Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
Reddit
When asked about his view of CBS Evening News during a radio interview with MSNBC's Joe Scarborough on Monday, Dan Rather said network execs had tried to boost ratings by "dumbing it down and tarting it up."
The media firestorm that's followed illustrates the very point--the larger point--Rather has consistently tried to make about the degradation of the mainstream, corporate news biz and the obliteration of the line between news and entertainment.
Watch as CBS dances, deflects and dodges the valid and valuable criticism levied by Rather and plenty of other media watchdogs. Les Moonves, CBS CEO, called Rather's remark "sexist" and said, "Let's give [Katie] a break."
But it's got nothing to do with Katie Couric. Nor does it really have anything to do with the messenger, Rather (whose colorful, native Texanspeak has gotten him into hot water in the past--much as it did for the late former Governor Anne Richards). It's about the message.
Rather's predecessor at CBS, Walter Cronkite--no fan of Rather himself--offered a similar take in a recent keynote address. According to the Associated Press, Cronkite suggested that the pressure for profits is "threatening the very freedom the nation was built upon."
"It's not just the journalist's job at risk here," Cronkite said. "It's American democracy. It is freedom."
And in a recent New York Times op-ed, FCC Commissioner Michael Copps warned of "pressure from media conglomerates" that has made licensing renewals for the free use of the public airwaves a virtual "rubber-stamp" every eight years. He contrasts this with a past when every three years the requirement that networks serve the public interest was given "a hard look" – prior to "deregulatory mania in the 1980's."
As for Rather, in these last four years he's been a consistent critic of the corporate media and his own role in it. He's self-critical enough--unlike so many others – to know that he weaved and wavered in the run-up to the Iraq War. As he told Bill Moyers, "I don't think there is any excuse for, you know, my performance and the performance of the press in general in the roll up to the war. There were exceptions. There were some people, who, I think, did a better job than others. But overall and in the main there's no question that we didn't do a good job…. We weren't smart enough, we weren't alert enough, we didn't dig enough. And we shouldn't have been fooled in this way…."
Rather has also described a culture of fear that permeates the newsroom. In an interview with BBC he said, "It is an obscene comparison--you know I am not sure I like it--but you know there was a time in South Africa that people would put flaming tyres around people's necks if they dissented. And in some ways the fear is that you will be necklaced here, you will have a flaming tyre of lack of patriotism put around your neck. Now it is that fear that keeps journalists from asking the toughest of the tough questions, and to continue to bore in on the tough questions so often. And again, I am humbled to say, I do not except myself from this criticism."
And, speaking to Moyers: "Fear is in every newsroom in the country. And fear of what? Well… a combination of: if you don't go along to get along, you're going to get the reputation of being a troublemaker. There's also the fear...particularly in networks, they've become huge, international conglomerates. They have big needs, legislative needs, repertory needs in Washington. Nobody has to send you a memo to tell you that that's the case…. And that puts a seed in your mind of, well, if you stick your neck out, if you take the risk of going against the grain with your reporting, is anybody going to back you up?"
Recently, NBC News led its evening news program with two-and-a-half minutes on Paris Hilton. Coverage of Anna Nicole Smith topped Iraq War coverage on the networks night after night. There is no question that the network news programs have become cogs in the conglomerate machine where news is a profit center.
We desperately need a news media that raises the tough questions, acts as watchdogs of the public interest, questions authority--performs the basic duties required of a free press in a democracy. A flawed media leads to a flawed democracy. And in these past six or so years, with some notable exceptions, the media has been too easily intimidated by an administration that used fear to make its case for war, labeled its critics un-American, quashed dissent, perverted the meaning of patriotism and brazenly--on all fronts--subverted the Constitution. As longtime White House correspondent Helen Thomas wrote in The Nation,"[Reporters] lapped up everything the Pentagon and White House could dish out--no questions asked."
So, now, when Dan Rather talks about dumbing down news in order to tart it up--it ain't about Dan, and it ain't about Katie. It's about consolidation, conglomeration, and the impact on the Fourth Estate and our democracy.
Share this article
Katrina vanden Heuvel
Thoughts on politics, current affairs, riffs and reflections on what’s in the news and what’s not--but should be.
RSS
Ms vanden Heuvel...are you serious?
You give Dan Rather a pass on "dumbing down and TARTING up" as "nothing to do with Katie Couric"?
Seriously, if her assignment to the CBS News desk was criticized by...RUSH LIMBAUGH as "dumbing down and tarting up CBS news"...would you say "Yeah, Rush has a point and it's no slight to Ms Couric either".
Posted by Mask at 06/13/2007 @ 4:27pm
CBS is not even close to neutral and Rathers hit piece on Bush hurt the network...and putting Katie,(of "will Harrison Ford direct?" fame, as the most ardent interview she has on record) the light weight, as a replacement was the final straw.
They(CBS) lost credibilty and audience.
Posted by john maasch at 06/13/2007 @ 4:48pm
The latest ratings book on the CBS Evening News with Katie Couric has them at the lowest of the past two decades. People just are not buying what CBS News (the former home of Murrow, Cronkite, and, yes, rather) is selling. Not that it is that much different from what ABC or NBC or CNN or even Fox News is shoveling. They may just be more obvious about it.
Posted by The Goods at 06/13/2007 @ 4:56pm
Trying to get information from the television is now a ridiculous proposition. The networks and CNN (I can't even begin to take the others seriously) now pay so little attention to important issues that watching is pointless. I say this after living the last three months without a television, with complete confidence that a site as superficial as google news will give me everything that cable and network news might.
And no shots of Katie's calves either.
Posted by tjbehrens1 at 06/13/2007 @ 5:22pm
I don't know if I buy Rather's "we weren't smart enough" bit. It didn't take a lot of brains to figure out what was going on in the run up to the war...but it did take some guts to report it, which he and a whole lot of others apparently don't have. Either that, or they were alright with the whole idea, which I think is probably more along the lines of what we have in the MSM. Even now, there's not a lot of debate out there of the "Is this war morally wrong?" type, but more of the "How did bush mismanage the war so badly" type...I would imagine if the war would have went swimingly these same Rather types would be singing thier own praises for trumping it up to begin with.
I agree with "The Goods." Who's buying this crap any more?
Posted by rzs at 06/13/2007 @ 5:33pm
Ms Vanden Heuvel Thank you for your on target article. People don't like to hear they've been duped, but we Amercians have. Between the news telling us we that we need to be afraid of someone coming to get us, and commercials on television trying to get us to buy their products through the fear of not fitting in, or the fear of something bad happening to us if we don't by their product, I would say that the U.S. has become a fear controlled society. Our leadership has slipped so far to the right that none of our news force has seemed to notice...I remember thinking that Bill Clinton was a pretty conservative democrat when he was running for the democratic nomination. We are now told that Clinton was one of those left wing liberals and nobody seems to challenge that. He only appears to be a left wing liberal when you look at him from an extremely conservative right wing stand point. Look at Hilary Clinton. She's a republican running on the democratic ticket. Somewhere along the way, the country took a serious shift to the right and the news folks and the rest of us missed it, but most of the republicans out there presently make Richard Nixon look like a left wing liberal democrat. Dwight Eisenhower would have been thrown out of this modern republican party with his "liberal views". I don't think the news people really missed this. The media, along with everything else in this country, is owned by the wealthy. The wealthy have no national loyalties. Their loyalty is to their bottom line. If they can make more money screwing the U.S., they will, and if things turn out bad here, they can move elsewhere to avoid the fallout. I hope, one day, that the people of this country finally realize that the republican party only represents the ultra wealthy and plays the rest of it's constituents as fools. They get screwed over time and time again, but keep voting that way because of the abortion issue, the flag issue, the gun issue, and now the gay marriage issue. None of the issues mentioned really effect them, but their need to impose their religious beliefs upon others (mostly southern baptists) clouds their reason to see through crap put forth by the republican party.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 06/13/2007 @ 5:36pm
Posted by TJBEHRENS1 06/13/2007 @ 5:22pm |
I caught the CNN "It's news to me" segment the other day and laughed my ass off. It's a reach out to Americans to "tell their stories" about the news that's important to them...I thought, "oh, nice" then I watched as one guy demonstrated that you can put a toilet plunger in a blender, etc...
Posted by rzs at 06/13/2007 @ 5:37pm
its all so simple and obvious...
allow non media corporations to own media outlets like any other business and destroy the integrity of the news delivering aparati of the media outlets.
GE owns NBC...if GE (or any of its many subsidiaries, if it indeed has such, and i'm pretty it does) does something sketchy, will we see it on NBC nightly news? if all media is owned by non media conglomorates (or owns non media interests itself)...think about it, all bullshit econoideology aside. NOT ROCKET SCIENCE!
there was a time when such ownership issues were strictly regulated and although camelot has NEVER nor will NEVER exist in this world, compared to today, the american public had a much better news gathering and reporting apparatus to rely upon than today.
and if the truth disagrees with ideology or bottom line profit, the truth is still the truth and lies, no matter how cleverly constructed or self serving are still lies...
re-instate the old laws. fuck the big conglomorate for profit news liars. they are a menace to our system and real freedom for all. cultural/economic pharisees and parasites.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 06/13/2007 @ 5:45pm
or "nor will EVER"...rather...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 06/13/2007 @ 5:46pm
It's mind-numbing to see the tarts on the TV chuckle and have fake sidebar conversations with each other. And this has worked its way down to local TV where I live. 90% of the news anchors are attractive tele-promter readers (the other 10% are the hold over male authority figures). Its like watching a sit-com. And they're not even good actors.
Unfortunately, my wife watches this type of TV on occasion. This morning she asked me about some of the details of the immigration plan that is being debated and why its so controversial. She said they won't get into specifics on the news!!!
I explained to her that if they took the time to actually go over the details of complex bills and controversial issues, remote controls across the country would click in unison to find the nearest "tarted up" news...or to no news at all.
Posted by BlueTexan at 06/13/2007 @ 6:08pm
you will have a flaming tyre of lack of patriotism put around your neck
I don't think Dan is telling the whole truth.
The mainstream press after initially supporting the Vietnam war, began showing the body bags and questioning the war without any fear of being labeled un-patriotic. So what has changed?
Sure, corporate control has become more complex, but "someone" in these news rooms is making the reporters toe the patriotic line, and it is this "someone" that Dan does not want to out!
Reporters certainly do not answer to the Bush Administration (except at Fox news), so let's dig a little deeper than what Dan Rather is telling us and find out who the real culprit is.
Posted by Metteyya at 06/13/2007 @ 6:16pm
A `fresh' example of why the MSM is often worthless, from the Wall St. Journal Online:
U.S. and Iraqi forces raided a bomb factory yesterday, the Associated Press reports from Baghdad:
The entry room to the al-Arij factory was booby-trapped and the building was empty because the workers fled after apparently being tipped off to the raid, according to the officer, army commander Brig. Gen. Nour al-Din Hussein. He said an anti-aircraft gun was hidden on the roof.
Until three years ago, the building was used to make candy. The AP's headline: "U.S.-Iraqi Forces Raid Lollipop Factory."
Posted by Happy at 06/13/2007 @ 7:05pm
As examples from people on both sides seem to indicate, the notion that the media is purely "liberal-biased" or "conservative-biased" are flatly absurd. People from both camps point to particular stories and infer a bias from those particular stories, while failing to notice that both camps have numerous stories that they can reference. While the media may not be the most trustworthy or objective source ever, they certainly don't have the kind of unified, monochromatic bias that many seem to claim, either in favor of a particular political party or a corporate apparatus.
What seems strange is that many things are also painted as absurdly biased that aren't. Take, for example, the "Hillary is a conservative" point. I guess there's an argument that she is conservative on Iraq, maybe, but she certainly isn't a conservative in the economic realm; her health-care plan, dubbed "Hillary-care" by some, should make that pretty apparent. Whatever you may think of the plan, it's certainly not consonant with the views of a political conservative, so the idea that Hillary Clinton is a "conservative that the media spins into a liberal" is a little silly.
Posted by Thrawn at 06/13/2007 @ 7:34pm
Correction: "the notion...is flatly absurd."
Posted by Thrawn at 06/13/2007 @ 7:35pm
Oh, also (sorry for the triple post), I found a fascinating ad on the Nation's website:
"Dangerous times demand courageous voices. Bob Avakian is such a voice."
I...guess Bob Avakian is a good voice to listen to, except for the tiny fact that he's also the Chairman of the Revolutionary Communist Party, a United States Maoist group. I have to confess curiosity as to why the Nation would support such an individual.
Posted by Thrawn at 06/13/2007 @ 7:37pm
Posted by THRAWN 06/13/2007 @ 7:37pm |
Well, they take money from Ann Coulter...so why not Commies.
Green is green (and I don't mean the Party).
Posted by Mask at 06/13/2007 @ 7:52pm
Posted by THRAWN 06/13/2007 @ 7:37pm
The Nation doesn't appear to discriminate when allowing ads on its site...for instance, notice the many ads for Ann Coulter on here?
Posted by BlueTexan at 06/13/2007 @ 8:01pm
I have to confess curiosity as to why the Nation would support such an individual.
Posted by THRAWN 06/13/2007 @ 7:37pm | ignore this person
they are not supporting him, he's supporting them. and us. you may not like their advertising policy, but they are very clear as to what it is, and it's not ideology driven. what's wrong with that?
Posted by johannesrolf at 06/13/2007 @ 8:57pm
A flawed media leads to a flawed democracy. --By Katrina
Give me an historical reference. Put this into perspective for me.
I am so Goddamn sick of your conflating multiple world views; the sanctification of "journalism", the abject hatred of all things capital and economically progressive, the open lust for all things collective and socialistic. Katrina, you have created for yourself a very small, narrow and confining world, and I have never once known you to so much as open the peep hole to a neighboring idea.
Posted by Person at 06/13/2007 @ 9:48pm
First of all, I'm totally with Frank on the off-topic post; it's pretty hilarious.
I would disagree with him, however, on the Limbaugh issue. Maybe it's just me, but it seems problematic for a county to decide which radio stations get airtime based on whether their political leanings are conservative or liberal. That seems like the sort of viewpoint discrimination that's blatantly unconstitutional in a number of context, and though it may not be unconstitutional here, seems at least antithetical to the promotion of a healthy marketplace of ideas. I won't pretend that Limbaugh hasn't said certain things that I find offensive, but that's certainly not reason enough for his viewpoint to simply be disregarded. I feel like the burden should be significantly higher than that.
Posted by Thrawn at 06/13/2007 @ 10:59pm
Posted by THRAWN 06/13/2007 @ 10:59pm
The problem of Frank is very simple...he is all for freedom of speech until he findds the speech offensive, and then he wants govt to shut off that particular speech.
That radio station in Florida has a contract to broadcast safety warnings to the people...ALL THE PEOPLE..EVEN THOSE WHO FIND LIMBAUGH ENLIGHTENING AND GUYS LIKE FRANK REPUGNANT...
And the longer I read Frank the more repuganant I find him and his utterances an afront to all free thinking and tolerant people...
Posted by john maasch at 06/13/2007 @ 11:29pm
Thew above is off topic but I still can't stop laughing.
Posted by FRANKGRITS 06/13/2007 @ 9:32pm
I am still laughing at Limbaugh today, as he played ALGORES own words on words on Saddam, Iraq and Bush...I wonder why Frank never mentioned it?
Posted by john maasch at 06/13/2007 @ 11:48pm
JOHN M.;
You are seeing clearly into the mind of the secular progressives psychotic myopia!
Posted by RIO BRAVO 06/13/2007 @ 11:32pm |
I am sorry to say this but I think he may be as dense as lead...I squirm for him as I read many of his posts..painfull to read and I can only imagine the dinner conversations with him...the horror..
Posted by john maasch at 06/13/2007 @ 11:49pm
Limbaugh also said that Hillary's supporters are POOR, STUPID WOMEN.....
Posted by FRANKGRITS 06/13/2007 @ 10:26pm
So? I could easily imagine myself saying, "Kerry's supporters were RICH, DUMB MEN/WOMEN", or Al Franken/you, saying, "Bush's supporter are RICH, SMART MEN"...
I didn't hear Rush but I know of the poll where he speaks from. That poll taken earlier this month, says HRC's beats Obama 2-1 among women and most of her women supporters were lesser educated....so, RUSH embellished a bit....It's show biz! Lighten Up! This board is a public forum (lest you forget) and you would take offense at RUSH for saying "POOR STUPID WOMEN"? Is it because he has huge audiences or because he is a Republican?
See what CONSHAME, MADLIB, DR D and few others' name-calling prowess....I'm sure they haven't changed....from the little bits and pieces that get quoted by others while going at it!
Posted by Happy at 06/13/2007 @ 11:54pm
Ohhh dear. Frank, though I respect you as a contributor to this discourse, I think your position is extremely exaggerated. In fact, I would venture to suggest that your position is internally incoherent. Your post begins by attacking Rush Limbaugh as a demagogue (which, to an extent, is true), and then proceed to suggest that the Republican Party is a "cancer in our society"! This embodies the exact kind of broad-brush tactic that you accuse Rush of perpetrating. While criticizing attempts to place all of her supporters into one classification, you proceed to take anyone who agrees with Republican positions and lump them into one category of "rich, white, snobby men," even if you didn't use those precise words.
I think there's a deeper problem, though, one that I sort of touched on in my last post. Part of what seems to be missing from the discourse in our society (at least for many) is the idea that differing philosophies and positions have meaningful contributions to make to political discourse. What I'm seeing in posts such as these is the total rejection of that sentiment; it's not even just that particular leaders should be rejected and dismissed, but that the Republican Party itself should be weeded out from society. Maybe there are some internal reforms that need to take place, something I think we can both agree on, but I think your kind of suggestion is extraordinarily corrosive to political discourse. The mere fact that you disagree with the kind of ideas that the Republican Party promotes is not good enough reason to believe that those ideas have no legitimate role to play in public discourse. No system which truly tried to weed out conservative discourse could call itself democratic.
Posted by Thrawn at 06/14/2007 @ 12:41am
Posted by RIO BRAVO 06/14/2007 @ 12:42am
Damn. And I thought Hillary was kinda warped.
Eric
Posted by Malcontent at 06/14/2007 @ 01:46am
Thank heavens for the Internet and printed media then!
The television screen is of course a direct interface into our neurology (occupies the visual and audial fields, and thus creates our 'world'.) We must expect people using television for profit to manipulate the various emotional attractors in the neurology, even if they are doing this unwittingly. Our brain seeks to be reassured, comforted, entertained, thrilled. The feedback system between number of viewers and content will ensure that content comes closer and closer to this desideratum.
The only way to cut this cycle is to remove the profit motive from the equation. High quality public television, like for example the BBC, offers a way out. Until then you can moan, and they may even pretend to listen, but as long as dumbing down to match the quality of crap American education (compare it to, say, French education!) delivers the viewers, it will not only continue, but get more refined and targeted. Things evolve.
Posted by mikecope at 06/14/2007 @ 02:23am
What seems strange is that many things are also painted as absurdly biased that aren't. Take, for example, the "Hillary is a conservative" point. I guess there's an argument that she is conservative on Iraq, maybe, but she certainly isn't a conservative in the economic realm; her health-care plan, dubbed "Hillary-care" by some, should make that pretty apparent. Whatever you may think of the plan, it's certainly not consonant with the views of a political conservative, so the idea that Hillary Clinton is a "conservative that the media spins into a liberal" is a little silly.
Posted by THRAWN
Thrawn, If you look into Hillary's past, you will see that she used to be a republican in her college days. So, either she's had a huge change of heart, which is doubtful, or she's still a republican. Just because she wishes to reform healthcare doesn't mean she's a democrat. The healthcare system is broken and even large corporations are looking into healthcare reform because the costs of healthcare for the employees is hurting their bottom line. They wish to shift the burden of paying for employee insurance benefits over to the employee. Doesn't sound to democratic to me. Also, look at some of Hillary's big donars for her campaign. There's a lot of money to be made on healthcare reform. It's just a matter of who gets their feet in the door first will profit the most. Another thing people seem to not pay attention to is that even when the stock market takes a nose dive, someone is profitting. One man's gain is another man's loss. So, if the middle and lower classes money is worth less than it was 10 or 20 years ago, where do you think that money has gone? I'll give you a hint...it's to people who really don't need the money. You've lost sight of what I said earlier. This whole country has shifted it's politcal views to the right. What used to be run of the mill republican is now pretty much a moderate democrat. What used to be a run of the mill democrat is now considered to be a bleeding heart left wing liberal communist. Take Tom Harkin for example. He's a war hero and ran for the democratic nomination against Dukakis and Clinton later and lost. His platform was basically the old democratic platform. If you were to remove the religious slant on the republican side of things ie. abortion rights, gay marriage, gun control (the rednecks have to have their automatic weapons to protect against a foreign invasion you konw) and even the immigration laws etc. most of the democrats hold fairly conservative positions not too different from their republican counterparts. So, you say Hillary isn't a republican, I counter that she is, the democratic party has shifted to the right and the republican party has shifted even further that way on social hot button issues.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 06/14/2007 @ 08:07am
Lotta "blanks" ....RESE must be busy explaining how the Jewish/Jesuit Cabal killed Bill Hicks!
heheh
Posted by Mask at 06/14/2007 @ 08:53am
Dan Rather lied to us. He relied on forged documents to try and influence the last election. He has no credibility. I agrre with Bernie Shaw, former CNN anchor, who said he doesn't want to hear a reporter's opinion on anything! I also heard on Chris Matthews show that people are actually getting their news from The Daily Show and The Colbert Report! What the *%&# is going on?
Posted by abell12ct at 06/14/2007 @ 09:02am
Posted by ABELL12CT 06/14/2007 @ 09:02am
I agree, it's a shame that people have to go to the Daily Show for thier news...but I see it as a reflection of how poorly a job the traditional news outlets are doing. The more "dumbed down and tarted up" it gets, the more people will search for any sort of meaning anywhere they can find it. Say what you want about Jon Stewart, despite it being on comedy central, at least he devotes more time to politics than to who fathered anna nicole's kid.
I think, personally, in their race to the bottom, most of the mainstream media are making themselves irrelevent in a world where people can and will dig for answers.
Posted by rzs at 06/14/2007 @ 09:34am
While the media may not be the most trustworthy or objective source ever, they certainly don't have the kind of unified, monochromatic bias that many seem to claim, either in favor of a particular political party or a corporate apparatus.
I agree it's not uniform or monochromatic, and that there doesn't seem to be a political party bias per say, or even a real leaning toward "liberal" or "conservative" stances, as they are usually defined, meaning, you can see some lively debate on gun control or abortion or religion vs. evolution...things that get both sides up in arms; however, these are also things that don't really challenge the corporate structure in any real sense.
I totally disagree that there is not a corporate bias. All of the major news corporations are massive corporations in in their own right, or are owned by one. In that regard, as Rather said, they have a bottom line that is driven by advertising, and they have shareholders who demand a return on their investment. These confines set the limits on what is debatable and what is out of bounds, and these limits are made to be understood...so, in that setting, many of us have to seek our news on these topics elsewhere.
Posted by rzs at 06/14/2007 @ 09:47am
Abell,
Your standards are too high for GWB. Your man GWB relied on lame Italian forgeries to create his pack of lies called a SOTU that did the job of getting us into the Iraq quagmire.
But somehow you still think shrub has credibility!?
Posted by freedomplease at 06/14/2007 @ 09:55am
Posted by ABELL12CT 06/14/2007 @ 09:02am
Wait a minute, ABELL.....how is it that people are getting their news from The Daily Show and the Colbert Report....
and if their "true feelings" were polled, they support the war by 90%, as you claimed?!?!?
Posted by Mask at 06/14/2007 @ 10:07am
RZS,
On corporate control of the media: Anyone that isn't clearly aware that the agenda that is set is non-critical of corporate political contol is completely devoid of reality at this point.
Sure the Mask's of the world think that debate is endless cultural arguments about abortion or flag burning or whatever tripe is served up as the hot button issue de jour. Meanwhile key debates are stymied as they might result in something changing and corporations don't like change as change is expensive. Things like dependence of oil, pollution and hundreds of other things large and small.
The American revolution is in serious danger of collapse if we don't either get private money out of elections or find a way to get serious money into elections from a wide variety of private sources rather than having the corporate world contol our elections monolithically.
Oh and lest anyone think that there is such a thing as corporate America....there isn't. Corporate structures and their owners (shareholders) are by definition multi national. They care about profit not about national identities. Corporate money influencing elections is not exactly "foreign" money, but it certainly isn't money with a vested interest in the overall health of America.
Posted by freedomplease at 06/14/2007 @ 10:29am
Posted by FREEDOMPLEASE 06/14/2007 @ 10:29am
FREE, you want to debate dependence on oil (foreign or otherwise), I'll debate it....same as I would issues that seem to move the electorate.
Hey, speaking of energy independence....Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards have some plans on getting us there...
Ooops, wait...I forgot, they're "corporatists" and "sell-outs" and "Republican-lites" and you'll never vote for them, thereby helping the guys who DON'T want alternatives or less oil use win the elections, but maintaining your principles of pure progressivism.
Posted by Mask at 06/14/2007 @ 10:52am
Posted by RESE 06/14/2007 @ 10:49am
I wish it were that simple. Not that I don't believe there are powerful behind doors deals going on that have a huge impact on international politics...but I think many of us are a lot more complicit than we like to beleive...by that I mean, the market exists to supply consumers with goods, thus consumers don't get a fee pass...if we demand cheap digital cameras and iPods and $2 gas, then can we really piss and moan when they give it to us?
Posted by rzs at 06/14/2007 @ 10:55am
and if their "true feelings" were polled, they support the war by 90%, as you claimed?!?!?
Posted by MASK
That was meant as a joke. It was meant to reflect the Chuck Schumer comment that if everyone voted their "true feeling" in the Senate, they would vote the way he did.
Posted by abell12ct at 06/14/2007 @ 10:59am
Abell,
Your standards are too high for GWB. Your man GWB relied on lame Italian forgeries to create his pack of lies called a SOTU that did the job of getting us into the Iraq quagmire.
But somehow you still think shrub has credibility!?
Posted by FREEDOMPLEASE
Hunh? When did I mention GWB?
Posted by abell12ct at 06/14/2007 @ 11:02am
Rese
You are really out there. Name me ONE person who has been shot for failing to pay their income taxes? The government is the only one allowed to print money and once printed it is already the government's money so they are lending it to themselves? Cat food from China is not poisonous. Name me ONE cat that has died from chinese cat food.
Posted by abell12ct at 06/14/2007 @ 11:08am
RESE, P.S. there is a cia agent behind the rock watching your every move so watch out!
Posted by abell12ct at 06/14/2007 @ 11:09am
RESE- look, I read some of your posts (not all of them!) and find some interesting and some fairly insane...my point was not that I agree or disagree with you.
Rather, I was stating that it's easier to examine and blame others (or in your case, blame the Jesuit/Jewish/Federal Reserve oligarchy) than to examine yourself, meaning, if someone wants to have an impact (albeit miniscule), a forthright examination of their own buying practices (including dealings in the market) is in order. In other words, if one is to be considered a "consumer," then be a conscientious one...and if one is to be a shareholder, be one that will dump the shares of a corporation found to abuse civil liberties or the environment, even at your own expense...easier said than done sometimes, but at lease it spares one the problem of being a hypocrite when one criticizes corporate greed.
Posted by rzs at 06/14/2007 @ 11:19am
Does anyone think CBS ratings would rise if it announced Katie had a boob job or Jessica Simpson was was going to read the news in a bikini?
It is the people writing the copy that are at fault and I can never,"understand" how CBS, ABC, NBC, and CNN can all have the same storys, almost in the same order...for years..
Posted by john maasch at 06/14/2007 @ 11:22am
It is the people writing the copy that are at fault and I can never,"understand" how CBS, ABC, NBC, and CNN can all have the same storys, almost in the same order...for years..
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 06/14/2007 @ 11:22am | ignore this person
what would you have them do? of course they all have the same stories. in each network they have triple monitors, so they can see what the competition is doing. woe to the news director that doesn't have an important story, which the others do.
Posted by johannesrolf at 06/14/2007 @ 11:32am
"woe to the news director that doesn't have an important story, which the others do.
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 06/14/2007 @ 11:32am "
I know, but that is why we end up with Anna NIcole, Paris, and the rest...I rarely watch network anything...its an embarassment..
I have watch DW once in a while, but mostly I read now...
Posted by john maasch at 06/14/2007 @ 11:40am
Abell.....if you say that Dan Rather has no credibility because once in his 40 (?) year career he was duped by forgeries then you must also admit that Bush has no credibility given that he was duped by considerably more amatuerish forgeries.
Yet it is my recollection that you're still one of the 28%'ers.
Mask, we are having a debate on energy independence...but let's not get too crazy shall we! Ross Perot in 1991-1992 championed a 50C/gallon federal gas tax to divert tax revenue FROM income taxes towards gasoline consumption. That would have helped steer the market towards more efficient automobiles....how far has that gotten? Carter had policies in place that would have solved the entire problem by now. Reagan defunded them causing the mess we're in now. I contend the people want action, but the corporate interests don't.
Given where we are today who do you think is so far winning this 25 year old debate?
Posted by freedomplease at 06/14/2007 @ 11:57am
Mask,
Do you hear anyone of significance from either wing of our corporate party calling for a significant, habbit altering gas tax (with a companion income tax reduction)? Do you think you will hear that? Do you think that we don't have anyone proposing such common sense legislation has ANYTHING to do with the fact that serious contenders would not want to piss off Exxon / GM Ford donor interests?
Posted by freedomplease at 06/14/2007 @ 12:02pm
I guess sarcasm doesn't come across well in posts.
Posted by abell12ct at 06/14/2007 @ 12:03pm
"I know, but that is why we end up with Anna NIcole, Paris, and the rest...I rarely watch network anything...its an embarassment.."
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 06/14/2007 @ 11:40am
Sooner or later we had to agree on something.
Posted by drhammer at 06/14/2007 @ 12:08pm
Some of the red states are already turning purple.
Posted by FRANKGRITS 06/14/2007 @ 12:06pm
No frank, thats you in the mirror...you are holding your breath.
Posted by john maasch at 06/14/2007 @ 12:10pm
Frank is also living in the past.. in the 30s he would have been a good little worker for the Gestapo enforcing those pesky speech laws.
Posted by john maasch at 06/14/2007 @ 12:13pm
Name me ONE cat that has died from chinese cat food.
Posted by ABELL12CT 06/14/2007 @ 11:08am
Whiskers.
Posted by Hman23 at 06/14/2007 @ 12:45pm
Posted by ABELL12CT 06/14/2007 @ 10:59am
Oh, it was a joke...okay, that is atleast SANE.
SO....you trust the polling that shows 65-70% disapprovals for the war and desire to get out ASAP?
Posted by Mask at 06/14/2007 @ 12:51pm
I don't see any republican candidates yet, except for maybe Rudy who will be willing to buck the establishment.
Rudy is a Joke! He is the consummate insider and has been completely compromised by the same interest groups that have compromised Bush.
Read all about it here [deseretnews.com]
Posted by Metteyya at 06/14/2007 @ 12:54pm
Giuliani's law firm a liability?
It has lobbied U.S. government for numerous clients By Sharon Theimer and Devlin Barrett Associated Press WASHINGTON -- As a partner in a law and lobbying firm, Rudy Giuliani has profited from his firm's work representing corporate clients before nearly every Cabinet department, exposing himself to a wide range of potential ethical entanglements. Rudy Giuliani, right, is introduced as a name partner of the Bracewell firm in March 2005. (Diane Bondareff, Associated Press) Diane Bondareff, Associated Press Rudy Giuliani, right, is introduced as a name partner of the Bracewell firm in March 2005. If Giuliani became president, his administration would be on the receiving end of regulatory requests, contract bids and policy proposals by the same clients of his Houston firm, Bracewell & Giuliani, that have contributed toward his personal net worth of millions of dollars. Although the Republican has so far declined to identify all the companies with which Bracewell and his other firms have done business over the past five years, The Associated Press identified more than 175 as part of an expansive review of lobbying records, court filings and securities reports. Giuliani's law and lobbying clients have included Saudi Arabia, Rupert Murdoch's News Corp., and chewing tobacco maker UST Inc. Traditional procedures for government officials to prevent ethical conflicts -- avoiding issues directly involving their former employer -- would be unavailable for a commander in chief. It is unheard of for a president, when taking office, to promise to step away from a particular issue. Bracewell alone has thousands of clients but will name only a few dozen. Since Giuliani became a partner in spring 2005, it has reported lobbying on various issues with the White House, the vice president's office, Congress and every Cabinet agency except the Department of Veterans Affairs, the AP review found. Federal conflict-of-interest rules do not apply to the president or vice president, because they are not technically considered government employees. Giuliani isn't registered as a lobbyist for any of the interests on whose behalf his firms have acted, and he has so far declined to describe his work for them. But appearances matter when it comes to the public's perception of conflicts of interest, and the large number of clients and issues linked to Giuliani's firms could prove a liability. Giuliani declined to comment. "It's clear voters are looking for an experienced leader like Mayor Giuliani with a track record of results to tackle the difficult issues currently facing our country," campaign spokeswoman Maria Comella said. She declined to describe Giuliani's work at Bracewell or how he was compensated. Congress, the Pentagon, Energy and Education departments and the Environmental Protection Agency were among offices most frequently contacted by Bracewell & Giuliani, reports show. Issues ran the gamut: • It lobbied the Department of Health and Human Services on Medicare coverage of power scooters and wheelchairs from The Scooter Store. The Scooter Store agreed Friday to pay a $4 million fine and surrender $43 million in Medicare claims over allegations by the Justice Department that it had defrauded the government. • It lobbied the Food and Drug Administration on behalf of UST Public Affairs over regulation of tobacco products. • It tackled copyright protection and legislation on the purchase of cable TV lineups for News Corp. and DirecTV. • It lobbied on behalf of Cornell Companies last year for U.S. Bureau of Prisons contracts. In 2004, the prison operator was named in indictments of two associates of then-Rep. Tom DeLay, R-Texas. Cornell wasn't charged but was listed among companies making political donations that prosecutors said DeLay's associates illegally laundered for use in Texas campaigns. • It lobbied Congress on behalf of Concentrax Inc. of Houston, which was trying to raise government interest in a vehicle-tracking system called "Track Down." The lobbying work in 2005 came a few years after Concentrax settled an SEC lawsuit accusing it of falsely claiming to have won contracts for the vehicle-tracking system. Giuliani, then New York City's mayor, became a national hero after the 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center. He left the mayor's office in 2002 with a $3 million book deal, and last year took in $11.4 million from speeches alone. Giuliani's Bracewell partnership is one of several enterprises. Others, past and present, include Giuliani Partners, a consulting firm; Giuliani Capital Advisors, an investment banking firm; Giuliani & Kerik, an arm of Giuliani Partners focused on security; and a security firm, Giuliani Security & Safety LLC. Giuliani's campaign has said he is considering how and when to separate himself from his business interests. Earlier this year, Giuliani Capital was sold to Australia-based Macquarie Group for an undisclosed sum. Besides lobbying, Bracewell represents clients in legal matters, among them AOL Time Warner, Apple Computer, Bank of America, General Electric and Southwest Airlines. In March, the firm filed papers in a Texas case on behalf of Saudi Arabia's oil ministry -- taking sides with another energy giant, Citgo, which is controlled by Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, a Bush administration critic. After the 2001 attacks, then-Mayor Giuliani famously rejected a $10 million check from a Saudi prince to help terrorism victims. Giuliani's enterprises have put him in league with corporations that, decades ago, he might have faced in court. An example: Naturex Inc., a French food-flavoring firm that hired Giuliani Capital Advisors to help with its 2005 acquisition of another company. A year later, Naturex was sued by the U.S. attorney in New York -- a job Giuliani once held -- for violating the Controlled Substances Act. A Drug Enforcement Administration inquiry concluded Naturex had imported and exported benzaldehyde -- a chemical that can be used in amphetamines and methamphetamines -- more than 100 times without telling the government. In 2004, Giuliani was hired by the pharmaceutical industry to study -- and testified before Congress on -- the dangers of importing prescription drugs. A spokeswoman for Giuliani Capital Advisors said Monday the firm was unaware of any inquiry by the DEA into Naturex's business at the time. Naturex paid $325,000 to settle its case. A company spokeswoman and attorney did not respond to requests for comment.
Posted by Metteyya at 06/14/2007 @ 12:57pm
Posted by FREEDOMPLEASE 06/14/2007 @ 12:02pm
Free, there's a pretty good reason nobody is calling for a 50 cent a gallon gas tax (and companion income tax cut)...it won't work.
Unless you go after a targetted FICA tax cut, the lower income tax is virtually non-existant for the "working poor" (however you want to define that).
So, bump up the gas tax and those folks will be paying more at the pump (as they are now) and no recourse as to newer more gas-efficient vehicles (newer means more expensive) and their disposable income drops (as it is now). And you hurt the poor.
You might try some kind of tax credit like the Earned Income Tax Credit. But that program runs $36 Billion a year in "revenues", so you'll have to make it up by taking almost all of your gas tax and putting it towards that.
Then you've only got the middle class, who are going to lose hundreds a year and are going to be ROYALLY pissed (unless you want to expand EITC to them...and that means going into deficits for years to come).
Then you've got the transportation problem.
All that stuff we get....toys, clothes, TVs, new computer to blog on the left-wing magazine sites....FOOD....gets to you and I via gasoline/diesel powered vehicles. Now the owners of those vehicles are not going to just "eat" a 50 cent a gallon hike...they're going to ...pass it on...in the form of higher prices.
That's called "inflation". It happened when the PRODUCERS of the oil raised their prices precipitiously (1973, 1979) and bad things happened.
It will take a LONG time for all those hybrids and soy-diesel guys to finally get up and running under your plan...in the mean time?
Read some papers from 1979.....that same Jimmy Carter you mentioned had a glorious time under such an event!
Posted by Mask at 06/14/2007 @ 1:03pm
Ooops, wait...I forgot, they're "corporatists" and "sell-outs" and "Republican-lites" and you'll never vote for them, thereby helping the guys who DON'T want alternatives or less oil use win the elections, but maintaining your principles of pure progressivism.
Posted by MASK
Mask, I would still vote for Hillary over her republican opponent. I can say that with confidence because I haven't seen a republican candidate worth voting for in my lifetime. Those who voted for Nader basically ensured that we would be stuck with W out of stupidity. I just think that Mrs. Clinton won't necessarily back working folks. She's already sold herself off to a few lobby groups that are more concerned about the welfare of Israel than the welfare of the U.S. As a matter of fact, that appears to be a common denominator in both parties. I would just like to see us get a president who actually cared what happens to your average American. I think it was George Washington who said something along the lines that the U.S. should never allow itself to have a allies so close to where we end up hurting ourselves protecting them, and also not become so big of enemies with other countries to the point that we won't talk to them. W seems to have accomplished both of these feats. Our media keeps ramming protecting Israel down our throats. Israel is a small country that doesn't even have the population of some of the states in this country and yet we risk our international standing on behalf of this country time and time again. Why? All we hear from the media is how poor Israel is picked on. In fact, when Jimmy Carter wrote his most recent book, the media was all for hammering away at the guy. Evidently, he hit a sore spot on a few rich media owning folks not to mention lobby groups.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 06/14/2007 @ 1:11pm
Good read Katrina. And thanks for not playing into MSM's twisting of Rather's statement a la the Feminist Card. It is good to have someone who is protective of women's rights tell it like it is. Like Rather indicated.....more money in bringing "The Today" show to prime time news. Its all about money and self interest, not public interest.
Posted by OneVote at 06/14/2007 @ 1:15pm
Mask,
Since when have our elected officials CARED about the poor? Pandered at election time yes....but done anything in their interests bwahhaahhah!
OK let's ask American people the following two questions:
1. Would you like America to work towards independence of foreign oil (the answer to that question has been a resounding yes for 30 years).
2. Given that the government needs tax revenue from somewhere, would you like them to take it out of you paycheck or would you like it to be taken at the pump? Answer....I HONESTLY don't know and neither do you but we won't ask the question as that's not corporate permissible.
But yeah Mask we'll still have BS corporate politicians this time around (same as every time in the last 30 years) telling us that they're going to "do something" about America's energy dependence.
Mask...as the final song of Soprano's said "Don't stop believing"! And i for one, know that you for one will not stop believing!
Posted by freedomplease at 06/14/2007 @ 1:35pm
1. Would you like America to work towards independence of foreign oil (the answer to that question has been a resounding yes for 30 years).
2. Given that the government needs tax revenue from somewhere, would you like them to take it out of you paycheck or would you like it to be taken at the pump? Answer....I HONESTLY don't know and neither do you but we won't ask the question as that's not corporate permissible.
FREEDOMPLEASE, I have an idea. Why not tax the crap out of luxury vehicles. First have a federal tax...say 10% on the overall cost of RV's for a starter. If you can still afford to by a friggin house on wheels, pull a car and a boat behind it, and still pay $3 a gallon, then you should be able to afford to pay an extra 10% federal taxes on the gas guzzling peace of crap. Also, apply the same tax to any 6 and 8 cylinder vehicles out there. Then, you could throw in speed boats, yachts, snowmobiles, 3 wheelers, offroad vehicles etc. In short slap a 10% federal puchase tax on anything that isn't economical standard transportation. That would pretty much force most people including Joe 6 pack to lose their hummers and drive a 4 banger or something more energy efficient to and from work. Also,when people have to update their license plates, nail them hard for having big engines. Either uncle sam is going to have to punish the car manufactures for continuing to make these pieces of crap, or they are going to have to punish the morons who keep buying them. Evidently $3/gallon prices isn't enough to stop people from buying trucks and SUV's you need a ladder to get into. At the same time, the government could give tax credits to people who purchase energy alternative vehicles like the Tesla.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 06/14/2007 @ 2:04pm
WHY I AM NOT A CONSERVATIVE, BOOK THE NTH...
Reason #207
The conservatives posting to this thread (and you know who you are, I would hope...) take Rush...LIMBAUGH...SERIOUSLY!!!??? (I'm all for freedom of speech for Rush, provided he uses it to become a stand-up commedian.)
I also have a question for all of you, since you seem so big on defending Rush's free speech (which I didn't realize was in any danger!)
Give me the URL of one (ONE) conservative Web site -- the con analog of "The Nation" if you will -- that both allows comments (a rarity but there must be one or two out there somewhere) AND does not vet comments by liberals (again, in a way analogous to the way that "The Nation" lets you guys froth and foam at the mouth here all you want.)
Posted by w_m_bear at 06/14/2007 @ 2:05pm
Mask, I would still vote for Hillary over her republican opponent. I can say that with confidence because I haven't seen a republican candidate worth voting for in my lifetime. Those who voted for Nader basically ensured that we would be stuck with W out of stupidity. ----Posted by WOLFGANG1 06/14/2007 @ 1:11pm
Essentially MY position as well, my argument over that point has been with SRJENKINS and others.
Posted by Mask at 06/14/2007 @ 2:23pm
Posted by FREEDOMPLEASE 06/14/2007 @ 1:35pm
FREE, if you really think that the era of Big Taxes Is No Problem Wit Me are back (or ever existed)....you're believing the wrong pipe-dream.
Do the math yourself. Take the average family's (lower middle class if you like, not even "working poor") and tally up how much extra a year they'll have to pay to pay a 50 cent a gallon gas tax hike. Even if you say "Well, many take the bus!"...okay. But the City Bus services have to pay for gasoline too, which means a rate hike on the fares. Plus, we both know that most Americans don't or CAN'T take a bus to work, daycare, the groceries, etc.
and as I said, it's not just the tax at the pump....but the inflation from the higher price of transportation. And any basic liberal economist (or conservative one for that matter) will tell you....inflation hurts the poor worst of all, as would a gas tax hike.
Clinton, Edwards, Obama...all have reasonable, incremental approaches to energy policy...the only kind that will pass (first) and more importantly the only kind that won't cripple the economy and make those YOU (and I, believe it or not) care about hurt a lot worse.
Posted by Mask at 06/14/2007 @ 2:29pm
Ross Perot in 1991-1992 championed a 50C/gallon federal gas tax .....Carter had policies in place that would have solved the entire problem by now. Reagan defunded them.....
Posted by FREEDOMPLEASE 06/14/2007 @ 11:57am
I think you maybe thinking of John Anderson, who ran as an Independent in 1980, that proposed a $0.50/Gallon tax at a time when gas cost something like $0.50 PER GALLON! I was young and attracted to his boldness....His gas tax would have cut gasoline consumption for sure! Today, $0.50 won't do squat....and won't even `hurt' the lower income class that much....fewer lottery tickets & presto!
If such a gas tax is enacted/collected, I can even repress my `market' sense & `swallow' it to, ahemmmm..., spur renewable energy developments (yeah, some form of investment tax credits)!
Posted by Happy at 06/14/2007 @ 2:50pm
I also have a question for all of you, since you seem so big on defending Rush's free speech (which I didn't realize was in any danger!)
Posted by W_M_BEAR 06/14/2007 @ 2:05pm
If Rush's "free speech" was not in "any danger", why is he taken so damned seriously by Liberals? Why FRANK listens to him more than any Conservatives on the board? Why do "Magic Negro" or "Poor Stupid Women" become such topics of disdain? Why Miami's City Council threatened to disassociate w/radio station carrying his show?
Switching gear but along same vein, why was Imus not allowed some grace after apologizing for using a slang that black rappers get paid very well to mouth off on tens of millions of CDs rolling down the streets & heard from traffic light to traffic light?
Posted by Happy at 06/14/2007 @ 3:00pm
Posted by FREIHEIT 06/14/2007 @ 3:27pm | ignore this person
CBS has been in third place for the last 15 years.. journalism has always been pegged to the lowest. yellow journalism it was called.
Posted by johannesrolf at 06/14/2007 @ 4:26pm
The "fear" Dan Rathergatesky speaks of clearly demonstrate that
- Diversity of ideology/opinions is not the norm nor encouraged
- Newsrooms and Editorial Boards resemble college campuses and run rampant with leftwingers
- Unbiased truth and slant-free reporting rank way back of Nielsen popularity
Solution? Glad you asked!
All MSM organizations come clean by declaring their political stripes and sign on as above-board allies of their party. If claiming "fair and balanced", it better handle news & OpEds exactly that way. Advertisers ought to love the more targeted mass audiences.
The MSM has met and bedded with the enemy, and its their incestuous selves! Is "Is" Is? Si, Este Es!
Buenos noches, Seniora Katrina, hasta la vista!
Posted by is is IS at 06/15/2007 @ 12:49am
Posted by ABELL12CT 06/14/2007 @ 10:59am
Oh, it was a joke...okay, that is atleast SANE.
SO....you trust the polling that shows 65-70% disapprovals for the war and desire to get out ASAP?
Posted by MASK 06/14/2007
Just because something is popular doesn't make it right.
Posted by abell12ct at 06/15/2007 @ 08:11am
Just because something is popular doesn't make it wrong
Posted by johannesrolf at 06/15/2007 @ 08:32am
Just because something is popular doesn't make it right.
Posted by ABELL12CT 06/15/2007 @ 08:11am
So... is a national policy "wrong" if only specific people say it's wrong? And who are those specific people that know the "rightness" of a policy where the majority of Americans do not?
Posted by Mask at 06/15/2007 @ 09:19am
Boy, I have to say that I lost my last shred of respect for Dan Rather during that interview with Bill Moyers. I am so sick and tired of qualified professionals, be they generals or journalists, who once they are out of positions of influence beat their chests with mea culpas. How was Dan Rather fooled. He wasn't. He was playing a game that is making the America news media increasingly irrelevant. I stopped watching the network and cable news a couple of years ago because it's full of garbage.
Posted by kkuchenb at 06/15/2007 @ 3:16pm
GWEN IFILL: The book reads as a screed. It's an attack on media, on politics, and mostly against George W. Bush. Is that what you intended?
VVvvvVVVVVVvvvvvVVVVvvvVVVVVvvvvVVVVvvv
AL GORE: Well, the examples that are taken from the Bush-Cheney administration are alongside examples taken from other parts of American history, also. It's heavy on examples from the last six years, because I think they make the case very well.
But the book is really not about Bush and Cheney; it's about what has happened to our democracy. I'm deeply concerned that the role of reason, and facts, and logic in the way we make our decisions in America has been diminished significantly, to the point where we could make a decision to invade a country that didn't attack us, at a time when 70 percent of the American people genuinely had the impression and belief that Saddam Hussein was responsible for the attacks of 9/11.
GWEN IFILL: So when you say that this is about cracks in fundamental democracy and not just about Bush and Cheney, does that mean that, if you had been president, these same problems would have existed?
AL GORE: I think many of them -- well, I would have made different mistakes if I had served as president, and I like to think that I would have avoided some of the large ones that our country is suffering through now, having 150,000 of our soldiers trapped in the middle of a civil war, for example, and being an outlier and almost an outcast in the global community, when the rest of the world is trying to confront the climate crisis.
But some of the same problems with the way Americans -- the way we Americans communicate among ourselves, they have no tether to which party is in control or which person is president of the United States. How we deal with them, I think, can be affected by leadership, but the problems outlined in this book and the solutions recommended really go much broader than who's president or which party controls Congress. This is a much deeper set of challenges that we have to address together as Americans.
Outsourcing the truth
GWEN IFILL: You write of a "determined disinterest" in learning the truth, on the part of the Bush administration on pre-war intelligence. You accuse the White House of an "unprecedented and sustained campaign of mass deception," very strong words. And you say that President Bush "outsourced the truth." Are you suggesting that President Bush deliberately misled the American people when it comes to the Iraq war?
AL GORE: Well, there was certainly a coordinated effort in the White House and in the Department of Defense simultaneously to convey the image of a mushroom cloud exploding over an American city and to link it to a specific scenario, the very strong and explicit implication that Saddam Hussein was going to develop nuclear weapons and give them to Osama bin Laden, and that would result in nuclear explosions in American cities.
This was the principal hot-button justification for convincing the majority of people to support the invasion of Iraq, and they selected weapons of mass destruction and the themes related to that, not because they had the evidence to justify it, but because it was the most effective way to manipulate opinion.
GWEN IFILL: Manipulating opinion, outsourcing the truth, why don't you just go ahead and call it a lie?
AL GORE: Well, I think it's more subtle than that. I think that, when someone conveys false impressions, and when it is done so in such an artful way, the phenomena itself is part of what should be changed.
For example, in both political parties, 80 percent of the budgets in contested races last November were devoted to 30-second television commercials, and the impressionistic approach is also part of the problem, in my view, because now the conversation is not really a two-way or a multi-way conversation. The vast majority of the information flow is over television -- that's still the dominant medium -- and it's a one-way flow.
'Politics is completely broken'
VVVVvvvvvVVVVvvvvVVVvvvvvVVVVvvv
GWEN IFILL: Is that realistic? You've lived this. Do you really think it's possible to get past this notion of what conventional politics is to some broader, more uplifting idea, based on reason, rather than politics, pure politics?
AL GORE: Well, first of all, all of us, as the book says, are a mixture of our reasoning capacity and our deep feelings and emotions and instincts, obviously. But the relative role of reason in American political discourse has declined dramatically.
I think that it can be restored to a more prominent place, and I'm hopeful and optimistic that it will be. Is it right now realistic to think that a candidate might be able to do that? I think it's possible; I think it's possible. We may not quite be there yet, but I do think it can be restored. I really do.
Conventional politics is completely broken, Gwen. Everybody knows it, in both parties. And, you know, those who are candidates obviously are not going to acknowledge that, and they're in it to win, and God bless them, and may the best person win. But winning in a game that rewards as much superficiality and impressionistic manipulation as this current state of politics requires, you know, that is damaging to our country. It really is.
VVvvvVVVVVVvvvvvVVVVvvvVVVVVvvvvVVVVvvv
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/entertainment/jan-june07/gore_05-30.html
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/17/2007 @ 1:13pm
ooopps meant:
VVvvvVVVVVVvvvvvVVVVvvvVVVVVvvvvVVVVvvv
GWEN IFILL: The book reads as a screed. It's an attack on media, on politics, and mostly against George W. Bush. Is that what you intended?
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/17/2007 @ 1:15pm
BTW, speaking of the media and Gore: This week John McLaughlin on his The McLaughlin Group predicts Al Gore beats Hillary Clinton for the dem nomination.
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/17/2007 @ 1:54pm
Today I declare peaceful war against BIG PHARMA
CALL YOUR LOCAL Eckerd, CVS, Walgreens and Walmart Pharmacies. TELL THEM YOU WILL NOT BUY ANYTHING FROM THEM UNTIL THEY CHARGE 1 DOLLAR PER PILL FOR A PATENTED DRUG that has no generic competition.
Tell everyone to call their local Eckerd, CVS, Walgreens, and Walmart Pharmacies.
Thank you.
Posted by DMOCRATSoORG at 06/17/2007 @ 11:35pm