You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Al Gore’s Rolling Stone Article – How The Corporate Media Turns The Left Against Democrats [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU
TomCADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-22-11 11:13 PM
Original message
Al Gore’s Rolling Stone Article – How The Corporate Media Turns The Left Against Democrats
Advertisements [?]
Edited on Wed Jun-22-11 11:20 PM by TomCADem
I am sure you have heard about Al Gore’s recent article in Rolling Stone. The corporate media coverage of Gore’s article perfectly illustrates how the left is being manipulated by the corporate media into blaming Democrats and giving Republicans a free pass. The articles have the following headlines:

“Al Gore slams Obama on climate change.”
“Gore Blasts Obama for Not Fighting Climate Change.”
“Gore: Obama Has 'Failed to Stand Up' on Global Warming.”
“Gore: On global warming, Obama has changed little.”
“Gore Faults Obama on Global Warming.”
“Gore faults Obama on global warming.”
“Gore: Obama has 'failed'”

Wow! That must be some can of whoop ass the Al Gore opened on President Obama! This then leads Politico to follow-up with this story, “Gore voices left's climate grumbling,” which describes the now familiar narrative that the left feels abandoned and uninspired about supporting President Obama in 2012.

So, most DUers are probably now thinking that Al Gore must have written a treatise on the failures of President Obama. Indeed, President Obama must be the single greatest impediment to confronting climate change. You have to wonder whether the title of Al Gore’s Rolling Stone article is “Barrack Hussien Obama: Climate Change Anti-Christ?” I guess we should all stay at home on election night in 2012, right?
Well, you would be surprised to find out that the actual title of Al Gore’s Rolling Stone article is: “Climate of Denial: Can science and the truth withstand the merchants of poison?"

What? Merchants of Poison? Where is President Obama in the title to Al Gore’s article? If you then proceed to actually read Gore's article, rather than the propaganda masquarading as journalism that pollutes the media, you will find some critiques of President Obama, but you will also find that a large portion of the article reviews the facts behind climate change, which most of the stories discussing Gore’s article ignore. In addition, you will also find the following passages, which are are ignored in the above referenced articles:

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/climate-of-de...


To sell their false narrative, the Polluters and Ideologues have found it essential to undermine the public's respect for Science and Reason by attacking the integrity of the climate scientists. That is why the scientists are regularly accused of falsifying evidence and exaggerating its implications in a greedy effort to win more research grants, or secretly pursuing a hidden political agenda to expand the power of government. Such slanderous insults are deeply ironic: extremist ideologues — many financed or employed by carbon polluters — accusing scientists of being greedy extremist ideologues.
***
Unlike access to the "public square" of early America, access to television requires large amounts of money. Thomas Paine could walk out of his front door in Philadelphia and find a dozen competing, low-cost print shops within blocks of his home. Today, if he traveled to the nearest TV station, or to the headquarters of nearby Comcast — the dominant television provider in America — and tried to deliver his new ideas to the American people, he would be laughed off the premises. The public square that used to be a commons has been refeudalized, and the gatekeepers charge large rents for the privilege of communicating to the American people over the only medium that really affects their thinking. "Citizens" are now referred to more commonly as "consumers" or "the audience."
***
In the new ecology of political discourse, special-interest contributors of the large sums of money now required for the privilege of addressing voters on a wholesale basis are not squeamish about asking for the quo they expect in return for their quid. Politicians who don't acquiesce don't get the money they need to be elected and re-elected. And the impact is doubled when special interests make clear — usually bluntly — that the money they are withholding will go instead to opponents who are more than happy to pledge the desired quo. Politicians have been racing to the bottom for some time, and are presently tunneling to new depths. It is now commonplace for congressmen and senators first elected decades ago — as I was — to comment in private that the whole process has become unbelievably crass, degrading and horribly destructive to the core values of American democracy.
Largely as a result, the concerns of the wealthiest individuals and corporations routinely trump the concerns of average Americans and small businesses. There are a ridiculously large number of examples: eliminating the inheritance tax paid by the wealthiest one percent of families is considered a much higher priority than addressing the suffering of the millions of long-term unemployed; Wall Street's interest in legalizing gambling in trillions of dollars of "derivatives" was considered way more important than protecting the integrity of the financial system and the interests of middle-income home buyers. It's a long list.


What? Did anyone else see this sharp critique of the news media in any of the news media articles covering Al Gore’s story? I didn’t. Oh, and what does Al Gore think of President Obama? I guess the corporate media must have missed the following prominent passages:


First of all, anyone who honestly examines the incredible challenges confronting President Obama when he took office has to feel enormous empathy for him: the Great Recession, with the high unemployment and the enormous public and private indebtedness it produced; two seemingly interminable wars; an intractable political opposition whose true leaders — entertainers masquerading as pundits — openly declared that their objective was to ensure that the new president failed; a badly broken Senate that is almost completely paralyzed by the threat of filibuster and is controlled lock, stock and barrel by the oil and coal industries; a contingent of nominal supporters in Congress who are indentured servants of the same special interests that control most of the Republican Party; and a ferocious, well-financed and dishonest campaign poised to vilify anyone who dares offer leadership for the reduction of global-warming pollution.

In spite of these obstacles, President Obama included significant climate-friendly initiatives in the economic stimulus package he presented to Congress during his first month in office. With the skillful leadership of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and committee chairmen Henry Waxman and Ed Markey, he helped secure passage of a cap-and-trade measure in the House a few months later. He implemented historic improvements in fuel-efficiency standards for automobiles, and instructed the Environmental Protection Agency to move forward on the regulation of global-warming pollution under the Clean Air Act. He appointed many excellent men and women to key positions, and they, in turn, have made hundreds of changes in environmental and energy policy that have helped move the country forward slightly on the climate issue. During his first six months, he clearly articulated the link between environmental security, economic security and national security — making the case that a national commitment to renewable energy could simultaneously reduce unemployment, dependence on foreign oil and vulnerability to the disruption of oil markets dominated by the Persian Gulf reserves. And more recently, as the issue of long-term debt has forced discussion of new revenue, he proposed the elimination of unnecessary and expensive subsidies for oil and gas.


It would seem that the corporate news media read an entirely different article than the one Gore actually wrote. Or, they were simply reading the script that their corporate masters told them to publish: Blame Democrats and Give Republicans a Free Pass.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 

Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC