RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Politics
How the Media Let Malicious Idiots Take Over Print
Saturday, 23 March 2019 13:07

Monbiot writes: "If our politics is becoming less rational, crueler and more divisive, this rule of public life is partly to blame: the more disgracefully you behave, the bigger the platform the media will give you."

A Fox News studio. (photo: Fox)
A Fox News studio. (photo: Fox)


How the Media Let Malicious Idiots Take Over

By George Monbiot, Guardian UK

23 March 19


Be it Jacob Rees-Mogg or Nigel Farage, blusterers and braggarts are rewarded with platforms that distort our political debate

f our politics is becoming less rational, crueller and more divisive, this rule of public life is partly to blame: the more disgracefully you behave, the bigger the platform the media will give you. If you are caught lying, cheating, boasting or behaving like an idiot, you’ll be flooded with invitations to appear on current affairs programmes. If you play straight, don’t expect the phone to ring.

In an age of 24-hour news, declining ratings and intense competition, the commodity in greatest demand is noise. Never mind the content, never mind the facts: all that now counts is impact. A loudmouthed buffoon, already the object of public outrage, is a far more bankable asset than someone who knows what they’re talking about. So the biggest platforms are populated by blusterers and braggarts. The media is the mirror in which we see ourselves. With every glance, our self-image subtly changes.

When the BBC launched its new Scotland channel recently, someone had the bright idea of asking Mark Meechan – who calls himself Count Dankula – to appear on two of its discussion programmes. His sole claim to fame is being fined for circulating a video showing how he had trained his girlfriend’s dog to raise its paw in a Nazi salute when he shouted: “Sieg heil!” and “Gas the Jews”. The episodes had to be ditched after a storm of complaints. This could be seen as an embarrassment for the BBC. Or it could be seen as a triumph, as the channel attracted massive publicity a few days after its launch.

The best thing to have happened to the career of William Sitwell, the then-editor of Waitrose magazine, was the scandal he caused when he sent a highly unprofessional, juvenile email to a freelance journalist, Selene Nelson, who was pitching an article on vegan food. “How about a series on killing vegans, one by one. Ways to trap them? How to interrogate them properly? Expose their hypocrisy? Force-feed them meat,” he asked her. He was obliged to resign. As a result of the furore, he was snapped up by the Telegraph as its new food critic, with a front-page launch and expensive publicity shoot.

Last June, the scandal merchant Isabel Oakeshott was exposed for withholding a cache of emails detailing Leave.EU co-founder Arron Banks’ multiple meetings with Russian officials, which might have been of interest to the Electoral Commission’s investigation into the financing of the Brexit campaign. During the following days she was invited on to Question Time and other outlets, platforms she used to extol the virtues of Brexit. By contrast, the journalist who exposed her, Carole Cadwalladr, has been largely frozen out by the BBC.

This is not the first time Oakeshott appears to have been rewarded for questionable behaviour. Following the outrage caused by her unevidenced (and almost certainly untrue) story that David Cameron put his penis in a dead pig’s mouth, Paul Dacre, the then editor of the Daily Mail, promoted her to political editor-at-large.

The Conservative MP Mark Francois became hot media property the moment he made a complete ass of himself on BBC News. He ripped up a letter from the German-born head of Airbus that warned about the consequences of Brexit, while announcing: “My father, Reginald Francois, was a D-Day veteran. He never submitted to bullying by any German, and neither will his son.” Now he’s all over the BBC.

In the US, the phenomenon is more advanced. G Gordon Liddy served 51 months in prison as a result of his role in the Watergate conspiracy, organising the burglary of the Democratic National committee headquarters. When he was released, he used his notoriety to launch a lucrative career. He became the host of a radio show syndicated to 160 stations, and a regular guest on current affairs programmes. Oliver North, who came to public attention for his leading role in the Iran-Contra scandal, also landed a syndicated radio programme, as well as a newspaper column, and was employed by Fox as a television show host and regular commentator. Similarly, Darren Grimes, in the UK, is widely known only for the £20,000 fine he received for his activities during the Brexit campaign. Now he’s being used by Sky as a pundit.

The most revolting bigots, such as Tucker Carlson and Donald Trump, built their public profiles on the media platforms they were given by attacking women, people of colour and vulnerable minorities. Trump leveraged his notoriety all the way to the White House. Boris Johnson is taking the same track, using carefully calibrated outrage to keep himself in the public eye.

On both sides of the Atlantic, the unscrupulous, duplicitous and preposterous are brought to the fore, as programme-makers seek to generate noise. Malicious clowns are invited to discuss issues of the utmost complexity. Ludicrous twerps are sought out and lionised. The BBC used its current affairs programmes to turn Nigel Farage and Jacob Rees-Mogg into reality TV stars, and now they have the nation in their hands.

My hope is that eventually the tide will turn. People will become so sick of the charlatans and exhibitionists who crowd the airwaves that the BBC and other media will be forced to reconsider. But while we wait for a resurgence of sense in public life, the buffoons who have become the voices of the nation drive us towards a no-deal Brexit and a host of other disasters.

Email This Page

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS: We Must Demand That the American People Have Access to Mueller's Full Report Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=36361"><span class="small">Robert Reich, Robert Reich's Facebook Page</span></a>   
Saturday, 23 March 2019 11:45

Reich writes: "Special Counsel Robert Mueller has submitted his report to Attorney General William Barr for review, which means he has completed his investigation into the Trump campaign's ties to Russian operatives during the election."

Former Clinton labor secretary Robert Reich. (photo: Steve Russell/Toronto Star)
Former Clinton labor secretary Robert Reich. (photo: Steve Russell/Toronto Star)


We Must Demand That the American People Have Access to Mueller's Full Report

By Robert Reich, Robert Reich's Facebook Page

23 March 19

 

pecial Counsel Robert Mueller has submitted his report to Attorney General William Barr for review, which means he has completed his investigation into the Trump campaign's ties to Russian operatives during the election. Barr will now determine whether to release the report to the American people.

We must demand that: 1) The American people have access to the full report. 2) All of Mueller's records are preserved. 3) Congress has unfiltered access to all of the findings to conduct their own oversight. We can't afford to settle for anything less.

Email This Page

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
RSN: Let's Not Restore or Mythologize Obama Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=14693"><span class="small">Jeff Cohen, Reader Supported News</span></a>   
Saturday, 23 March 2019 10:48

Cohen writes: "With former vice president Joe Biden seemingly ready to join the presidential race, a Washington Post reporter wrote: 'Biden and his allies picture an election that poses a choice between four more years of Trump disruption and a chance to restore the Obama administration.'"

Barack Obama. (photo: Getty Images)
Barack Obama. (photo: Getty Images)


Let's Not Restore or Mythologize Obama

By Jeff Cohen, Reader Supported News

23 March 19

 

ith former vice president Joe Biden seemingly ready to join the presidential race, a Washington Post reporter wrote: “Biden and his allies picture an election that poses a choice between four more years of Trump disruption and a chance to restore the Obama administration.”

Ah, the hope of an Obama restoration!

But is a “return to normalcy” truly enough? After decades in which giant corporations have amassed huge political and financial control while racial and economic inequities widened – and with climate scientists now telling us that planetary survival requires radical reforms?  

And what about the real danger that a return to Obama-style, go-slow “corporate liberalism” would lead to the next right-wing faux-populist upsurge, this time commanded by someone far smarter and slicker than Trump?

Given what Trump has done to our country and world, it’s no wonder that many Americans long for Obama. He was not a bigot or insult artist. His administration was not rocked by major scandal, with top aides off to prison. He was level-headed – “No Drama Obama.” He didn’t deny science. President Obama was smart, with a vocabulary clearly exceeding that of a 4th-grade child. He was hip.

That’s what millions of people remember.

I, too, remember all that. But we should also recall the political substance beyond the pleasant image.

We need to remember the vacillation – and worse, the opportunism and corporatism. As well as cause and effect: that Obama’s tenure paved the way for the rise of Trump.

Progressive analyst Matt Stoller made that case in a well-documented Washington Post column on the eve of Trump’s inauguration, headlined “Democrats can’t win until they recognize how bad Obama’s financial policies were: He had opportunities to help the working class, and he passed them up.” Stoller wrote of the Obama administration enabling 9 million home foreclosures and anti-consumer corporate mergers, including dangerous consolidation in healthcare, partly caused by Obamacare’s “lack of a public option for health coverage.” Noting that most new jobs in the Obama years were temporary or part-time and the decline in lifespans among whites, Stoller concluded: “When Democratic leaders don’t protect the people, the people get poorer, they get angry ...”

Back in 2008, I was delighted when Obama defeated the Clinton machine and seemed to put an end to that machine. (If only!) But I wasn’t taken in by his “hope” and “change” rhetoric.

Obama’s first presidential run offered reasons to be skeptical – for example, how he broke records in pocketing Wall Street donations. Once in office, those ties hamstrung his economic policies.

I remember the opportunism of that campaign: How Obama and his team sought the endorsements of antiwar celebrities in 2007/2008 by saying “All of our advisers opposed the Iraq invasion and all of Hillary’s supported it. Why are you on the fence?” And I remember that – as soon as Hillary was out of the race – Obama chose one pro-war associate after another, including running mate Joe Biden, probably the single most important Democrat in enabling the Iraq invasion.

Those hawkish appointees ultimately included Hillary Clinton at the State Department; they steered Obama to continue – and in some actions, areas and powers, expand – the ineffective and immoral  “War on Terror” inherited from Bush, and passed on to Trump.

Two days after Obama’s 2008 election, I remember how even my small sliver of hope evaporated when he selected Rahm Emanuel as his chief of staff – a stridently pro-corporate, pro-war Democrat despised by progressives since he worked in the Clinton White House and helped lead legislative campaigns that pushed through the NAFTA trade pact, the 1994 crime bill, and welfare “reform.”

Like Emanuel, Obama’s next two chiefs of staff also came out of big finance: William Daley from JP Morgan Chase and Jacob Lew from Citigroup.

It’s well-documented that Obama loaded his team of economic advisers with Wall Streeters. So it’s no accident that Wall Street was bailed out, but not underwater homeowners, during the biggest foreclosure wave in US history. The inside story of Obama’s semi-regular capitulation to economic elites is told in Ron Suskind’s book “Confidence Men: Wall Street, Washington, and the Education of a President.” Largely with GOP support – and over the objections of most Democrats in Congress – Obama kept pushing the corporate-friendly Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal until his last months in office.

Obama appointed Monsanto executives and allies to key food and agriculture jobs. While he acknowledged the science of climate change and talked of the need for action, Obama’s tenure coincided with a boom in US oil production and lethal infrastructure, and his administration fervently promoted fracking worldwide.

His healthcare reform was a Republican-originated measure that expanded health coverage largely by enriching private insurance firms and big pharma, whose lobbyists were allowed to obstruct cost controls. Although it left millions uninsured, Obamacare did expand Medicaid and increase coverage in poor and rural communities and to young people.  

In one lengthy, link-filled sentence, journalist Nathan J. Robinson summarized the progressive critique of Obama:

“He deported staggering numbers of immigrants, let Wall Street criminals off the hook, failed to take on (and now proudly boasts of support for) the fossil fuel industry, sold over $100 billion in arms to the brutal Saudi government, killed American citizens with drones (and then made sickening jokes about it), killed lots more non-American citizens with drones (including Yemenis going to a wedding) and then misled the public about it, promised ‘the most transparent administration ever’ and then was ‘worse than Nixon’ in his paranoia about leakers, pushed a market-friendly healthcare plan based on conservative premises instead of aiming for single-payer, and showered Israel with both public support and military aid even as it systematically violated the human rights of Palestinians.”

Yes, Obama faced intense Republican obstruction in Congress. But it wasn’t Mitch McConnell who stacked the Obama administration with corporatist appointees and policies.

In pure math, Obama’s tenure was a boon to the GOP – Democrats lost their big majorities in the US House and Senate and nearly 1,000 state legislative seats, while the 50 governorships shifted from a strong Democratic margin to strong Republican majority.

My point is simple: It’s not good enough to “restore” Obama-ism. Look at the recent pattern of presidential history: When corporate-beholden Democrats win the White House and implement cautious, status-quo policies while inequality worsens, two things happen: 1) Right-wing Republicans quickly take back Congress, and 2) An even more dangerous GOP president follows.

The last two Democratic presidents gave “hope” a bad name. First, Bill Clinton, “the man from Hope (Arkansas),” and then Barack Obama, whose iconic campaign poster featured the word. Both made it difficult for their successor to be a Democrat.

To break this hopeless cycle, what’s needed is the election of a progressive president who will fight to radically shift power and wealth away from the corporate 1 percent toward a multi-racial coalition of the 99 percent and toward environmental sanity. Bernie Sanders would fit the bill. So might Elizabeth Warren.

But not tepid Democrats who preach moderation and bipartisanship – and seek to restore Obama-era incrementalism.

The outcome in 2020, like in the last presidential election, may well hinge on Midwestern voters and two essential questions: 1) Will young voters and people of color be inspired enough to turn out in big numbers for the Democratic candidate? 2) Will working-class whites swing back to the Democrat?

I learned a bit about white, working-class voters in the “Rust Belt” while coproducing a new documentary movie, “The Corporate Coup D’État,” on the simultaneous, 40-year rise in both economic inequality and corporate political power. Our film team interviewed corporate-loathing Ohioans who’d voted for Obama, chose Bernie over Hillary in the Democratic primary, and then flipped to populist-sounding Trump in the general election as an alternative to the dreaded status quo.

To win back these voters – and to inspire voters of color and youth – will require a Democratic nominee who is a forward-looking, progressive populist.  

While it’s true that “any Democrat is better than Trump,” reverting back to the Obama era is a return to a status quo that stopped working for millions of voters long ago.  

Email This Page


Jeff Cohen is co-founder of RootsAction.org and co-producer of the documentary “The Corporate Coup D’État.”

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.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Why in the Name of God Would Stacey Abrams Run as Joe Biden's Vice President? Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=11104"><span class="small">Charles Pierce, Esquire</span></a>   
Saturday, 23 March 2019 08:28

Pierce writes: "It's early days yet, and Joe Biden already has floated the Hindenburg of trial balloons. Twice. First, his people start bruiting about the notion that he will pick Stacey Abrams, who got cheated out of the governorship of Georgia, as his running mate long before he gets the nomination."

Stacey Abrams. (photo: Earl Gibson III/Getty Images)
Stacey Abrams. (photo: Earl Gibson III/Getty Images)


Why in the Name of God Would Stacey Abrams Run as Joe Biden's Vice President?

By Charles Pierce, Esquire

23 March 19


A report says Biden is floating the idea of promising to run with Abrams as his VP. That would guarantee Abrams makes one friend and 18 enemies on every debate stage.

t's early days yet, and Joe Biden already has floated the Hindenburg of trial balloons. Twice. First, his people start bruiting about the notion that he will pick Stacey Abrams, who got cheated out of the governorship of Georgia, as his running mate long before he gets the nomination. Then, word comes out that Biden will promise to serve only one term. Both of these are dumb enough to make you wonder if Biden should be allowed to cut his own meat at dinner.

Now, the former comes from Mike Allen at Axios, so you may want to keep a salt lick handy while you think about it. However, the logic, as described by Allen, does sound like it came from somebody in the overpriced Smartest Guys In The Room consultant universe.

The popular Georgia Democrat, who at age 45 is 31 years younger than Biden, would bring diversity and excitement to the ticket—showing voters, in the words of a close source, that Biden "isn't just another old white guy."

First of all, historically, this never works and it always looks desperate. It looked desperate in 1976, when Ronald Reagan tried to assuage the Eastern Wall Street wing of the Republicans, the part of the party he was three-quarters of the way to supplanting anyway, by picking Senator Richard Schweiker of Pennsylvania immediately before the Republican National Convention. It didn't work in 2016, when Ted Cruz announced the formation of a Stop Trump ticket with Carly Fiorina in the second spot.

"Elect Me Because Look Who I'm Running With" is an open invitation to every voter to wonder why the ticket shouldn't be reversed. In any event, it doesn't exactly demonstrate confidence on the part of the guy running for president.

More specifically, why in the name of God would Abrams do it? Right now, she's no worse than the second-hottest ticket in Democratic politics, a favorite to win whatever office for which she chooses to run in Georgia. (If it's the U.S. Senate, she becomes even more of a national figure overnight.) She's going to give all that up to throw a life preserver to a guy whose time probably passed in 2008, if not long before. (Jonathan Chait disagrees.) She's going to give all that up to make enemies out of the progressive base that already adores her?

Choosing to go with Biden now guarantees that she makes one friend and 18 enemies on every debate stage.

As bad an idea as that is, the one-term pledge is worse, and it makes you wonder if Biden truly has been alive over the past 10 years. Even if the Republican Party weren't completely committed to the idea that any Democratic president is prima facie illegitimate, it still would mean that Biden would become a lame duck about halfway through his inaugural address. Unless he's planning to drug Mitch McConnell and ship him off to the Kuriles, Biden would find he had a Merrick Garland problem with his entire government.

Moreover, the fact that he appears unconcerned about this obvious fact is an indication that Biden still has in him a belief in the the Good Ol' Boy Senate way of doing things and an indication that he believes that, somehow, that will immunize him against McConnell's proven track record of successful obstructionism. And that might be the best argument of all against a Biden nomination.

Email This Page

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
2020 Dem Presidential Hopefuls Flee Israel Lobbies' AIPAC After MoveOn.org Boycott Call Print
Friday, 22 March 2019 13:12

Cole writes: "Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris, Pete Buttigieg and Julian Castro, among candidates for the Democratic Party nomination for president, have all announced that they will not attend the annual conference of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC)."

Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the 2018 AIPAC conference in Washington, D.C. (photo: Haim Zach/GPO)
Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the 2018 AIPAC conference in Washington, D.C. (photo: Haim Zach/GPO)


2020 Dem Presidential Hopefuls Flee Israel Lobbies' AIPAC After MoveOn.org Boycott Call

By Juan Cole, Informed Comment

22 March 19

 

ernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris, Pete Buttigieg and Julian Castro, among candidates for the Democratic Party nomination for president, have all announced that they will not attend the annual conference of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC)

The powerful grassroots organization of center-left Democrats, MoveOn.org, has called for a boycott of the annual AIPAC conference.

It is a potential watershed moment. MoveOn.org was founded in 1998 by tech entrepreneurs Joan Blades and Wes Boyd, a husband and wife team behind Berkeley Systems. It came initially out of an email campaign aimed at preventing the impeachment of Bill Clinton, arguing that Congress should censure him and “move on.” The emails went viral, tipping Blades and Boyd to the potential of grassroots internet organizing as opposed to depending on corporate sponsors.

MoveOn.org seems to me to have moved left over time, including on Israel/Palestine. It spearheaded the movement to get out of Iraq in the zeroes. It also protested the 2009 war on little Gaza.

A Bernie Sanders spokesperson told NBC News that the senator is “concerned about the platform AIPAC is providing for leaders who have expressed bigotry and oppose a two-state solution.” Sanders did not go to AIPAC in 2016, but Hillary Clinton has been a frequent guest and is close to the Israel lobbies and the Netanyahu government. She hasn’t given any sign of caring what happens to the Palestinians one way or another since about 1996. Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer will be headliners at AIPAC this year. The organization says it isn’t disturbed by the exodus of presidential candidates, insisting that it focuses on Congress. Hmm. I wonder what it does for the congressional representatives?

The MoveOn.org call for a boycott comes after a long period in which some form of the the far right Likud Party and even further far right coalition partners have dominated Israeli politics for nearly two decades. This fact about Israel has in turn shaped AIPAC, which in the early 1990s would not have met with most of the people it now pushes on the American public as likeable democrats. In fact, Likud and its partners have adopted an unstated Greater Israel agenda of completely annexing the Palestinian West Bank, and the Syrian Golan Heights, conquered in 1967, and of keeping the Gaza Strip under a debilitating civilian blockade. These actions are illegal in international law, since the 1945 United Nations Charter forbids acquisition of other people’s territory through warfare.

The US political establishment, which accepts tens of millions of dollars in campaign contributions from various Israel lobbies, has dealt with this fascist search for Lebensraum or “living room,” as it was called in Central Europe in the 1930s, by pretending that there is an ongoing political negotiation toward a Palestinian state, which there has not been for nearly two decades.

The Democratic Left is calling BS on this charade, which is keeping 5 million Palestinians stateless and under some form of military Occupation for decades to come.

In the past year the Netanyahu government has

  • enacted rules of engagement for unarmed civilian protesters in Gaza instructing the Israeli army to shoot them dead (a war crime);

  • initiated a declaration that Israel’s sovereignty is solely invested in its Jewish citizens, making Palestinian-Israelis (21% of the population) second class citizens;

  • made one of his coalition partners ally with the Kahanist Jewish Power faction; Kahanists are considered terrorists by the US government.

DC hit peak hypocrisy recently when AIPAC partisans in Congress actually implicitly condemned Rep. Ilhan Omar for “racism” for pointing out that AIPAC directs its affiliates to give money to congressional campaigns in order to influence-peddle for the terrorist-allied, racist Netanyahu government.

The grassroots left in the Democratic Party is fed up with this shell game. MoveOn.org’s web site notes,

    “A new survey from MoveOn Political Action asked members if they believe progressive candidates vying for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination should skip this year’s American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) Policy Conference, held Sunday, March 24th to Tuesday, March 26th in Washington, DC. More than 74% of MoveOn members responded agree or strongly agree with the statement that “any progressive vying to be the Democratic nominee for President should skip the AIPAC conference.”

    The survey, which entails a single prompt, “Any progressive vying to be the Democratic nominee for president should skip the AIPAC conference,” is prefaced by several facts, including:

  • AIPAC spent tens millions of dollars in 2015 to defeat the Iran nuclear deal negotiated by President Obama along with our European and international allies––a historic diplomatic agreement that Trump has tried to derail since taking office.

  • This year’s AIPAC conference is headlined by Benjamin Netanyahu … who has been indicted on bribery and fraud charges, and recently made a deal to bring the “Israeli KKK” … party into the next government.

  • AIPAC has … been known to peddle anti-Muslim and anti-Arab rhetoric while giving platforms to Islamophobes.

  • AIPAC has refused to condemn the antisemitism of Republicans, such as Trump’s friend and advisor Steve Bannon.”
Email This Page

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
<< Start < Prev 941 942 943 944 945 946 947 948 949 950 Next > End >>

Page 941 of 3432

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