Listen, sheeple, freedoms are eroding

Home » Opinion » Letters To The Editor

Sunday, October 25, 2009

Comment

Dear editor, It seems that history has started to repeat itself. In 1798 the Federalist Congress passed four laws, two of which made it a crime to “print, utter or publish any false, scandalous and malicious writing” about the government. These laws were in direct violation of the First Amendment of the Constitution. Republicans were the only journalists prosecuted for their writings. These laws were called the Sedition Acts.

Sounds like what is going on today. History is repeating itself. The current resident of the White House is doing the same thing by attacking the Fox channel as well as commentators on the channel. He is attacking radio conservative talk show hosts like Rush Limbaugh and others. Does this sound like a violation of the freedom of speech or does that freedom only belong to power-hungry politicians?

We are seeing the strong politics of Chicago at work here. Most of the state-run media (so-called mainstream media) are explicit in the attacks. They use false or misleading statements that have been twisted and spun to meet whatever the state-run media opinion can conjure up to turn public opinion.

The other night I heard on the television news (?) that one of the most liberal newspapers was going bankrupt. Barack said he was open to bailing them out because Americans need to hear the truth. The truth is that the only thing you will able to read is the truth as he sees it. The truth is not seen on ABC (All Barack Channel), CBS (Constant Barack Station) or NBC (Nothing But Barack Channel).

Wake up “sheeple” of America and pay attention to what is going on here. Our country is being taken away from us. Our banks are being nationalized. Our auto industry has fallen prey to the government. Our health care is being taken over by an overzealous administration. Do you really want to be a socialist country?

Jim Byrum / Napa

128 comment(s)

Hear Ye wrote on Oct 25, 2009 12:20 AM:

" This letter is one of the more backwards letters I've seen on here. Very poor logic. "

krusty wrote on Oct 25, 2009 1:01 AM:

" Our auto industry has fallen prey to the government? No, they fell prey to Japan creating better and more efficient cars.

The White House has not taken any steps to silence Fox News or Rush Limbaugh. The problem with many commentators on Fox News and conservatives like Limbaugh is that they do not based their hatred on the truth. What they give is their opinion and usually a heavily biased one at that.

The blame should fall more on the people who listen to conservatives who create their own facts then the commentators themselves. I believe it is the responsibility of the people to do the research and form their own opinions based on the information they get from an unbiased source. I don't think anyone should believe something simply because someone told them it was true. If Glenn Beck told you the sky was green, would you believe him? "

itsroutine wrote on Oct 25, 2009 2:46 AM:

" Disagreeing with the point of view of radicals like Rush Limbaugh is not an encroachment on Freedom of Speech. Rush and his cohorts are not facing any sort of institutionalized persecution comparable in any way to the Sedition Act.

The recent criticism of Fox News that has been presented by the White House is not completely unfounded. Regardless, their opinions are as valid as any presented in the pages of local newspapers, radio shows, or any other platform for expression. "

another voice wrote on Oct 25, 2009 8:39 AM:

" I am a political news junkie. I monitor all the news channels and read MANY newspapers online, foreign and domestic.
During the election, I was stunned to have days when no matter how many people I talked to, the EXACT same thing would come out of their mouths. Whether it was a bash Palin day, or almost any other subject making news, everyone knew the same sound bites. Except for Fox, or Rush who would play audio montages of all the stations, and all the commentators saying THE SAME THING!!
Now, thanks to Fox, we know we can see for ourselves (those who care more about the truth than their comfort zones) and see we were in fact, played by all the media with tingles up their legs, and stars in their eyes.
Want proof? Go to Youtube and look up "Anita Dunn we control the media".
In her own words, she explains how tightly they controlled everyone but the evil Fox and Rush. Prepared videos so the mighty Obama would not have any foot in mouth episodes, not have to answer questions, and so the news would talk about what he "said" instead of what he had done, or the thugs he hung out with, or who was important during his formative years.
You are right Jim. They are sheeple. But they don't want to wake up.
But since you would rather know the truth, base your decisions on reality and not just "hope" and wait for your "Obama money", the other folks can go buy their Obama prayer candles (get them online) and you can come sit by me. Thanks for the letter. Too bad Obama supporters don't care. "

another voice wrote on Oct 25, 2009 8:44 AM:

" Another quirk in this story, is that Anita Dunn, the white house communication czar who explains on Youtube how tightly they control and controlled the messages during the campaign and beyond, is married to an attorney from the firm that Obama has paid more than a million dollars to hide his records. Now before you all go "birther bs" on me, just know that even people who used to think this was crazy talk, are beginning to be concerned. Google
Camille Paglia's articles in Salon (no conservative news there) and even the latest judge in the suit against Obama thought last week he would be throwing this case out, but ended the session telling O's lawyers that they did not answer any of the questions to his satisfaction, so the trial goes on. Maybe we can get rid of this guy before he succeeds in completely gutting our country. "

dellasumbrella wrote on Oct 25, 2009 9:16 AM:

" Krusty, itsroutine and Hear Ye may have said everything that needs to be said about this letter, but I can't help myself....

"Does this sound like a violation of the freedom of speech ...?"

No, what the Obama White House has done has nothing to do with First Amendment rights. Obama and his team are merely refusing to play the Fox game of innuendo, misconstruction and outright untruth; they have identified and named the deception the right-wing media has perpetuated for over 30 years.

And the letter above reflects, in tone and content, the type of misrepresentation and fear mongering that has permitted the right-wing media moguls to push their "news" agenda into the realm of paranoia, character assassination and incitement to revolution. "

kevin wrote on Oct 25, 2009 9:27 AM:

" Excellent letter Jim!

All of B.O.'s actions are taken right from his socialist playbook, Saul Alinski's "Rules for Radicals".... "

alixzander wrote on Oct 25, 2009 9:40 AM:

" hahaha, oh my god! and they are gonna take away out guns!! "

jakesdad wrote on Oct 25, 2009 9:51 AM:

" Krusty and itsroutine arent even close to understanding whats really going on with the media. There is a very real movement by this administration to censor,silence, or dismantle any opposition to Nobamas brand of socialism. It has gone as far as warning the "main stream media" to not run the stories that Fox news has reported on or face being exciled. "

Little Lord Fauntleroy wrote on Oct 25, 2009 10:03 AM:

" wow. I am amazed at what makes it into the newspapers these days. "

a teacher wrote on Oct 25, 2009 10:07 AM:

" Sheeple, huh? I have visions of "the Island of Dr. Moreau". And what do we call you folks who blindly listen to Rush, Hannity and Beck with nary a hint of critical thinking? Is there a cross between an elephant and a lemming?

Joking aside, I'm still waiting to hear what freedoms are being eroded away. Refusing to treat Fox News as a serious news outlet is NOT the same thing as preventing them from publishing "news". The banks haven't been nationalized - in fact the Obama administration has stated it WON'T do that. Big Auto has fallen to BAD Business Model. The only people who have taken over health care are the insurance companies. "

PlasticPinkFlamingo wrote on Oct 25, 2009 10:51 AM:

" della, the misrepresentation and fearmongering has gone on a long time in the mainstream media, the puppets of the Democrat Party and especially the Obama administration. They will not report any story that might get them in trouble.

That's the real identification of the deception that has been perpetrated by the media for over 30 years. "

glenroy wrote on Oct 25, 2009 11:00 AM:

" Yea right... ‘you can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it drink.’

We have the worst situation in our nations history… highest taxes in the developed world, highest deficits....highest dependency on foreign energy, energy costs...the direct consequence of the failed policies of the most corrupt congress in history.

More than Japan, Germany, Korea, our auto industry fell victim liberalism making it impossible to develop massive energy reserves….compounded by UAW extortion. If the Germans, by far the most accommodating to organized labor, couldn’t work with the UAW, none exists excluding the culprits which, is what we now have with Government Motors… GM had record profit’s the year before gas went to $4.50 a gallon….sure sign of an inferior product, when you’re liberal anyway. What other excuse could they make?

I would add to Mr. Bryum’s list of history repeating itself, the cause that ruined our economy….liberal corruption in the form of congressional ‘oversight‘ of Freddie/ Fannie, Wall Street, virtually billions went went directly into Democrat pockets and ultimately coffers, the greatest ponzi scam ever…. If Republicans or real Blue Dogs had any sense of reality they would be hammering liberals on their core policy failures….it is about our survival in a world economy.

To rectify the situation we elected the worst possible candidate….Obama is in every sense of the word a ‘manufactured product’ of the most corrupt congress in history….every state that liberals control, regardless of party affiliation, is virtually bankrupt just trying to meet the staggering costs of public employee union sweetheart deals… So the liberal solution to their policy failures is higher taxes while stifling those who understand what they are doing….history does repeat itself. "

Raven wrote on Oct 25, 2009 11:00 AM:

" any particular freedoms being eroded?......we here this time and time again but when asked no one have ventured forth with a specific case and method on how they are being eroded..... "

Hear Ye wrote on Oct 25, 2009 11:32 AM:

" The problem with those that cry about liberal media is that they they consider any news outlet that doesn't spout right-wing talking points and fear-mongering to be liberal.

For instance their blinders are on so tight that they can't even recognize Fox News as a conservative channel despite the daily evidence and the fact it was created to be such. I don't see any liberals trying to defend MSNBC as not being biased. I guess some of us have our eyes open a little wider. "

dellasumbrella wrote on Oct 25, 2009 11:51 AM:

" Let’s talk about the First Amendment.

•Starting with Kevin Phillips, a conservative theorist who defined Nixon’s Southern Strategy of playing the race card to win votes, and who, after publishing his book Midiacracy in 1975, declared that the First Amendment was “obsolete.” Along with other others who have doggedly nudged the media toward the far right, he advocated censorship, by government or by business, of non-conservative views in the media.

•When CBS cancelled a show that was possibly unflattering toward the Reagans, Matt Drudge announced that the internet, talk radio and cable had put pressure on CBS, heralding the “beginning of a second media century”.

•In a book published by Accuracy in Media (AIM), a right-wing media monitoring group, a return to McCarthy’s investigative techniques was recommended, including targeting journalists for government investigation of not only falsehoods in their work, but also if it didn’t contain anti-Communist writings. Government monitors placed in TV networks were one recommendation.

•Defamation of the media, because of its potential to intimidate the media, has been used regularly by conservative media monitors. William Simon, AIM board member who became wealthy by financing hostile corporate takeovers with junk bonds, revealed in his book A Time for Truth that he didn’t believe in a free press, but wanted a press controlled and censored by business owners which reflected right-wing, pro-business interests.

•David Horowitz, through Committee on Media Integrity, sought (& succeeded) to push PBS programming to the right by threatening its funding and stigmatize & censor programming the media monitor disapproved of, while injecting its heavily subsidized right-wing opinion.

Source: David Brock, having defected from the Republican Party and investigated thoroughly the right-wing media, documented in The Republican Noise Machine

That’s just a small sampling. "

Sandra wrote on Oct 25, 2009 11:52 AM:

" For some reason, I am still amazed when I hear people defend the shutting down of any voiced opinion...We are still in the U.S., aren't we?
"What they give is their opinion and usually a heavily biased one at that." "Obama and his team are merely refusing to play the Fox game of innuendo, misconstruction and outright untruth..." "Refusing to treat Fox News as a serious news outlet ..."
Some of you really do not see that the media, both left and right has turned more into givers of opinion, than actual factual news casts? It does not bother you that only a more conservative station is targeted? You do not see it from the left? Only the right...Hello...wake up. If it was NPR being targeted you would be crying foul for all to hear.
Yet the defenders of Obama's actions are not in the least bit alarmed that there is a trend to silence anyone's voice. As long as their guys can keep voicing the supposedly "Correct" opinion, it is fine and dandy that the other guys get silenced.
And they wax poetic and are so blind to this attempted control by big brother..... it should be embarrassing for them to read their own words. But they really don't get it....Amazing.... "

dellasumbrella wrote on Oct 25, 2009 12:36 PM:

" The only people I've heard who defend shutting down a voiced opinion have been conservatives trying to shut down responsible journalism. Yes, NPR has been targeted over and over and over. And some have protested it while most have ignored it.

Obama has silenced no one. I am alarmed at the trend of the right-wing media manipulators to broadcast their views through angry, self-proclaimed righteousness while trying to silence anything to the left of Nixon. Over 30 years now, and counting.... "

dellasumbrella wrote on Oct 25, 2009 3:47 PM:

" Just one recent example:

From L.A. Times, By Matea Gold, June 28, 2005

“A consultant hired by the Republican chairman of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting to monitor the political leanings of guests on PBS' "NOW with Bill Moyers" last year also tracked the content of programs hosted by NPR's Diane Rehm and public broadcaster Tavis Smiley, according to a Democratic senator who obtained a copy of the analysis.”

Kenneth Tomlinson, CPB chairman, “declared his intention to right a perceived liberal tilt at PBS.”

“’The ultimate irony is that what Mr. Tomlinson says he wants, we deliver every night,’ said Smiley, noting that he had sought to showcase diverse opinions.”

“His PBS program's first political guest was former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who attempted to end federal funding for public broadcasting in 1995. An interview with then-Republican National Committee Chairman Ed Gillespie in February 2004 was followed with a segment featuring Afeni Shakur, mother of the late rapper Tupac Shakur.”

http://articles.latimes.com/2005/jun/28/entertainment/et-cpb28

Also reported at http://newsosaur.blogspot.com/2005/06/what-big-brother-watched-at-pbs.html

“The thought cop hired to police public broadcasting by the chairman of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting not only rated guests on his perception of their political leanings but also on whether they supported White House policies.

“This shockingly inappropriate intrusion on the independence of the press by a secretly retained government hireling was reported bravely, and ironically, on the eve of the Independence Day weekend by National Public Radio. NPR and the Public Broadcasting System, the TV network, have been major targets of the Bush administration’s full-court press on the press.” "

a teacher wrote on Oct 25, 2009 4:08 PM:

" The Bush Administration did exactly the same thing with journalists and news organizations, Helen Thomas for one. People were appalled, but no one could say that her first amendment right was interfered with. It's one thing to control who you are talking to, it's not the same as shutting down a news outlet. "

Raven wrote on Oct 25, 2009 5:12 PM:

" Yet the defenders of Obama's actions are not in the least bit alarmed that there is a trend to silence anyone's voice....

any specific examples you care to share? "

alucawanza wrote on Oct 25, 2009 5:51 PM:

" "News" stations don't try to make news. They report it. Fox news commentators participated in and endorsed the Tea Party pseudo-marches. They encouraged people to come out and join in. They gave places and dates, not reporting them, but fostering participation. This is not objective reporting. News organizations don't behave like this. Ergo, Fox is not a news organization. It is a molder of opinion and right wing propaganda. But, that's o.k. No one is trying to shut them down. Just using our freedom of expression as they are using their's.

CNN's Lou Dobbs is quite an entertainer too. Geraldo Rivera doesn't want him to go over to Fox. That's pretty funny... "

antipc wrote on Oct 25, 2009 6:31 PM:

" Of course Della you'd have to deny that PBS & NPR get public funding, yet still can't achieve FOX's ratings. mmm, mmm, mmm.

The hot air is running out of Air Obama & his personal vendetta against FOX is his weak link.

Super Nothing is his own worst enemy. "

dellasumbrella wrote on Oct 25, 2009 7:24 PM:

" It's never been a secret that sensationalism sells. And that includes unsubstantiated gossip, character assassination, and anything that stirs up a false sense of righteousness. "

Sandra wrote on Oct 26, 2009 9:49 AM:

" Della and Raven,
Regarding this, "The only people I've heard who defend shutting down a voiced opinion have been conservatives trying to shut down responsible journalism ", and this, "any specific examples you care to share? "
From Real Clear Politics: "White House Tries To Bar Fox News From Intervewing Pay Czar". Go to the websight to hear the video.
Now there are always regular folk who try to silence views that they oppose, as shown by your example of NPR, or by what you all are doing right here with your opinions of FOX news.
But this is the first time in my recollection
of current politics that the "WHITE HOUSE" has made an attempt to ban a media organization. Yes it failed, but it surely tested the waters. Just the attempt should alarm you.
In fact, I tried to research any president who made the attempt to silence media opposition, and could not find any, other than Obama. Certainly there have been Presidents who claimed to get a bad rap from the press...Nixon comes to mind. But can anyone think of any president other than Obama who SINGLED OUT and attempted to ban a news organization from an interview?
If you all would pause from your finger pointing at the dreaded Fox Network long enough to step back and realize that this move by our current White House is unprecedented, to my knowledge. It is dangerous to our constitution, especially in light of all the other things going on in this administration., regarding the bailouts, etc.
I do not have the faith that you all can step back and gain perspective, but you should try. "

Hear Ye wrote on Oct 26, 2009 11:27 AM:

" Sandra-

As long as your logic is that anyone who disagrees with a "news" channel is trying to silence it, well then there isn't much to debate with you. "

kevin wrote on Oct 26, 2009 12:01 PM:

" Acluwanza said:

"News" stations don't try to make news. They report it."

LMAO!!!

Tell that to DAN RATHER. He actually used FAKE documents to back up his story about President Bush's alleged misconduct in the military... "

a teacher wrote on Oct 26, 2009 1:16 PM:

" Sandra-news organizations and FOX news don't have a right to interview. Interviews are granted. If Mr. Obama does not want to grant anyone and interview, give a press conference or send representatives to the network "talking head" shows, he doesn't have to. That's his right.

It's all nonsense anyway. Politicians and News organizations use each other like college students at a love in (the censor didn't like my original word). Politicians need to put their spin on policy and news organizations need ratings to make money. It's a game with a wink and a nod towards objectivity and relevance.

Obama MAY make a point, but it will be a Pyrrhic victory in my opinion. Cutting off FOX is good for their bottom line, they can play victim and under dog, laughing all the way to the bank. "

alucawanza wrote on Oct 26, 2009 1:41 PM:

" Sandra
I don't have any examples, but I'm sure Presidents have refused interviews with many channels and have attempted to manipulate the press. Here's an old quote:

Walter Cronkite believes the Nixon Administration attacked the news media "to raise the credibility of the Administration. It's like a first-year physics experiment with two tubes of water--you put pressure on one side and it makes the other side go up or down." He added: "I have charged that this is a 'conspiracy.' I don't regret my use of that word."

It's a non-issue really. There is no reason that Obama has to include Fox News. They can use sound bites from the other stations. He isn't trying to ban Fox. He just chooses not to appear with them. He has an opinion. He's entitled to it. "

Sandra wrote on Oct 26, 2009 3:00 PM:

" Alu,
Nixon did not single out any ONE media source as the culprit and attempt to have them banned. Nixon attacked the media in general. Here is another example from Nancy Pelosi, "Pelosi: Ban FOXNews from covering Congress – by Lee Habeeb – Salem Radio
2009 October 24
tags: Congress, FOXNews, News, Pelosi, Politicsby MB Snow
.Saturday, October 24, 2009
More bad news for Fox News ….. sort of.

Oct. 28, 2009 12:43 PM. This just in from Speaker of the House Pelosi. In an interview with MSNBC’s Keith Olberman last night, Nancy Pelosi announced that she would move to bring a vote to the floor of The House of Representatives as early as next week to ban Fox from covering Congress. “That Fox regularly grants access to Republican Congressman to spread their lies and propaganda on their airwaves is a violation of the public trust, and their continued desire to challenge such well documented facts as Global Warming, and the efficacy of single payer health insurance, proves that they are simply doing the work of the special interests. They should thus be stripped of their journalistic access in the halls of Congress,” argued Pelosi."
This is OK with you???? Thank goodness Ms. Pelosi is there to protect us from the evil republicans, and FOX, who spread propaganda to those of us too stupid to differentiat what is real and what is not.
Now, what if a republican came and did the same with a media source they disagreed with? You would then be ok with that? Maybe they feel you need to be protected from what they view as evil lies.
You all really don't get it do you? Welcome to 1984 and a Brave New World. "

Sandra wrote on Oct 26, 2009 3:08 PM:

" HearYe,
What you posted on Oct 26, 2009 11:27 AM makes no sense what so ever. Banning one source of news media the ability to cover news firsthand because you disagree with the coverage you get from it is an attempt to control the media. Not only is it downright Orwellian, it is insulting to people's intelligence. "

Sandra wrote on Oct 26, 2009 3:16 PM:

" Teacher,
I will agree with this statement from you,
"Cutting off FOX is good for their bottom line, they can play victim and under dog, laughing all the way to the bank."
I see that, you see that...But the current administration does not see that. What does that say about the demogogary of this administration, that they are so full of themselves that they do not see the obvious? And Ms. Pelosi adds fuel to the fire by her remarks.
I think it is truly because they think the average american citizen is too stupid for their own good, and need protection from those who know better. What else could it be? The only other thing that comes to mind is they have an agenda that they do not want questioned, that they are trying to rush it through, and that more examination shines light on the faults inherent in it..... "

Hear Ye wrote on Oct 26, 2009 5:01 PM:

" Sandra-

I'm just going off of your words.

Sandra wrote "Now there are always regular folk who try to silence views that they oppose, as shown by your example of NPR, or by what you all are doing right here with your opinions of FOX news."

I'm sorry but having an opinion about Fox News has nothing to do with silencing them.

Sandra wrote
" For some reason, I am still amazed when I hear people defend the shutting down of any voiced opinion...We are still in the U.S., aren't we?

What people are defending shutting down an opinion?

Sorry but the idea that I can't have an opinion on Fox News without trying to silence theirs is absurd. "

Sandra wrote on Oct 26, 2009 5:48 PM:

" Hear ye, you have selective understanding and have taken my words out of context.
That post was in response to those defending this administration's actions in trying to ban a news source from covering it, and in doing so prevent them from voicing a first hand opinion of what they observed. And I am amazed that anyone would support those actions, and am very surpised if you support this.
I never said you could not have an opinion about anything, or that because you have an opinion, it means you are trying to shut down anothers.
But when someone supports our governments attempt at banning a media source from covering said government, that surprises and alarms me. And it would follow that those who agree with our government taking these questionable actions are defending the shutting down of an opinion. If that shoe fits, then wear it.
This is not about what we think about OX news, or any news organization. You need to think outside that narrow little box, and understand that this unprecedented attempt from our government to control a news source is undermining our constitution, and our freedoms. "

Hear Ye wrote on Oct 26, 2009 6:12 PM:

" I'm still not clear on who "all you" are on this thread that are supporting silencing a news organization. It's not selective understanding it's not understanding at all. "

a teacher wrote on Oct 26, 2009 6:24 PM:

" Sandra-the White House may be playing a deeper game than you or I are aware of. They are pretty smart guys. It may take a few years to tell if they were brilliant or stupid. "

Sandra wrote on Oct 26, 2009 7:27 PM:

" Hear ye,
Reread everyones post and see if you can figure it out. I think it was fairly obvious who was supporting the administrations actions. If you can't see that, then I can't help you.
Teacher,
It is my belief they are absolutely playing a deeper game. I guess if it is brilliant, it depends who you are and how you benefit. I am pretty sure those pulling the strings are the ones benefiting. And that would neither be yourself, or me, or the rest of middle America. In fact, a Who song comes to mind..."Meet the New Boss, Same as the Old Boss". "

Raven wrote on Oct 26, 2009 7:41 PM:

" hmm...would Bush moving Helen Thomas from her seat in the front row to the back row of the white house press room to avoid her questions count? "

glenroy wrote on Oct 26, 2009 7:59 PM:

" What sad state of liberal logic....

Like denying their policy failures that ruined our economy....pandering to their special interests…legislating our dependence of foreign energy….liberals deny what the majority of Americans know....

Imagine if a Republican President denied Dan Rather's presence....they didn’t to that after he arranged a forgery… "

dellasumbrella wrote on Oct 26, 2009 10:08 PM:

" L. Brent Bozell III, a conservative activist, established the Media Research Center with the goal of ensuring "balance" in media -- having opposing views presented, right and left, regardless of whether they're true or not. For Bush II’s inauguration, Bozell and Jerry Falwell hosted a mock funeral for Bill Clinton. Five hundred conservatives attended, and Bozell announced, "Yes, Virginia, the vast right-wing conspiracy did exist all along,” and commented about having two more days to “revel in the politics of personal destruction.” Bush didn’t need to censor the media himself, he had the MRC, funded by the Scaife and Olin foundations and wealthy individuals, to do that work for him. Formed as a media watchdog, the MRC was also, according to Bozel, supposed to perpetuate conservative views in the news. MRC functioned as Bush’s censor by “questioning the patriotism of TV networks that it saw as insufficiently supportive of Bush’s war aims.” Bozell sent out a fund-raising letter declaring they were “training our guns on any media outlet or reporter interfering with America’s war on terrorism or trying to undermine the authority of President Bush.” During Bush’s tenure, an executive memo at Fox news was issued each day, ensuring the Bush administration’s point of view was consistently reflected on Fox.
(From recovered right-wing journalist David Brock’s The Republican Noise Machine)

“ONE YEAR after Sept. 11, the White House gave the only interview with President George W. Bush to CBS’ Scott Pelley, who knew the president from Texas.

“It ignored major newspapers, notably The New York Times. In fact, Bush granted only rare interviews to the “paper of record,” which often criticized his policies, and none through most of his second term.”
From Carl Leubsdorf, Oct. 16, 2009, at http://www.northjersey.com/news/opinions/leubsdorf_101609.html?c=y&page=1 "

Hear Ye wrote on Oct 26, 2009 10:16 PM:

" I really like Rachel Maddows take on all of this Fox News stuff.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3LUid0IZ2w&feature=popt00us07 "

Todd Adams wrote on Oct 27, 2009 5:53 AM:

" Kevin, Don't you find it the least bit ironic that conservatives such as yourself complain endlessly about the fake documents Dan Rather presented on Bush's military service, yet ignore the fake documents (yellow cake uranium from Nigeria) that Bush presented to the American public to convince them that Saddam was trying to build WMD. Rather's story, overall, was correct. Nobody disputes the fact that political connection got Bush into the reserve and that Bush did not show up for one or two physical examinations or for duty for a year or two. On the other hand Bush's story turned out to be completely wrong. "

Todd Adams wrote on Oct 27, 2009 6:10 AM:

" All news is propaganda. On the front page of the New York Times, one of the best news outlets left in this country, it reads "All the news that's fit to print". If you aren't skeptical of your favorite news outlet you should go back to reading the comics.

I have noticed that the right wing/left wing bias between the cable news stations only exists for mundane and inconsequential matters. For important matter like whether to invade Iraq, immigration, or health care reform, all of the major news outlets, TV and newspaper, seem to become one voice. This debate about fox, msnbc, etc is all about creating the appearance that there is diversity in the media. Hardly. "

Raven wrote on Oct 27, 2009 8:59 AM:

" "What sad state of liberal logic....

Like denying their policy failures that ruined our economy.."

hmmm..the last time you acknowledged the role the GOP had in the last decade was when? "

Sandra wrote on Oct 27, 2009 9:55 AM:

" Della,
So while I do not disagree with what you posted and the MRC, you really do not see there is a difference? The left has MEDIA MATTERS, arguably more powerful than the MRC. What about diversity in Broadcasting? What you posted, while not a good thing, is something that has gone on and is precedented in this country. Both side have traditionally called the other side things to make them look bad. Both sides have tradfitionally applied pressure to get their way. NO PRESIDENT HAS EVER tried to ban a media source from interviewing someone because they did not like the press they were given.
Wake up people.
I repeat, this is not about Dan Rather, or FOX news. Or who was the worst, or who you think reports real news, or who is the propagandist. It is about an unprecedented move by our White House to gain blatent control over certain aspects of the media.
I am flabergasted that you all continue to point fingers, and ignore the elephant in the room. "

itsroutine wrote on Oct 27, 2009 10:14 AM:

" Todd, don't knock comics.

Unless we're talking about Family Circus. "

glenroy wrote on Oct 27, 2009 10:41 AM:

" raven...the Republicans that went along are nearly as bad as those who created this mess....the problem is...these were and remain core Democrat policies....Democrats made hundreds of millions under the watch of appointed fellow Democrats, by Democrats...that said the Republicans that went along should be removed from office as well.

How's that?

There is a difference, Republicans didn't scam or lie to the public though if they had any brains they must of known a train wreck was coming....nor walk away with millions.... "

dellasumbrella wrote on Oct 27, 2009 11:09 AM:

" "NO PRESIDENT HAS EVER tried to ban a media source from interviewing someone"

Sandra, there's banning and there's banning. The attempt to ban, sanctioned by presidents, has occured in many different ways, from Nixon to Bush. I cited one way the Bush administration "banned" interviews above. Other than Obama deciding he wasn't going to give an interview on Fox, I don't know what you mean by "banning" by this administration. I haven't heard much about Pelosi's comment, so I'm not weighing in on that. But I think Obama has every right to decide who he will or will not grant interviews with, just as every other president has had that right.

For many years now, conservatives had the freedom to bend the dowsing stick of information toward the tarry pits of right-wing opinion. Now, finally, progressives have caught on to the public opinion game and have the freedom to exert whatever force they can muster, given limited funding, to bring news a little back toward the fresh water of journalistic objectivity. Hence Media Matters and FAIR, which work to return to us the freedom to read factual news as well as commentary, and to hear about it when the right-wing media is spinning out of control. Thank goodness for those counter-balancing media watchdogs, and thank goodness for a president who knows and can honor the difference between journalistic integrity and sensationalism. How many presidents do you think have granted interviews to The National Enquirer? "

dellasumbrella wrote on Oct 27, 2009 11:11 AM:

" "I am flabergasted that you all continue to point fingers, and ignore the elephant in the room."

Sandra, the right-wing media machine is the elephant in the room.

That's my whole point. "

AmCanBlogger wrote on Oct 27, 2009 12:26 PM:

" Raven, yes, the GOP did in fact go on a spending spree UNTIL the democrats, the professionals at wasting tax dollars, came back to power. Any fiscal decisions would have HAD to go through Congress, which was CONTROLLED for nearly the last decade by democrats. Now it has exacerbated the problem with this horrific spending spree. As for "liberal logic." I think that is a myth. "

Raven wrote on Oct 27, 2009 1:41 PM:

" AmCan..the GOP contyrolled congress from Jan 1995 to Jan 2007... 12 years... compared to 2.5 for the Democrats...with a GOP president for 6 of those years...so who had the hands on the purse strings....so explain the myth again?

"There is a difference, Republicans didn't scam or lie to the public ...."

you say that with a serious face, the GOP painted itself as the party of fiscal responsibility the entire time they had control...and still tries it now...again explain how the GOP control of congress for 12 years allowed the democrats to do anything the GOP didn't want to go along with....talk about scams or lies...jeezzzzz "

C'mon reg get it right wrote on Oct 27, 2009 2:18 PM:

" Sheeple wow is that a term? I am pretty sure that the best way to win friends and influence people is to show respect. Something media blowhards can not do!!!! Nor can Mr. Byrun!!! They do however self promote and obliterate the truth. This is true with both left and right blowhards. Is it a sad statment when the most balanced commentator is a comedian?(John Stewart) Mr. Byrun the only people listening to you are the people who worship FOX. FOX news is a business that has to make money. They are not interested in the Truth!! That is also true of all the other Media outlets. So dig a little deeper for your next letter and demonstrate balance with your references. "

Joe wrote on Oct 27, 2009 3:00 PM:

" Fox News only good show is The O'Reilly Factor. Glenn Beck is too far right.
CNN has Lou Dobbs and Jack Cafferty that are also good about not just preaching only good things about Obama.
MSNBC is just a liberal channel full of nonsense. "

Sandra wrote on Oct 27, 2009 3:13 PM:

" This is not about the right wing media machine.
Those who claim it is about FOX, or the MRC, do not seem to see that there are the same types spreading trash from the other perspective. This is what happens when people can speak their minds. This is what happens when people feel strongly about issues.
This is not dangerous.
It is up to us to decipher the truth from the propaganda. I am up to that task. I do not want, or need, the governmet to syphon the information I hear.
If I choose, I want to hear FOX. I want to hear MSNBC. I want to hear Limbaugh, and NPR. I do NOT want the white house determining what perspective I hear.
What is dangerous, is the white house attempting to ban a perspective they disagree with from having access to a press conference. They were testing the waters, and how we react to this will determine how far they take it.
This is something everyone should be able to understand.
I really am having difficulty understanding those who insist it is all about right wing media, and defending the white house's move because they dislike FOX news. The road we are heading down, if we do not have the intelligence to see this for what it is, will lead to the government deciding what is appropriate for us to hear.
How can you deny that this move by the white house is unprecedented and dangerous to the freedom of speech? "

a teacher wrote on Oct 27, 2009 4:31 PM:

" "How can you deny that this move by the white house is unprecedented and dangerous to the freedom of speech? "

Because it isn't. FOX News is free to say what ever it wants to. Nothing the Obama administration is doing can stop them. "

Raven wrote on Oct 27, 2009 11:15 PM:

" who is stopping you from listening or watching any new source you want Sandra?....there is nothing news...white houses have always tried to favor media that agrees with them and keep distance between themselves and media that criticize them...nothing new here..been going on since the birth of the republic. "

Sandra wrote on Oct 28, 2009 8:27 AM:

" Teacher and Raven,
I think the problem is you do not have the perspective you need. When it's your guy doing it, and he is doing it to someone you despise, and strongly disagree with, it is fine and dandy with you.
Now, imagine some one you despise doing the same thing to someone you love, and agree with. Would you feel just a bit threatened? Would you wory about your eroding freedoms then?
The administration cannot stop FOX from getting their info second hand. I gree that is what the reality would of been, for right now, had Obama's moive been successful. OR, what will happen, should Pelosi's move be successful.
But what if Bush tried to pull the same thing with NPR? Or if a prominent republican member of congress tried to ban NPR from first hand coverage of congress?
This is unprecedented. You can deny this, Raven, but you are dead wrong.
No president has ever singled out and attempted to ban a prominent media source because they did not like the press they received. No member of congress has ever brought this to the floor of congress, as Pelosi, said she would do.
They are testing the waters to see just how much they can get away with. And people are helping it along, by denying the reality of what is happening.
Raven, I am not speaking of what I can see or listen to right this minute...I am speaking of where this road leads. This road leads to the media being controlled, and the news we hear being controlled by those in charge. "

dellasumbrella wrote on Oct 28, 2009 9:44 AM:

" "Now, imagine some one you despise doing the same thing to someone you love, and agree with."

Sandra, I think you're tipping your hand. So...you despise Obama, and he's, what, denying Fox (whom you love?) an interview?

Is that your point?

Bush has tried the same thing -- he denied information to the press for 8 years, by refusing to answer questions at press conferences, by planting journalists willing to lob softballs, and by shunning selected media for interviews. And the news was tweaked by his cronies making sure Fox and other right wing news outlets disseminated opinion that was favorable to Bush's policies. Now what's happening is Obama is setting appropriate limits with a nefarious rumor monger, and people are crying government takeover, suppression of the press, and "testing the waters to see how much they can get away with."

We already know how much politicians can get away with, through the long arm of their echo machine. They've been calling the shots for many years, and the same old accusations of "socialism, elitism, conspiracy, government takeover, end of 1st Amendment rights that were being used in the 60s and 70s are being used now in attempt to discredit a Democratic administration. I didn't watch TV enough through those years to see it happening, and the print news still had its clothes on. Now that I'm seeing the naked scam, I'm appalled. This administration is merely saying it won't grant an interview until Fox gets decent. But you can watch the full frontal attack on truth, humanism and progressive policy all you want. No one is stopping you. Conservatives declared war on the 1st Amendment many years ago. They came close to winning, but you still have your rights. "

Raven wrote on Oct 28, 2009 10:34 AM:

" Sandra..you are forgetting that Bush did do the same thing....one example, look at the Sunday morning newscasts during the last year he was in office...look at where the official spokesperson appeared the most often.....

And I am sorry but you need to take another look at the history of presidents and the press...it is rife with similar examples....

Remember Spiro Agnew and the nattering nabobs of negativity?

And take a look earlier at the newspaper editors prosecuted under the sedition act of 1798. The Sedition Act made it a crime to publish "false, scandalous, and malicious writing" against the government or its officials. It was enacted July 14, 1798, with an expiration date of March 3, 1801.
Twenty-five men, most of them editors of Republican newspapers, (supporters of the Democratic-Republican Party founded by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison around 1792. Supporters usually identified themselves as Republicans, but sometimes as Democrats.The term "Democratic Republican" was also used by contemporaries. It was the dominant political party in the United States from 1800 to 1824, when it split into competing factions, one of which became the modern Democratic Party.) were arrested and their newspapers forced to shut down under the provisions of this act.

One of the men arrested was Benjamin Franklin's grandson, Benjamin Franklin Bache, editor of the Philadelphia Democrat-Republican Aurora. Charged with libeling President Adams, Bache's arrest erupted in a public outcry against all of the Alien and Sedition Acts.

The civil war and WWI are also full of similar acts aimed at the 'left' of the day.

The brouhaha with Fox is a tempest in a teakettle by comparison. "

balance wrote on Oct 28, 2009 11:45 AM:

" I really can't add anything to the voices of reason in this comment section, but as an independent, I offer a few simple little tips to the right wing: Name-calling - not good. As soon as you call anyone who doesn't agree with everything you say as if it were gospel "Sheeple" you have completely lost any chance of convincing them you're right. Personally, I find it more offensive than a swear word. So I submit to you that using that term is completely illogical.

Same goes with saying or implying that others are somehow less logical or patriotic than you are. Do you really think logic and patriotism choose political sides? Only Republicans are logical? All liberals are unpatriotic? Come on... you can't really believe these things, can you?

You might want to tone down the hysteria and hyperbole, too: "Our freedoms are being taken away!!!!" Still waiting to hear which ones.... "

anticommie wrote on Oct 28, 2009 12:05 PM:

" I have heard David Axlrod, Rahm Emmanuel and Anita Dunn say the Fox News stories are full of lies, but my question is: What story are they talking about? They give no specifics, just that they are worried that other media outlets will begin to question the Admin as well. I remember when CBS ran a story on 60 minutes about President Bush that was completely untrue about his National Guard service, and the Left still believes it. Glenn Beck has repeated numerous times for the Admin to call his show and tell him what information he has wrong, and if he is, he will correct it. He is still waiting. I know, I watch his show. "

selim wrote on Oct 28, 2009 12:40 PM:

" This is HILARIOUS. These right-wing people crying about the "loss of freedoms" and claiming that we're the "highest taxed undustrial nation" (which is so incredibly wrong that it's sad to think that someone is actually voting with that thought rattling around in their head) are really telling us one thing: they're afraid. They're not afraid that Obama is reading from the "Socialist playbook" (more AM talk radio parroting). They're not afraid that our freedoms are eroding.

They're afraid that a black man with a funny name will succeed where a member of the "Royal Republican Guard" failed. They're afraid that the economy will succeed, that people will be healthier, and...most of all...that their freedoms will actually NOT go away. They're afraid to admit that Obama really did give working folks a tax cut in April of this year. They're afraid to admit that the American taxpayer actually made an average return of 12.5% on the TARP fund paybacks. They're afraid to admit that America is better respected around the world.

They also bring up all the tax-whining and the nonexistant evaporation of rights because is obscures the facts: the fact that Bush43 was responsible for the largest growth in government in the last 50 years. It obscures the fact that supply-side economics have once again been shown to be a miserable failure (as if 1988-1991 wasn't enough to prove that point). And it obscures the fact that the Republicans simply don't have a candidate for 2010, and that reasonable Republicans are getting sick of the fringe & religious republicans.

As Reagan famously said: Facts are stupid things. The fringe right seems to be following their famous leader in that regard extraordinarily well. "

dellasumbrella wrote on Oct 28, 2009 1:32 PM:

" anticommie, which story on 60 minutes are you referring to?

"Glenn Beck has repeated numerous times for the Admin to call his show and tell him what information he has wrong, and if he is, he will correct it."

That's cute. The Obama administration must know what every mental health worker who has dealt with psychosis knows -- never try to convince a delusional person that their delusions are wrong. "

dellasumbrella wrote on Oct 28, 2009 1:34 PM:

" Right on, selim! "

Sandra wrote on Oct 28, 2009 2:14 PM:

" Oh for goodness sake Della...talk about atempting to detract from my point. I was asking people to attempt to look at the problem from another perspective as they seem to be entrenched in their view of seeing it from a very very partisan viewpoint. I do not despise Obama. BUT, it has been very clear to me that many despise the republican party and Bush, by the way they speak of them. Have you ever seen me engage in that BS? No, and you will not. What a cheap shot Della. I thought higher of you than that.
Della, Bush never attempted to ban NPR, or MSNBC, or anyone from his press conferences. If he attempted to dodge questions it was the job of those present to not let him get away with it. How can they take him to task if they were not even allowed to be there. THAT IS MY POINT!
Obama does not like FOX. He does not like their coverage, or the conclusions thay come to. How to solve his problem? BAN THEM. Noiw that's the ticket...why didn't Bush think of that?
Raven, OMG are you now defending the sedition acts? "

dellasumbrella wrote on Oct 28, 2009 3:23 PM:

" Bush didn't have to think of standing up for himself, or setting limits, Sandra, the way was paved for him to skate on many issues while practicing the art of deception.

I still don't know what you mean by "ban".

I never despised Bush, either, that's why I didn't understand your analogy. I wasn't aligned with his policy, don't subscribe to his worldview, found him insincere for the most part, and was unhappy with many of his decisions. Most. The more I study the situation, and the more I read peoples' comments here, which pretty much parallel the dialogue in the media the past couple of decades, the more I understand what has been going on, the undercurrent of which is already in place and which has already carried us far right of where we started out when I was young. I think I understand your fear of terrorists, but have been totally bewildered by the raving fears of the current administration. However, with all I've been reading about the right-wing positions against the left starting (in my lifetime) in the 50s, the growth of their movement aided by massive funding and appeal to rational fiscal conservatives as well as fringe social reactionaries, and the attack tactics and fear mongering used, along with subsidized infiltration of government and the press, both of which they have used skillfully to promote their agenda, I'm finally getting what's been going on. I've been out of touch too long, caught up in a necessarily non-partisan profession, working with people of all political stripes, and aware only of a feeling that my values and livelihood were being washed away by a tidal wave of unfettered power brokers.

And you know what? I was right. "

dellasumbrella wrote on Oct 28, 2009 4:23 PM:

" One other little thing, Sandra: Until I started participating in these comment streams, I had no idea the level of rancor and the intensity of discountenance that the right held toward liberals. I just didn't listen to right-wing radio, or watch Fox News or MSNBC or read any of the junk opinion that gets spread around the internet. If I did come across a particularly excoriating commentary, I thought, "Fringe". I knew I disagreed with many conservative views, and that most disagreed with my progressive views. I've had arguments with a good friend of mine and thought his racism, sexism and intolerance for humanistic values were odd, distasteful, and obsolete. I was shocked when he would repeat outrageous smears that Limbaugh made against liberals or minorities, and thought my friend's anti-intellectual stance was a mean joke. (This was over 20 years ago). And I thought, oh, well, there are those who just can't keep up with enlightenment. Boy, was I wrong! There are those who have been fighting the enlightenment since way before I graduated from college, and they've declared me, by virtue of my beliefs, an enemy. What I've learned from taking part in these comments and doing research to validate my often impulsive, from-the-gut comments, is that I should have feared and challenged the right, not tried to understand and accommodate their anachronistic approach to democracy. They have systematically tried to compromise liberals' self-respect (and still try, in these comments and throughout right-wing media) and have done more than any terrorist to undermine my faith in humanity's predisposition to reason. The right has waged a war against my values, disrespected my education and my work, and placed me on a permanent "sheep"list (or rhymes-with-hit list) because I'm a liberal who believes in our democracy. "

Todd Adams wrote on Oct 28, 2009 7:40 PM:

" Look on the bright side, della? The majority of Americans don't even care. "

Raven wrote on Oct 28, 2009 9:23 PM:

" how you came to that is a mystery to me, Sandra....no merely pointing what teh relationship has been through the years between the white house and the press...

Bush never attempted to ban NPR, or MSNBC, or anyone from his press conferences.,,,,,,

No, Bush merely moved annoying people like Helen Thomas from her chair in the front row where she had always asked the first question to the rear of the briefing room and simply didn't 'see' her.... "

Sandra wrote on Oct 29, 2009 8:25 AM:

" Della,
You keep repeating the same argument. I understand what you are saying. I just think your perspective is off. It is not off because the things you say are lies. It is off because you only are stating a portion of the truth. And I believe this is because you are entrenched in a viewpoint. You are unable to see that while some from the conservative side are as you claim, so are some from the lliberal side. It is not a republican failing, or a democrat failing. It is a failing of people who have beliefs so strong they have become "true" believers. AND, when that happens the ability to see a problem cleary, dissapears.
You wax poetic about the terrible things the right has done to the poor liberals. There is just as long a list that the liberals have done to the right.
Neither is right, but it has always been so, and always will be so. That is NOT the problem here, though it is only what you see.
I am attempting to get some true believers to understand their is a bigger picture than what they see from thier trench.
True believers are easy to manipulate, from both sides, Della.
I believe their is an agenda that has been in place for the last 30 years or so, and it is moving forward through manipulation of our society. Bush grew our government, and Obama is doing the exact same thing. Bush put more controls over the populace, and Obama is doing the same thing. In fact if you look back over the last 30 years, this trend has been moving forward, and is now picking up speed. "

Sandra wrote on Oct 29, 2009 8:43 AM:

" Della, you feel victimized. I get that. But Della, that feeling is being propagated on both sides by those manipulating our society. As long as we continue to point fingers at each other we will miss what is really going on. Della, do some research on the Biderman group, and the trilateral commisson, beyond the glossy propaganda they put out for the masses. Do not listen and become influenced by the true believers. Their are some that believe these groups are attempting to take over the world, and some that believe thay are phlanthropists with the worlds best interests at heart. The truth is somewhere in the middle. But from my research, what I see is a trend to dissolve borders in trade issues, and to outsource jobs to other countries, and to keep the general public distracted with issues to bicker over, while thay all get richer, and more powerful. Wars are fought, and who prospers? They do. Freedoms are erroded, and who gains more control? They do. For the last 30 years our presidents have been influenced by these two groups.
If you really think Obama is our savior...well then Heaven help us.
This administration, through Obama's and Pelosi's recent actions concerning FOX News, is testing the waters in an attempt to gain more control over what we are allowed to hear and see.
Yes, past presidents have tested the waters also, have had groups formed to do the dirty work. BUT never this blatent. And if we do not stand up and shine light on this, and show it for what it is, then we are in real trouble.
It isn't about those mean conservatives Della. Wake up. "

Sandra wrote on Oct 29, 2009 10:24 AM:

" Raven,
Last 2 posts to della, goes to you also. "

Sandra wrote on Oct 29, 2009 10:34 AM:

" Raven,
How I came to the conclusion of you defending the sedition acts is by connecting the dots of the points you are making. You do not object to what Obama has attempted. You do not object to what Pelosi is attempting, and you cite the sedition acts as an example of "It's been done before". So my conclusion is that it is all allright with you. Why else would you take the stance you have, and use the sedition acts to support that stance?
I know about the sedition acts, and I had to edit reference to them out of an earlier post due to lack of space. I changed my words to "current" politics, due to lack of this space.
I believe it was wrong then, and it is wrong now.
Also you cannot legitimately compare the republican party from that time to the current repblican party. BIG DIFFERENCE. "

dellasumbrella wrote on Oct 29, 2009 11:20 AM:

" Thanks for your well-thought out responses, Sandra. I know I got off on a rant, but I'll stop short of taking it back.

I don't think Obama is our savior, but I would give him at least as much benefit of the doubt as I gave Bush. And that was more than I see the right-wing giving Obama now. In fact, although you're probably correct that there's manipulation from both sides, liberals, even in the press, are much more likely to give the other side "benefit-of-doubt" rights, and are also much more likely to criticize their own side when it's warranted. Progressive press/media also tends to be less destructive of the other side.

This quote from the WorldNetDaily co-founder Joseph Farah seems to set the tone for the right-wing echolalia:

“Turn the bums out. Stir the pot. Make political history. Cause a revolution.
Don't do it because the Republicans represent a great alternative – because they don't. Do it because the Democrats – far too many of them – are evil, pure and simple. They have no redeeming social value. They are outright traitors themselves or apologists for treasonous behavior. They are enemies of the American people and the American way of life.”

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=29201 "

dellasumbrella wrote on Oct 29, 2009 11:27 AM:

" Sandra, since you brought up the Trilateral Commission, I'm curious what your take is on the Committee on the Present Danger, which is sort of the hawkish counter-organization to the Trilateral Commission, or, as Wikipedia puts it, "...an alternative to the cooperative vision of empire put forth by the Trilateralists with an imperial, unilateral philosophy of power retention through military strength."

I'd be interested in any thoughts you have about that. "

Raven wrote on Oct 29, 2009 11:38 AM:

" Sanda..

1) I never said they were the same but included the definition so other would not assume the republicans of jefferson's day were the same as the GOP today.

2) As for objecting to what has been done or hasn't been done, I don't because it is simply of fact of business in politics and the press and has been since the beginning of the republic, of which the sedition acts I cited are examples. More important is the fact that those acts, and what Bush did and Obama did and Nixon, and Carter, and Reagan and just about every president I can think has done, has had so little effect upon the media. In fact, if anything, it makes the media redouble their efforts and has turned out to be counter productive to every president who tries it. Did the sedition acts put an end to criticisms? Hardly, go back and look at the opposition newspapers of the day, if anything they became more viruelnt in their attacks.

I guess I have more faith in the inherent resilience of the media than many do. "

dellasumbrella wrote on Oct 29, 2009 11:46 AM:

" "Yes, past presidents have tested the waters also, have had groups formed to do the dirty work. BUT never this blatent."

Time for a reframe --

BUT never this transparent. "

Sandra wrote on Oct 29, 2009 12:03 PM:

" Della,
I really disagree with such a blanket statement as this, "In fact, although you're probably correct that there's manipulation from both sides, liberals, even in the press, are much more likely to give the other side "benefit-of-doubt" rights, and are also much more likely to criticize their own side when it's warranted. Progressive press/media also tends to be less destructive of the other side."
Again, you are seeing this from a entrenched perspective. I look at both sides and see equal guilt and equal possibilities. Different times have brought out the best and worse of both sides. But there are not just 2 sides. More reasonable people can grasp this.
I have a busy day ahead of me, so as to your other question, I do not have time to look into it right now. I am certainly not an expert on Biderman and the trilateral comission, especially since so much is done in secret. But I just look at the trends. And the trends concern me, and the connections to our presidents of the last 30 years, republican and democrat, concern me. Who knows, this other group could be warrent concern also.
As to "Transparent", I will agree with that. And since Obama is not a stupid man, and Pelosi not a stupid woman, why do you think they feel so comfortable with being so transparent with what I view as such a dispicable move? "

dellasumbrella wrote on Oct 29, 2009 1:34 PM:

" "why do you think they feel so comfortable with being so transparent with what I view as such a dispicable move?"

My only guess is, they feel justified setting a limit that they and many others don't consider despicable, and perfer to be transparent about it so they can reveal their rationale for doing it. "

dellasumbrella wrote on Oct 29, 2009 3:24 PM:

" Sandra -- In response to your allegation of an entrenched perspective from a less reasonable person regarding conservative vs. liberal journalistic ethics, I will cede that to you if you can find a liberal quote about conservatives that even comes close to the vitriolic stereotyping and scathing, slanderous dismissal of Democrats in the Farah quote above.

“Liberal” has become an oft-used insult. “Conservative” is rarely used in that way. Research by Geoffrey Nunberg published in The American Prospect in 2002 – searching in 20 major newspapers and looking at 5 liberal and 5 conservative politicians, found that a liberal legislator is 30% more likely to be given a political label than the average conservative. (http://people.ischool.berkeley.edu/~nunberg/table.html)
Why is that? Possibly because it’s often used as a discrediting technique in the case of liberals.

From a review of Nunberg’s book Talking Right at http://www.epinions.com/review/Talking_Right_How_the_Right_turned_Liberalism_into_a_Tax_Raising_Latte_Drinking_Sushi_Eating_Volvo_Driving_New_York_Times_Reading_Body_Piercing_Hollywood_Lovi_no_author_listed/content_286546300548 , there’s this: “Those on the Left are scared snotless to call themselves ‘liberals.’ Mainstream media is as likely to mention ‘liberal bias’ as is Bill O'Reilly. A search of the internet with Google (or of publications with Lexis) is far more likely to turn up citations for ‘liberal elite’ than ‘conservative elite.’ ‘Hollywood elite’ is used with a frequency that far outstrips the term ‘corporate elite’.”

See the article “Lib Liberation” by Michael Tomasky at http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/politics/columns/citypolitic/n_8818/ for a look at the traditional liberal approach to journalism, which leaves little room for insult and character assassination.

Finally, read the books, What Liberal Media? and The Republican Noise Machine to get a more complete picture of what I’ve been talking about. I don’t think the Register would appreciate it if I ended up quoting the books in their entirety here. "

dellasumbrella wrote on Oct 29, 2009 3:39 PM:

" I'll add a conciliatory note, Sandra (as liberals often do). Here's someone who agrees with you:

"Some have suggested that Fox's conservative point of view and its Republican leanings render the network inherently unworthy as a news outlet. FAIR believes that view is misguided. The United States is unusual, perhaps even unique, in having a journalistic culture so fiercely wedded to the elusive notion of "objective" news (an idea of relatively recent historical vintage even in the U.S.)."

It's worth reading their article about Fox at http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1067. "

Sandra wrote on Oct 29, 2009 4:07 PM:

" Della,
Have you so quickly forgotton the presidential campaign and the gleeful insults hurled at Palin and her family? I work with the public. I have heard things you could not begin to imagine. When people think they are surrounded by fellow liberals it is amazing what comes out of their mouths. I have heard equally dismaying things come from conservatives mouths. Neither represent the vast majority of conservatives or liberals. That is my point. Quit lumping people together. The quote was terrible. I have heard worse from both sides.
Just the other night on MSN they were insulting Palin by taking part of a qoute from her and comparing her to a spoiled child. They left out the largest part of the qoute. It did not lend itself to propaganda.....hmmmm.....maybe we should start a movement to ban them...Oh wait...Obama likes them. They give HIM good press. "

dellasumbrella wrote on Oct 29, 2009 5:56 PM:

" Sandra -- I'll ask again -- can you come up with a quote by a liberal (remember we're talking about the news media here, not the "person on the street") about conservatives (and the quote above was made about all democrats, not just a candidate for office) that matches Farah's level of prejudice and animus? And remember, Farah is the leader of a news-setting trend, WorldNetDaily, that is quite influential not just in the conservative media.

And if you can't find a quote so heinously disparaging all Conservatives, then just give a quote about Palin, by a common journalist or pundit, if you like, and let's see how it matches up.

My reputation as a reasonable, unentrenched thinker with some perspective is on the line here, Sandra. Don't let me fall through the cracks; puleeease don't throw me in that through-the-cracks place, please.... "

misfit wrote on Oct 29, 2009 9:13 PM:

" I'm with you Selim but, why? Why do they think that way? Why do they vote against their own best interests. Are they sick Selim? "

dellasumbrella wrote on Oct 29, 2009 9:31 PM:

" "Look on the bright side, della? The majority of Americans don't even care."

So true, Todd Adams, I'm sure....why oh why can't I just settle for being like the majority? It's so much easier.... "

Raven wrote on Oct 29, 2009 11:08 PM:

" LOL, della...wouldn't it be? "

anticommie wrote on Oct 30, 2009 6:53 AM:

" Della:

Alan Grayson Florida Congressman (Democrat):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SbELSIImfZI

But you probably agree with him. "

Sandra wrote on Oct 30, 2009 8:29 AM:

" Della,
I am not so sure why what you ask would prove anything, other than there is one other person who is as hateful as Farah. You are taking one example and using it ro represent a whole group. It is not valid for that.
But here is what Pelosi said about why she wants to ban fox, “That Fox regularly grants access to Republican Congressman to spread their lies and propaganda on their airwaves is a violation of the public trust, and their continued desire to challenge such well documented facts as Global Warming, and the efficacy of single payer health insurance, proves that they are simply doing the work of the special interests. They should thus be stripped of their journalistic access in the halls of Congress.”
Is this the rationale you refer to? REPUBLICAN congressmen are the only ones who spread lies and propaganda? Just making that statement is a lie, and propaganda. I think she is attempting to be Little Bo Peep. Sheeple may be an offensive word, but I am offended that Pelosi would speak to me as if I was a sheep. "

C'mon reg get it right wrote on Oct 30, 2009 11:24 AM:

" Wow the partisan bickering. May I add a little tidbit as I see it. Currently the Republicans are suffering the same fate the Liberals suffered after Carter. Carter made Liberal a bad word. GW Bush has made Conservative a bad word. They both did their best to run our government into the ground. Now Fox knows it can sell advertisimnets galore by playing up the differences. I remeber a NY Times article back in December 08 on how Rush Limbaugh and Fox knew that Obama winning would be better for there ratings. Their brand of shows rely more on there POV being out of power. Now NO legislation has been passed or brought before the legislature banning a media outlet.

On a side note at least this administration is listening to Fox news. Remember the leaked memo of Cheneys travel needs. If he stayed in a hotel all stations had to be tuned to Fox and how about Bush never visiting San Francisco during his 8 years. Yes he might have heard a different opinion how scary that might have been. "

dellasumbrella wrote on Oct 30, 2009 11:31 AM:

" Sandra, I was merely responding to your challenge of my statement, "liberals, even in the press, are much more likely to give the other side "benefit-of-doubt" rights, and are also much more likely to criticize their own side when it's warranted. Progressive press/media also tends to be less destructive of the other side."

So I gave you citations and evidence of the destructive tone that is well-documented in books, articles and by media monitors (and if you'd like I have a list of anti-liberal insults directed at me in various comments over the last week or so -- am trying to avoid going there, however); and I asked you to back up your challenge by showing me instances where a liberal journalist has been equally hideous. That's why I asked. Your refusal to meet my challenge, after attributing my statement to entrenched perspective and lack of reason, is a good enough response for me.

As for Pelosi's statement, I agree with her fully, up to the point of stripping Fox's access to the halls of Congress. Now, is the Obama administration following through on this statement, or is it just so much twist & shout, as politicians, on the right no less than on the left, present in order to make a point? Has Fox been banned from Congress yet?

I don't think we should strip anyone's access to the halls of Congress, unless there are guidelines in regard to journalistic quality, ethics and objectivity. "

sandra wrote on Oct 30, 2009 1:13 PM:

" You whole heartedly agree with, "Republican Congressman to spread their lies and propaganda". Della, that is a problem. You show an incredible lack of perspective if you agree that it is ok for Pelosi to qualify that remark with the word "republican".
You are attempting to get me to engage in a debate over which side is more hateful. You obviously believe that democrats are the good guys and republicans the bad guys. I have to let you know, that when I see this type of logic, my eyes glaze over, because it is a useless argument, that solves none of the problems our government faces, and only furthers the cause of those pulling the strings. I clipped my strings long ago. "

dellasumbrella wrote on Oct 30, 2009 2:43 PM:

" I'm not attempting to get you to engage in a debate; you keep engaging, partly through claims about my lack of perspective. I haven't been pitting republicans against democrats, except in the context of the right-wing media, and the facts about that derive not from my perspective (I didn't even really know about it until I read about it and paying more attention to it in several different places), but from my research and putting the puzzle pieces together. If you want to dispute my research, that's fine. As for my perspective, I'm pretty okay with it. "

dellasumbrella wrote on Oct 30, 2009 2:46 PM:

" Oh, yeah, I forgot. The comments I've been making were initially in response to this, from the original commentary (I knew there was a reason I was writing stuff here other than trying to engage Sandra in a debate):

"Most of the state-run media (so-called mainstream media) are explicit in the attacks. They use false or misleading statements that have been twisted and spun to meet whatever the state-run media opinion can conjure up to turn public opinion."

Yeah, now I remember. "

Sandra wrote on Oct 30, 2009 3:19 PM:

" Della,
LOL I am at a loss. I thought you understood my point, but you really don't seem to. It is not about who is the good guy, the bad guy, who is more truthful, or who is a liar. I am not debating that issue. That is a never ending pointkess debate. As I said, my eyes glaze over at the thought of it. I am pointing out that no one in government should be able to control mainstream media access to government press confrences, or to congress, etc. It does not matter what the perspective of the mainstrem media is. It does not matter whether you agree with the network, or disagree.
You keep wanting to address whether the media coverage is legitimate or not. AND Della, that is another never ending useless debate. Because, it all depends on the perspective of the listener. And just because you think the coverage is rotten, and Obama thinks the coverage is rotten, and Pelosi thinks the coverage is rotten, doesn't mean you get to force that perspective on people who think the coverage is fine and dandy, or those like me, who think differing viewpoints are what makes out country unique, and no matter what, they are have a right to be heard. "

dellasumbrella wrote on Oct 30, 2009 4:26 PM:

" Got it, Sandra. I understand your point. "

Sandra wrote on Oct 31, 2009 9:04 AM:

" OK, Della,
Now that you understand my point, can you also understand why I think this move by our officials is dangerous to the freedom of the press? Obama has backed off, but it remains to be seen whether Pelosi follows his example.
Can you also understand that many view this as an attempt to erode of our freedoms? I view it as a testing of the waters, to see just how far they could take this. That is why I think it was so blatent, or transparent, as you prefer to call it.
You however think it is because "My only guess is, they feel justified setting a limit that they and many others don't consider despicable, and perfer to be transparent about it so they can reveal their rationale for doing it."
And I ask you, in a free society, what gives them that right? They have a right to their view, but they most certainly do not have a right to impose that view onto others. They do not have the right to ban acess of a media source because they disagree with it. They are not our parents. We are not children. Pelosi is not Little Bo Peep, and I am not a sheep.
But I may be a poet, 'cause my feeet are longfellows...lol sorry. I crack myself up sometimes. Was writing silly Haikus to my son in Baghdad earlier....poetry(bad poetry) seems to keep flowing out of me. "

dellasumbrella wrote on Oct 31, 2009 9:43 AM:

" Now who's attempting to get whom to engage in a debate? I understand your point. I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on the rest. I'll just repeat what you say, "Can you also understand that many view this as an attempt to erode of our freedoms?" and say that has been my point in most of my posts about the right-wing media. So you see one side as doing it, and I see the other side as doing it. I don't see a possible meeting point here on this, I'm afraid. We all have the right to set limits, as long as it doesn't infringe on others' rights. And this hasn't. "They" have not imposed their view on others, any more than "the other side" has.

It'd be nice if we could hear some of your Haikus. I like writing Haikus too. "

a teacher wrote on Oct 31, 2009 9:46 AM:

" Sandra-The president is NOT infringing on anyone's first amendment right. FOX News is free to say what it wants to. They are simply choosing who to talk to, which is their right Public officials DO NOT have an obligation to give equal time, or any time, to news outlets. "

dellasumbrella wrote on Oct 31, 2009 10:26 AM:

" In defense of rights
As boldly he frames his thoughts
a teacher speaks truth "

Sandra wrote on Oct 31, 2009 3:25 PM:

" Della,
No. I am not attempting to engage in the debate of who's side is worse. I have never said that any side is worse than the other. You have assigned me to a side. My point has been that this attempt has been the most blatent to date. You think there is a difference between republicans and democrats. And you are most likely correct, in regards to the average person who chooses to join either party, because they really think there is a difference in the two parties.
I do not think there is much difference in the two parties when addressing things that are acomplished, or the damge that is done, by our elected officials. "

Rick wrote on Nov 1, 2009 8:34 AM:

" della wrote 10/25:" The only people I've heard who defend shutting down a voiced opinion have been conservatives trying to shut down responsible journalism. Yes, NPR has been targeted over and over and over.

This is a spacious argument, because public broadcasting is different from other media outlets in that it is tax-funded.

Should gov't. be in the car business? No. Should gov't. be in the banking business? No. Should gov't. be in the energy business? No. Sfhould gov't. be in the media business? No.

In a free society, people do these things. In a dictatorship, gov't. does them. We are in a gradual (so far) transition from a society of individual freedom to one of government control. Form liberty to tyranny. So opposing public broadcasting is a matter of principle.

I disagree with the NYTimes, but I don't oppose it in principle. All media speaks from a perspective. I disagree with NPR, and I oppose it in principle, because I should not be forced to pay for media I disagree with.

The Federal gov't. has no legitimate authority to be involved in the media business. Liberals (socialists) in America have plenty of money. Let them pay for it. "

Rick wrote on Nov 1, 2009 8:46 AM:

" della - The existence of NPR should be seen as an affront to 'liberals'. I shows that their ideas need to be tax-subsidized, which would indicate that the people won't voluntarily support them. "

Sandra wrote on Nov 1, 2009 9:09 AM:

" Della,
I wrote a haiku, but for some reason it did not post. hmmm I think it was:

A teacher cannot
see the forest through the trees
The path will unfold "

Raven wrote on Nov 1, 2009 9:57 AM:

" rick....you are confusing economic systems with political systems....there are plenty of dictatorships where the economic system if based of the free market system....just as there or more socialized economic systems that are democracies...

"I oppose it in principle, because I should not be forced to pay for media I disagree with."
Of there are many many people who don't want their taxes spent on things they disagree with.
So the crux of your position is not agreeing with the content, therefore if you agreed with the programming on PBS, you wouldn't have a problem with it.

As for being forced to pay for PBS....the majority, between 53 to 60 percent of the funding comes from memberships and grants, 30 percent from state and local taxes...only 15 to 20 percent comes from the federal govt...(the ratios varies from year to year) through the corporation form public broadcasting.

The purpose behind public television, is to provide outlets for programming that was not being paid for through commerical-based broadcasting....PBS was founded to provide diversity in programming at a time when all television was broadcast over the public airwaves by only 3 privately-owned national networks (as opposed to today's private cable or satellite delivery services with a multitude of programming sources)

the original mandate to provide universal access, particularly to rural viewers and those who cannot afford to pay for the private television services, remains vital. In addition, PBS provides some types of critical programming which would not be shown at all on the commercial networks and channels, including extensive educational children's programming, scientific exposition, in-depth documentaries and investigative journalism.

As for the authority, since the airwaves are public property, the federal govt has all the authority it needs. "

a teacher wrote on Nov 1, 2009 3:09 PM:

" I like Della's haiku better.

All I can say,Sandra, is that I'm a practical guy and sometimes a tree is just a tree... "

a teacher wrote on Nov 1, 2009 3:12 PM:

" Rick. You guys keep using the word socialist and I'm not sure you really know what it means.

Did you know that the "Pledge of Allegiance" was written by a socialist? Maybe we should stop saying it... "

dellasumbrella wrote on Nov 1, 2009 4:08 PM:

" That was good, Sandra, I liked it.
Although I can understand why teach liked the other one better. "

Sandra wrote on Nov 2, 2009 10:08 AM:

" Thank you Della.....well of course he liked yours better. It is much more fun to be petted, than told the truth.
Teacher, you will be hard pressed to find anyone more practical than me. I agree, there are trees that are just trees. This is not just a tree.
As my husband put it, Bush was the set up guy, McCain the fall guy, and Obama is the finisher.
Bush grew our government at a pretty fast rate, and Obama is taking that and running with it. These two men, for all practical purposes, have a similar agenda.
Get the stars out of your eyes, and look at the results, not the personas. "

a teacher wrote on Nov 2, 2009 12:25 PM:

" Sandra: Conspiracy theories are not practical. I have little patience for them. "

Gray1984 wrote on Nov 2, 2009 5:11 PM:

" WOW...WOW...WOW...

Amazing letter...

Never in my life have I read such an outrageous, illogical, incredibly misguided thought-process...

Am I a liberal? No. I liked George Bush...I even liked John McCain...

I just liked Barack Obama more than John McCain.

One of the many dangers in politics is to become an idealogue...

I think it is shameful when I hear that a particular group wants to see a U.S. President fail. I believe this started with the Bush Administration....although the seeds of it stem from the controversy surrounding his election in 2000 (Florida, anyone?)...but all this illogical sentiment (for lack of a better term) toward Obama is appalling. "

dellasumbrella wrote on Nov 2, 2009 7:57 PM:

" Gray 1984,

Welcome to the NVR blogosphere. "

Sandra wrote on Nov 3, 2009 7:55 AM:

" Teacher,
You are the one defining what I say as a conspiracy theory. I said nothing about any such thing. I said "Get the stars out of your eyes, and look at the results, not the personas."
I am not putting forth any conspiracy theories. I am looking at the results of the moves made in the last 30 years. A theory is something used to explain observed facts. A conspiracy theory adds the tone of science fiction. I do not know about any conspracies. I do know what I see in front of my eyes. "

dellasumbrella wrote on Nov 3, 2009 9:08 AM:

" Check out the John Birch Society website, Sandra. There are people who don't believe anything that's been going on the past 30 years can be explained by anything other than a conspiracy.

Either that, or read the books I recommended above, for the real story of what's been going on the past 30 years.

(she grins) "

Raven wrote on Nov 3, 2009 9:11 AM:

" a theory has to be backed by facts that support the theory as well... "

Sandra wrote on Nov 4, 2009 7:59 AM:

" Della,
I never claimed there were not people in the world who thought there was a conspiracy going on. I am not informed enough on this subject to jump on that bandwagon. Also, due to the secrecy that is upheld in the meetings that go on by the string pullers, how could any of us peons know if there are long term goals, or just short term greed motivating the movers and shakers?
But consider this, we have had many jobs outsourced, the borders might as well be nonexistant on this continent, government is continuing to grow at alarmig rates in a way that enables it to exercise more control on the decisions we can make as individuals, our country is being sold of to foreign interests, and we continue to rely on foreign oil....And all of this has gone full force ahead in the last 30 years. "

dellasumbrella wrote on Nov 4, 2009 12:45 PM:

" "I am not informed enough on this subject to jump on that bandwagon."

But sometimes you sound like you're on that bandwagon, Sandra. You don't speak as someone who is "not informed enough on this subject"; You speak as if you know things we uninformed don't know that should make us very worried. I think most of us know how we've sold our finances and our jobs to other countries, how we have corporations that reside, in name only, offshore to avoid taxes, how groups of leaders and experts (on the dovish side as well as the hawkish side) have formed in order to grapple with the increasing complexities of a global marketplace and a "shrinking" world that no longer allows us to safely and prosperously bask in the glow of isolationism. Since most of us (including myself) have been complacently going about our business of earning a living, taking care of our own, and entertaining ourselves with whatever challenges and/or inanities keep us mildly contented and believing we're relevant, it's good there are those who have been looking out for the bigger picture. Do I wish I had more of a finger in that big picture pie? Yes. Do I worry that the pie will be thrown in my face? Not really. I have to trust in some things, and where I lose trust or find little of substance in which to trust, that's where I'll speak up, knowing that mine is just a very, very small voice.

By the way, you are aware, I'm sure that one of Obama's priorities is to reduce our reliance of foreign oil. I'll continue to voice my support of his plan to do that. "

Sandra wrote on Nov 5, 2009 12:57 PM:

" Della,
I know that there are many who are complacent. I do not count myself as one of them. I am not on the bandwagon of the people who think the New World Order is a big conspiracy, because I know enough to know that I do not know enough about this. I do know that there is much done in secret from the groups that have groomed our presidents in the last 30 years. But I also know that our country is one big disorganized mess. So I question if any one group could be organized enough to manipulate whole countries. BUT, I do think these groups bear close watching, and I am watching. I do think the trends of the last 30 years are suspicious, so I am paying attention to what I see. I become suspiciuos when I see officials making moves that follow this trend. I question, I point fingers. I too am one small voice. I am not complacent, and I do not trust that my best interests are what motivate our elected officials.
To me it is not about the democrats , or the republicans. It is about our country, and what we represent being erroded away. "

anticommie wrote on Nov 5, 2009 2:38 PM:

" a teacher wrote on Oct 31, 2009 9:46 AM:

" Sandra-The president is NOT infringing on anyone's first amendment right. FOX News is free to say what it wants to. They are simply choosing who to talk to, which is their right Public officials DO NOT have an obligation to give equal time, or any time, to news outlets."

Though this is true, why would you not want public officials actually be asked difficult questions? The Obama Admin doesn't like Fox, because they are the only ones that have been asking tough questions, and calling the Admin out on its radical affiliations with questionable people. They are trying to dstroy Fox's image as a news organization. They are afraid that other media outlets will follow Fox's lead and actually question the motives of the Admin. That is the job of the media. "

anticommie wrote on Nov 5, 2009 2:42 PM:

" Rick wrote on Nov 1, 2009 8:34 AM:

"This is a spacious argument, because public broadcasting is different from other media outlets in that it is tax-funded."

The only way liberal radio succeeds is government run. Most liberal shows dont bring in the ratings, because they are boring. Have you ever listened to NPR? It is terrible, no wonder MSNBC borrowed Maddow from it. "

anticommie wrote on Nov 5, 2009 2:46 PM:

" Raven wrote on Nov 1, 2009 9:57 AM:

"As for being forced to pay for PBS....the majority, between 53 to 60 percent of the funding comes from memberships and grants, 30 percent from state and local taxes...only 15 to 20 percent comes from the federal govt..."

Government is government raven. I disagree with any public subsidy for media of any philosophy, that is why people like Pelosi want to have a "fairness doctrine" that would force private stations to air a certain amount of liberal content, because people dont volunteer their ears enough to hear the liberal shows. But again, another reason liberals believe in bigger government and not free enterprise. The liberals dont like working for it, they just want their handouts. "

anticommie wrote on Nov 5, 2009 2:49 PM:

" Sandra wrote on Nov 4, 2009 7:59 AM:

" Della,
I never claimed there were not people in the world who thought there was a conspiracy going on. "

Dont read to much into it Sandra, they are just trying to put you on the defensive for their own satisfaction of "truths" the messiah gives them. "

Hear Ye wrote on Nov 5, 2009 4:16 PM:

" anticommie wrote on Nov 5, 2009 2:38 PM:The Obama Admin doesn't like Fox, because they are the only ones that have been asking tough questions, and calling the Admin out on its radical affiliations with questionable people. They are trying to dstroy Fox's image as a news organization. They are afraid that other media outlets will follow Fox's lead and actually question the motives of the Admin. That is the job of the media. "

That's funny stuff but nowhere near the truth. It's right up there on the truth meter with your sweeping generalizations and stereotypes of those boogeyman liberals. "

Raven wrote on Nov 5, 2009 7:05 PM:

" busy night eh anti?..lol "

Rick wrote on Nov 7, 2009 8:37 AM:

" anticommie - Yes, I occasionally give NPR a listen, since like it or not gov't. forces me to pay for it. But I find they're so narrow-minded I can't stand it. I'd never pay for it voluntarily. "

Rick wrote on Nov 7, 2009 9:25 AM:

" Raven - Free people have both economic freedom and political freedom, otherwise they cannot be called free. Americans have been free, and some of us would like to remain free.

Somehow you missed the 'crux' of my position, which is that media should not be tax-funded. Why is it hard to see that media, like car sales, should be funded voluntarily?

You admit that the 'purpose' behind public broadcasting no longer exists. so, why not save some tax dollars?

You stated that 'the original mandate to provide universal access, particularly to rural viewers and those who cannot afford to pay for the private television services, remains vital.' I disagree. I don't watch TV, so I know it is in no sense vital. If people want to watch TV, fine, as long as they don't expect others to pay for it.

The airwaves are public property, not gov't. property. Gov't. cannot rightly do whatever it wants with our property. The idea that gov.t has any role as part of the 'press', in other words, the media, is completely absent from the Constitution, and so is without authority. "

Raven wrote on Nov 7, 2009 5:12 PM:

" and where did I admit the purpose doesn't exist anymore, there may be more options available but the need for public programming still exists unless you are willing to cede all broadcasting to commercial enterprises.......

being public property doesn't mean you can do anything you want with it Rick....public lands are under govt control so why shouldn't public airwaves be? Are you also advocating then the FCC be stripped of its control of what is 'decent' enough for the public airwaves, if you are then I will step forward with you....

and please, show us the govt controls the newscasts on public television Rick....where? who? how?

and why not be specific -what programming on NPR/public tv don't you like and why?....Sesame Street? The Big Red Dog? Arthur? Bill Moyers? California Week? California's gold? McNeil? Nova? Frontline?..which ones don't you like? "

glenroy wrote on Nov 8, 2009 7:15 AM:

" Welcome to liberalism…where success is measured by failure… "

dellasumbrella wrote on Nov 8, 2009 10:37 AM:

" As far as I'm concerned, there is still a purpose for public broadcasting. If all I have to listen to or watch is watered-down or commercially-dictated broadcasting that results from ratings and sales being the determining factor, I'll turn the radio/TV off.

Publicly-funded broadcasting, in the form of governmental underwriting and public donation, has resulted in higher quality, in-depth journalism and more educational programming, which informs rather than merely entertains. And I generally find information more entertaining than what is usually sold to the masses, via commercial programming, as "entertainment".

So I'll be selfish here -- If I benefit from public broadcasting, then I'll adamantly advocate for it. And I'll keep paying my taxes, at the same time, knowing that a lot of what I pay is subsidizing activity which I don't necessarily support. "

Join the conversation

*Member ID:
*Password:
Remember login? (requires cookies)
	Forgot Your Password?

Create an account

Comment Guidelines

The goal of the story comments section at NapaValleyRegister.com is to have an open, thought-provoking, civil community forum for all issues.

What gets your comment posted?

• Staying on topic

• Keeping your comment to 300 words or less

• Avoiding name-calling

• Addressing your comments to the message rather than the messenger

What gets your comment deleted?

• Personal attacks

• Derogatory remarks

• Name-calling of any sort

• Going off-topic

• Hate speech

• Racially-insensitive comments

• Implying guilt of a subject in a crime story before there is a court verdict

• Posting e-mail addresses

• Posting comments of a commercial nature

• POSTING WITH ALL CAPITAL LETTERS

• Linking multiple comments together with "to be continued..." to get around the 300 word limit.

The fine print

- Comments are either approved or denied. We do not edit comments.

- You are welcome to modify and resubmit a denied comment.

- Comments may take several hours to be posted.

- Comments posted are those of the writer, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of NapaValleyRegister.com, its employees or its parent company.

- Do you have information on a story? Please go to our virtual newsroom to send us a news tip.

- If you feel a posted comment has violated our guidelines, please contact online@napanews.com or add a comment indicating you have an issue and our moderators will review the comment in question.

Search: