Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

The curious silence protecting RW pundits and politicians

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 » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
Protagoras Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-31-05 10:49 AM
Original message
The curious silence protecting RW pundits and politicians
A thought struck me between the eyes the other day as I was listening to someone talk at length about Ann Coulter and Laura Ingram (unpleasant topic). What started my mind to spinning was the ease with which I believe one COULD penetrate the veil of hypocracy and loathsome contempt for the country that people ranging from Coulter to Sean Hannity must, almost inevitably speak to when not on the mic.

But it never happens. I'm even uncomfortable thinking about it. But I still wonder. How guarded are these modern day Brownshirts? Do they live the pure, chaste, humble life off the screen that they preach to on it? Or do they have (as David Brock alluded to) live a regular Roman Orgy of a lifestyle, breaking all the morals that they so vociferously scream about?

I suspect that people with power and fame do, in general break a hell of a lot more rules, in a lot more spectacular ways, than regular Joes...

But I never seem to hear a peep about it.

At least not if it's a Rightwinger. If it's a liberal politicial or pundit, it appears that their entire life is under a microscope...their college records, their first dates, their ex-wives, everything appears to have been tapped and scrutinized. And if there's the slightest hint of a blemish it's paraded out.

But, with the exception of some evangelical preachers who just can't stop themselves from dropping their pants in public while they steal millions (in other words, the rare exception), it's as if the rightwingers have no life, no blemishes, no past except what we've seen on TV.

So my question is, how come no one ever takes a picture, or records a conversation and outs the Coulters of the world for what they are? You'd think that what she says ON the record would be enough to have her consigned instantly to a job as a 7-11 clerk....but no one seems to dare utter a peep if she's a coke'd up crossdressing sleeze that spits when she sees anyone with less than $1000 in their wallet.

Does that make any sense? I feel like we're watching some episode of the X-files...there's some huge truth out there...but all we're hearing about it is silence. And no one else even dares ask about it.

What is the solution? How do we reveal their gross hypocracies? Or is it idle fantasy to believe they are even uglier in private than they are in public?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
chickenscratching Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-31-05 11:03 AM
Response to Original message
1. weird
this has been rambling on in my mind quite a bit recently.
i think a big part of the issue is that we don't teach logic or critical thinking skills in our schools.
obviously people will eat out of the hand that feeds them without any question if they don't realize you shouldn't assume everything, and fucks like ann coulter, bill kristol, brit hume, rush, everyone! can get away with false facts that they are knowingly feeding to a certain percentage of our citizens that they know wil lnot question them!
why are we so afraid to question authority.
always question, never assume (my new mantra).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
YankeyMCC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-31-05 11:21 AM
Response to Reply #1
5. I agree
The lack of emphasis on critical thinking is a major culprit here.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DeepModem Mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-31-05 11:06 AM
Response to Original message
2. You make a very good point...
and I wish we had some answers to your questions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kaitykaity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-31-05 11:10 AM
Response to Original message
3. It might have something to do with the fact that we don't
really care what people do as long as they're
not hurting anybody. Rape, pedophilia, we care
about that stuff.

A stick woman getting her brains effed out by
a different guy every night? We don't really care.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FloridaPat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-31-05 11:18 AM
Response to Original message
4. Liberals seems to have a live & let live attitude as long as you don't
harm anyone else. They believe the First Amendment is good and that you can express your opinions and facts will tell whether you're a liar or not. The conservatives of late seem to think everything should be made, said, and done in their version of reality as they think it should be. So they tear everything apart and scream about anything that is mildly unethical, immoral, or illegal - with everyone else to shut them up and make the look bad. They have an obsession about it. They are gung-ho and apparently have the time and money and energy to try to rule other peoples lives. Us liberals have real lives to lead and would rather not spend our lives forcing others to our way of thinking because if we don't like someone, why should we bother with them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
earth mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-31-05 11:25 AM
Response to Original message
6. Blackmail...the reason for the silence...
Know too much...Dead men tell no tales...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TexasLawyer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-31-05 11:59 AM
Response to Original message
7. Jon Stewart
The only media figure who routinely lampoons these RW a-holes is your avatar-- Jon Stewart. Tucker Carlson-- a "dick"; their RW shows "ruining America"; moments in punditry as read by children; Robert Novak, "master of douchebaggery;" and so on.

I LOVE that guy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
adwon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-31-05 12:33 PM
Response to Original message
8. Neo-Victorianism
Oh so proper appearances masking absolute decadence. It's the trend of every band of revolutionaries over the last 100 years or so.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nikki Stone 1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-31-05 12:47 PM
Response to Original message
9. They are protected because the revenge of the right is "take no prisoners"
The more you are willing to destroy people over small things, the more people leave you alone.

The Right Wing Media (and it is a powerful, money making machine these days) protects its own, and anyone who attacks their people gets a swift and deadly response. Look at how Al Franken has been vilified (frontpagemag.com), no doubt in retribution for his stand against O'Reilly. True journalists cannot risk this kind of "death by propaganda" because their jobs are based on their credibility, and if there is anything the Right Wing Media is good at, it is destroying credibility, usually through lies, half truths and blantant emotional manipulation. That is why comedians, who get a lot more latitude and need less credibility, are on the front lines of the fight against the right, and not the more serious journalists and academics.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DeepModem Mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-31-05 01:30 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. I think you've nailed it, NS1 -- nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
donkeyotay Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-31-05 01:34 PM
Response to Reply #9
11. Sounds about right to me. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProgressiveDepot.com Donating Member (81 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-31-05 01:38 PM
Response to Original message
12. It doesn't seem to hurt them anyway, see Rush & O'Reilly
both go right back on their shows and act like they are the moral voice of reason despite being caught red-handed. Even when they are exposed, it's soon as if it never happened.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nikki Stone 1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-31-05 02:00 PM
Response to Reply #12
14. That's because the rest of the RW media defends them by attacking the
journalists who reported the indiscretions. These attacks play into the world view that the media is left wing and "out to get" the RW hosts. The focus shifts to the bearer of bad news (the press, the specific journalist) and not the perpetrators of the bad acts.

This strategy creates enough feeling among the faithful to ignore what they heard, to figure it was a left wing attack, or to minimize it as something the average Joe might fall into and shouldn't be punished for.

For the non-believers (like ourselves) it is a warning that no matter what the RW hosts do, it will be spun as something that the LW did wrong, and unless we are willing to raise our blood pressure (or risk our lives) on a daily basis, that we should keep quiet about it.

For the uninvolved, the RW media creates so much screaming and obfuscation that these folks don't even know what the fuss is all about. and really don't want to know. If they give it any thought at all, they blame both sides (a default position) but they really don't want to get involved.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Protagoras Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-31-05 10:27 PM
Response to Reply #12
19. It's true as far as it goes...
But I can't help but think that the biggest part of why they were allowed to walk away was because not only did we not hold them accountable...but we also didn't hold the rest of the media accountable for not nailing them to the floor with their crap.

When the only person talking about O'Rielly is Obie on MSNBC, you gotta start asking hard questions of how many other news channels? It's getting freaky of late how thorough our scrubbing of info is becoming in this free society.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Buddyblazon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-31-05 01:56 PM
Response to Original message
13. Everybody here agrees with the original poster...
Edited on Thu Mar-31-05 02:01 PM by Buddyblazon
but they asked what the solution is.

My idea would be that WE personally take them to task. WE start the echo chamber. That's what works for them.

I give my less political friends talking points all the time. The don't necessarilly take them terribly serious (thats cause we as a party value free-thinkers). But they know they've got ammo when the meet with a repuke at a party.

Do the research, refine 2-3 points on each pundits...and then just shove 'em down everybodies throat. That's what they do. And it seems to work for them.


On edit: They need to be the same 2-3 points for everybody. In other words, we all need to be on the same page. So the brainless hear the same thing around every corner.

For example: "Ann Coulter was formerly Arthur Whateverhisnamewas". It's already out there. I have no problem stooping to there level (not anymore I don't). We all need to be saying this as much as possible. And when presenting it someone, we need to LOOK like we believe what we're saying. Ever noticed how a repuke will tell you something that you know is just ridiculous. But you can see in their eyes that they actually believe it. That look...that look. That look is what affirms that the story is "valid" to other repukes. Whether it is or not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nikki Stone 1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-31-05 02:46 PM
Response to Reply #13
15. So, implying that Ann Coulter used to be a guy is ok? I think transsexuals
might not appreciate that strategy, considering it is meant to discredit Ann. Not that she needs discrediting to normal people who know she's a embarassingly uneducated spewer of hate.

But, I agree that we need to get out there with the truth and keep repeating it. Repetition is the key to belief.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ZootSuitGringo Donating Member (454 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-31-05 02:54 PM
Response to Original message
16. Corporate media is right wing,
and they protect their own. Some who are not so "RW" are scared to death of what will happen to them if they don't toe the line.

The solution is not simple. As we know, we have a complete idiot as president, and yet the press doesn't act as though this is the case. To think that the President could be a simpleton and not be outed more often, only leads me to believe that the pundits that sing his hymn are really at "no risk".

How many fuck ups thus far did we think would be the unmaking of this administration? As it happened yet?

There's you answer.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nikki Stone 1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-31-05 05:34 PM
Response to Reply #16
17. I think Air America is part of the solution, although there is an attack
movie being put out about it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClassWarrior Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-31-05 10:36 PM
Response to Reply #16
20. But he's not a simpleton. That's the role he plays...
...and it lowers expectations for him. He can get away with anything cuz poor, sweet, simple George** is a mo-ron. It's a Radical RW frame. He's a greedy, murderous criminal, but he's no idiot. He's stupid like a fox, to borrow a phrase.

NGU.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Protagoras Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-31-05 10:14 PM
Response to Original message
18. Thanks for the input.
Frankly I'm probably personally and professionally one of the most civil people around. But I'm starting to think that it simply doesn't pay off. It's become stretched to absurd limits and I'm now feeling like PeeWee Herman being told that I should stand in the ring and fight with Hulk Hogan...oh and I'm supposed to abide by queensbury rules, while He's carrying a knife, a gun, and a nail studded baseball bat.

There's a point where fighting for your life starts to necessitate that you engage in a low blow and an eye gouge.

The consequence is that I'm no longer as worried about offending nearly as many people...I'm interested in taking the fight TO the enemy...and fighting them on their own turf. They want to spew lies and hypocrical distortions about Values...great. Then we should nail them to the cross with the values they espouse.

They want to attack us on our ideals because they "lead to sin"...fine, then we should make them choke on every transgression they involve themselves in.

In the end I'm facing the idea that after a life of believing in strong seperations of private and public life...That I'm facing an opponent who's willing to use that seperation against me...all the while using it to protect themselves.

And I wonder. Do I want to survive the battle bad enough to fight back in kind...or do I cling to my moral high ground and foreseeably go down for the count? Because frankly...that's what I see happening if we don't take things up a notch and hold this new breed of pundit/paid talking head accountable for their deliberate embrace of hypocracy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nikki Stone 1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-01-05 02:06 AM
Response to Reply #18
22. I understand your dilemma. If we take the high road, we are fighting with
one hand tied behind our back. If we don't, we risk losing our own principles. Or at least our dignity.

These neocons are bullies, pure and simple. If we take Limbaugh, Schlessinger or Hannity out from behind their microphones and take away their network of support, they would crumble from within. There's simply nothing but hot air and a lifetime's worth of childhood insecurities.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AirAmFan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-31-05 10:37 PM
Response to Original message
21. HERE'S SOME LITTLE-KNOWN DIRT on a very juicy target, a prominent
and passionate advocate of Social Security privatization.

A recent Washington Post story (at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8000-2005Mar28.html ) on dissension over Social Security politics within the GOP mentioned some "intellectuals" who are holding to a hard line on privatization. First among them was Prof. Martin Feldstein of Harvard, now President of the prestigious National Bureau of Economic Research.

What the article did NOT mention was that Feldstein's longtime rabid support for privatization seems to have led him to falsify research results twenty-five years ago. He submitted empirical work purporting to show that Social Security depressed national saving. When other researchers could not reproduce his results, he famously blamed 'computer error'. This incident earned him an extremely unflattering NY Times article, which has become part of a "Bibliography on Scientific Fraud" at http://www.albany.edu/~scifraud/biblio/A.htm :

Arenson, K. W. "Martin Feldstein's computer error." The New York Times 1980 (5 October): F19.

Yet no MSM reporter has questioned Feldstein's credibility on this issue, the very Achilles heel that got him into a lot of hot water a long time ago. I wish Paul Krugman, Robert Scheer, Arianna Huffington, or Joe Conason would write a column on Feldstein's credibility on Social Security, and on the intellectual fraud at the heart of the entire GOP position on privatization.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JohnOneillsMemory Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-01-05 10:56 AM
Response to Original message
23. Operation Mockingbird. CIA has steered msm for 60 years. No surprise.
Liberals and Dems who scratch their heads wondering "how do they keep getting away with murder?" need a little Cold War history lesson:

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-overclass.html
(The Origins of the Overclass, by Steve Kangas)

The wealthy have always used many methods to accumulate wealth, but it was not until the mid-1970s that these methods coalesced into a superbly organized, cohesive and efficient machine. After 1975, it became greater than the sum of its parts, a smooth flowing organization of advocacy groups, lobbyists, think tanks, conservative foundations, and PR firms that hurtled the richest 1 percent into the stratosphere.

The origins of this machine, interestingly enough, can be traced back to the CIA. This is not to say the machine is a formal CIA operation, complete with code name and signed documents. (Although such evidence may yet surface — and previously unthinkable domestic operations such as MK-ULTRA, CHAOS and MOCKINGBIRD show this to be a distinct possibility.) But what we do know already indicts the CIA strongly enough. Its principle creators were Irving Kristol, Paul Weyrich, William Simon, Richard Mellon Scaife, Frank Shakespeare, William F. Buckley, Jr., the Rockefeller family, and more. Almost all the machine's creators had CIA backgrounds.

During the 1970s, these men would take the propaganda and operational techniques they had learned in the Cold War and apply them to the Class War. Therefore it is no surprise that the American version of the machine bears an uncanny resemblance to the foreign versions designed to fight communism. The CIA's expert and comprehensive organization of the business class would succeed beyond their wildest dreams. In 1975, the richest 1 percent owned 22 percent of America’s wealth. By 1992, they would nearly double that, to 42 percent — the highest level of inequality in the 20th century.
>snip<
Journalism is a perfect cover for CIA agents. People talk freely to journalists, and few think suspiciously of a journalist aggressively searching for information. Journalists also have power, influence and clout. Not surprisingly, the CIA began a mission in the late 1940s to recruit American journalists on a wide scale, a mission it dubbed Operation MOCKINGBIRD. The agency wanted these journalists not only to relay any sensitive information they discovered, but also to write anti-communist, pro-capitalist propaganda when needed.

The instigators of MOCKINGBIRD were Frank Wisner, Allan Dulles, Richard Helms and Philip Graham. Graham was the husband of Katherine Graham, today’s publisher of the Washington Post. In fact, it was the Post’s ties to the CIA that allowed it to grow so quickly after the war, both in readership and influence. (8)

MOCKINGBIRD was extraordinarily successful. In no time, the agency had recruited at least 25 media organizations to disseminate CIA propaganda. At least 400 journalists would eventually join the CIA payroll, according to the CIA’s testimony before a stunned Church Committee in 1975. (The committee felt the true number was considerably higher.) The names of those recruited reads like a Who's Who of journalism:

* Philip and Katharine Graham (Publishers, Washington Post)
* William Paley (President, CBS)
* Henry Luce (Publisher, Time and Life magazine)
* Arthur Hays Sulzberger (Publisher, N.Y. Times)
* Jerry O'Leary (Washington Star)
* Hal Hendrix (Pulitzer Prize winner, Miami News)
* Barry Bingham Sr., (Louisville Courier-Journal)
* James Copley (Copley News Services)
* Joseph Harrison (Editor, Christian Science Monitor)
* C.D. Jackson (Fortune)
* Walter Pincus (Reporter, Washington Post)
* ABC
* NBC
* Associated Press
* United Press International
* Reuters
* Hearst Newspapers
* Scripps-Howard
* Newsweek
* magazine Mutual Broadcasting System
* Miami Herald
* Old Saturday Evening Post
* New York Herald-Tribune

Perhaps no newspaper is more important to the CIA than the Washington Post, one of the nation’s most right-wing dailies. Its location in the nation’s capitol enables the paper to maintain valuable personal contacts with leading intelligence, political and business figures. Unlike other newspapers, the Post operates its own bureaus around the world, rather than relying on AP wire services. Owner Philip Graham was a military intelligence officer in World War II, and later became close friends with CIA figures like Frank Wisner, Allen Dulles, Desmond FitzGerald and Richard Helms. He inherited the Post by marrying Katherine Graham, whose father owned it.

After Philip’s suicide in 1963, Katharine Graham took over the Post. Seduced by her husband’s world of government and espionage, she expanded her newspaper’s relationship with the CIA. In a 1988 speech before CIA officials at Langley, Virginia, she stated:

We live in a dirty and dangerous world. There are some things that the general public does not need to know and shouldn’t. I believe democracy flourishes when the government can take legitimate steps to keep its secrets and when the press can decide whether to print what it knows.

This quote has since become a classic among CIA critics for its belittlement of democracy and its admission that there is a political agenda behind the Post’s headlines.

Ben Bradlee was the Post’s managing editor during most of the Cold War. He worked in the U.S. Paris embassy from 1951 to 1953, where he followed orders by the CIA station chief to place propaganda in the European press. (9) Most Americans incorrectly believe that Bradlee personifies the liberal slant of the Post, given his role in publishing the Pentagon Papers and the Watergate investigations. But neither of these two incidents are what they seem. The Post merely published the Pentagon Papers after The New York Times already had, because it wanted to appear competitive. As for Watergate, we’ll examine the CIA’s reasons for wanting to bring down Nixon in a moment. Someone once asked Bradlee: "Does it irk you when The Washington Post is made out to be a bastion of slanted liberal thinkers instead of champion journalists just because of Watergate?" Bradlee responded: "Damn right it does!" (10)

It would be impossible to elaborate in this short space even the most important examples of the CIA/media alliance. Sig Mickelson was a CIA asset the entire time he was president of CBS News from 1954 to 1961. Later he went on to become president of Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty, two major outlets of CIA propaganda.

The CIA also secretly bought or created its own media companies. It owned 40 percent of the Rome Daily American at a time when communists were threatening to win the Italian elections. Worse, the CIA has bought many domestic media companies. A prime example is Capital Cities, created in 1954 by CIA businessman William Casey (who would later become Reagan’s CIA director). Another founder was Lowell Thomas, a close friend and business contact with CIA Director Allen Dulles. Another founder was CIA businessman Thomas Dewey. By 1985, Capital Cities had grown so powerful that it was able to buy an entire TV network: ABC.

For those who believe in "separation of press and state," the very idea that the CIA has secret propaganda outlets throughout the media is appalling. The reason why America was so oblivious to CIA crimes in the 40s and 50s was because the media willingly complied with the agency. Even today, when the immorality of the CIA should be an open-and-shut case, "debate" about the issue rages in the media. Here is but one example:

In 1996, The San Jose Mercury News published an investigative report suggesting that the CIA had sold crack in Los Angeles to fund the Contra war in Central America. A month later, three of the CIA’s most important media allies — The Washington Post, The New York Times and The Los Angeles Times — immediately leveled their guns at the Mercury report and blasted away in an attempt to discredit it. Who wrote the Post article? Walter Pincus, longtime CIA journalist.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Apr 24th 2024, 01:31 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) 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