really like such as Thom Hartmann.

Then, although a print media, there's the Chicago Tribune. One of its reporters has been investigating and following for 20 years or so the charges that a commander routinely abused and tortured black arrestees. The Trib finally took notice (I didn't hear all of this so am not sure of some details. The reporter and two of his colleagues, experienced in criminal justice, were fired.

Can't find that story on MPR so far.
 
 
0 # Guest 2010-07-12 19:07
More very good print media:

The Progressive Mag

Mother Jones

The Nation Mag. and some articles in
Rolling Stone
 
 
-4 # Guest 2010-07-12 05:16
MSM certainly has a liberal bias -- consider who these journalists give money to and who gets their campaign contributions: the list is overwhelmingly Democrat or further left. They object to this bias charge because they are unaware of their bias (as are many of the commentators in the posts above) and they are very aware that they are trying "to be fair".

Sadly however, no matter how much they try to be fair, their worldview, which is definitely left of the views of the general population, affects their choices of what to cover and what facts are relevant.

To get at the truth, one should watch both MSNBC and FOX, read the New York Times and National Review, listen to NPR and the conservative shock-jocks. When you don't attend to the arguments that the opposition is making, you are only seeing one side of the story.

Lee Nason
New Bedford, Massachusetts
 
 
+7 # Guest 2010-07-12 05:47
The "genius" things conservatives do are this:

They attack unrelentingly and unapologetically.

They attack personally and on every level.

They ALL work together on the attacks and NO ONE falls out of line.

Think of the levels of insidiousness in their attacks on President Obama: They attack the idea that he's even ALLOWED to be President. They never even refer to him as President. They make bizarre claims about crimes he's committed relentlessly. They attack his family. They attack what they want you to think he MIGHT be thinking, so he'll be impotent to do anything about it.
 
 
+4 # Guest 2010-07-12 05:50
For example, they've attacked where he came from and what he did for a living before becoming President. Unprecedented, right? Remember, before the community organizing thug from the Chicago political machine took office? Remember, the hillbilly tiny state governor from Arkansas? Remember the hillbilly peanut farmer from Georgia?

This isn't "ironic". This is what slime-bags do to get their way - whatever it takes.
 
 
0 # Guest 2010-07-12 23:40
I Welcome the move. I expected this long time ago. Effected from 08.02.1967.

Now at least all the media is open to air. Just imagine 20 years back in India.

Recently even in India, Supreme Court of India also passed a land mark judgment. But did not clarify "Others"
 
 
0 # Guest 2010-07-15 10:20
The only "left wing media" I know of would be something like "Democracy Now!", which is hardly mainstream in the way that CNN, ABC, or Fox are.
 
 
0 # Guest 2010-08-26 22:25
To

White House Thought Police.

Several times I repeatedly complained about Chennai politicians, Like any other person these politicians can read thoughts, wash and so on. I am a listener and not a thought reader. I listen to these persons speeches which is not machine language. Here they control citizens like this and say that I am in their personal file. Recently I have to go to one of my clients office near chennai airport. They cooly make me hear flight sounds. What happened, next day I saw news that china's flight crashed. This is what is happening with me for the last 20 years. Luckily they did not wash my head in writing this complaint.

I request White House to concentrate on Chennai and not in India even in case of International Laws. I have been suffering with these chennai politicians for the past 44 years (note please 44 years).

Note: I am answerable in this regard to White House at any point of time.
 
 
0 # roclafamilia 2010-10-21 01:27
Helpful blog, bookmarked the website with hopes to read more!
 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN