I feel that the American people in general, and the media in particular, have a blindspot about the war in Iraq. To a Brit, who still remembers 1982 and the Falklands War and the lively debate that that adventure provoked, largely without the anti-war parties being vilified as unpatriotic, the apparent unwillingness of people in the US to break out of the ‘our boys’ mentality is puzzling and dispiriting.
I don’t necessarily disagree with that statement you quoted, though looking at it now it does seem exaggerated in the sense that it’s not much different from the typical “liberal media” rant originating from the hardcore conservatives. However, given the other comments provided, I didn’t take it to refer to the entire array of US media; all that was/is necessary is enough of a cooperative media base to provide traction for the bullshit and set the scene, which will then influence perceptions of the situation even among neutral parties. You can see an application of this principle with regards to the WMD debacle: there was no evidence of WMD, only carefully packaged claims, alarmism, etc. Yet even an authority like Hans Blix came to believe Iraq may have had WMDs thanks to the output of the Bush administration (thus he said). Fortunately Blix (like all other weapons inspectors in millennial Iraq) quickly came to realize the spuriousness of these claims, his work being based on scientific criteria rather than propaganda. The media are not generally similarly gifted, plus they are probably less willing/able than scientists to admit mistakes or shift perspectives.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, Bush has some incredible (and no doubt incredibly expensive) communications talent on board, they know what they’re doing.
After the push of propagandist materials, other media beyond the cooperative base were, to varying degrees, less supportive and some even cast doubt on the claims and actions of the administration from time to time (rather rarely in TV, more frequent in print). Unfortunately it wasn’t enough. From that point of view, there does indeed appear to be a cooperative conservative or Republican (or even right-wing?) media base responsible for propagating insidious propaganda with a great deal of success. What I find outrageous is that even now that the foundations of the various lies are visibly eroded, very few media seem to have the courage to tackle this issue head-on and turn up the heat on the president and his cadre.
Sam, You’re looking a little wild eyed and unstable. I’m not sure how we can debate this with someone like yourself who is so clearly angry and filled with hate. Please, calm down, and then perhaps we can discuss the issues. You know, I’ve always heard Sam was unstable…everyone says that. He also lied about his Little League trophies…
To respond: Bush never called Kerry a traitor, a liar, a thief? Nonsense: Anne Coulter, among others, have done exactly that. And Kerry ignored it.
Oh, wait: Coulter isn’t Bush? Really!??
I bet even you know that Moore isn’t Kerry – Really!
I was wondering if the board had any thoughts about the huge disparity between the parties in their willingness to use apparently illegal tactics. Why is one side so much more disruptive than the other?
One side, in other words, seems to be willing to allow the other to present its case. The other, apparently, is not. Why is one side so afraid to let the other be heard that they are willing to break the law (it would seem) to stop it?
It is a distinction between the RNC and DNC conventions I found interesting. Although, as I mentioned, it is more a topic for debate than a question with a simple yes-or-no answer.
Regards,
Shodan
Shodan, I think that you are looking at the problem in the wrong way, though. Neither party (ASAIK) has officially sanctioned disruptive protests. What the case really seems to be is that the Republicans have a whole lot more people angry at them. Make of that what you will.
Although our politics differ, I think you are spot on about some weaknesses of Kerry’s campaign (e.g. as per above).
You don’t want a job, do you?!
rjung:
I’ve got to call foul on this one, rjung. The surprise of the launching of a liberal radio network is over the launch of a radio network for the purpose of airing a specific ideological agenda. For all that Limbaugh, Hannity, etc. are rabid conservatives, their shows were not put on the air by the networks for ideological purposes, but for profit purposes. If they didn’t find (and keep) their audience and commercial sponsors, then they, like many other radio hosts who went on to other jobs, would no longer be on the air.
And Rush NEVER claimed that the liberal media keeps him…or other conservative commentators, for that matter…in obscurity. The general charge of left-wing media bias (regardless of whether you agree or not, I’m just saying this is what they accuse the liberal media outlets of) is that the left-wing media outlets portray themselves, liberals and their opinions as middle-of-the-road, while labeling conservatives and their opinions as specifically “right wing” or “conservative,” effectively making that seem like a small niche. Moreover, they do not claim this to be an intentional act, but merely the unthinking ordinary speech of people who assume those like them to just be “normal” and those unlike them to require some explanation of difference.
Debate it of you like, but at least let’s stick to the actual substance of the accusations.
Oh, I don’t think either party has officially sanctioned anything illegal. It’s just that one side seems to be so much more disturbed by disagreement than the other - so much more upset as to lose control of themselves and begin breaking the law.
It is much of a piece with Kerry going on during a midnight campaign rally immediately after the Bush acceptance speech to rail against him. Bush never did that after Kerry did his keynote address. It seems to me that one side is far more willing to resort to means fair and foul to try to stop the other side from presenting an opinion. Sometimes that means breaking the gentleman’s agreement of “let the other side have its convention” that Sam Stone has mentioned, sometimes it even means resorting to illegal protest and trying to disrupt speeches.
The contrast between the abuse of Bush that goes unchallenged, and the thin-skinned sensitivity of the Kerry forces when they get a little of their own back, is quite striking.
What are y’all afraid of? If your case is so open and shut as you claim it is, why is it so tempting to go beyond the rules and try to stop the other fellows from making their case at all?
People who are confident, in my experience, don’t do this. It’s more those who are uneasily aware that there are a few holes and tatters in their view of the universe who are likely to try to present their case - and then shut down the debate altogether.
As ever, YMMV. But it didn’t seem to at the respective conventions.
Regards,
Shodan
Now that’s silly – I don’t think the folks behind Air America are ignoring the profit margin, either. They’re going for a liberal network because they believe it’s an untapped market with huge profit potential. They’re not going to keep funding a losing operation out of the goodness of their hearts.
And I question the assertion that Limbaugh et al weren’t put on the air for political purposes. I’d be surprised if anyone can find a cite along the lines of, “We had a few hours to fill, so I told that Limbaugh kid to go on the air and talk about whatever he wanted. He started off talking about baseball scores, new cars, anything under the sun, but everyone loved the political stuff, so we just kept expanding it until it became the only thing he did.” And the post-Limbaugh wannabes (like Hannity) were given air time precisely because they wanted to duplicate Rush’s success in the political talk-radio market.
That was sarcasm. 
You will, however, find right-wing pundits – Ann Coulter comes to mind – who insist the “liberal media” dominates the market, even as that selfsame media makes them famous.
Not sure what’s there to debate, other than whether the “liberal media” should be categorized as a hoax in line with the JFK assassination theories or the fake moon landings. The notion that the media is neutral, however, still strikes me as laughable given the news coverage we’ve seen from the last two presidential administrations…
…but this hijack’s getting long-winded as it is.
rjung:
Right, but they wouldn’t switch to conservative programming if it turns out liberal programming isn’t profitable. They’ll just let it die. Their mission is not to do whatever it takes to make a profit in talk radio, but to try to profitably create a liberal presence in talk radio.
The people who put Rush Limbaugh on the air did so not because they were looking for a conservative speaker, but because they wanted to try and make a profit in the radio broadcast business. Period. If Limbaugh had flopped, they’d replace him with something that won’t flop, be it liberal or conservative, or totally whacked out (e.g., Art Bell).
Ignoring, of course, all the John Kerry rallies where organized groups of Republicans have shown up with bull horns and air horns to drown out what Kerry
was saying.
Well, even with the terrible gaff of a rebuttal that was just so politically clumsy and unsound (in the cogent, impartial and well-thought out analysis of some), it looks like the result of the RNC in battleground states may have been a one point bounce for Bush - downward. At least, as per Ruy Teixeira’s analysis.
That’s because, as everyone except the most diehard conservative fanatics have noted, the DNC wasn’t constant bashing and lying about Bush the way that the RNC is constant bashing and lying about Kerry.
What the hell are you talking about? You’ve really gone off of the deep end here. The Republicans were given all the opprtunities to make their case to the American people. There was no attempt to stop them. There was an attempt, insufficient in my opinion, by the Kerry campaign to answer back to all the lies and distortions. As anyone who reads this messageboard knows, the whole Bush campaign is built on lies, distortions, and deception, just as their whole governing strategy has been.
Apparently, your idea is that if Democrats respond to scurrilous attacks then they are “shutting down the debate”. For a man supporting someone who has done more to undermine the American democracy than any president in recent history, quite probably including Richard Nixon, you have a lot of nerve making baseless claims about attempts to shut down debate and the like.
You want the Kerry to just role over like Michael Dukakis did and let the Republicans liars define who he is. Well, I understand your desire to have lies prevail over truth, but here at the SDMB our goal is to fight lies and ignorance and I think that is what we have to strive for in our democratic process at large too.
Not that the situation is likely to arise, but I rather suspect that Rupert Murdoch. businessman though he is, would gladly run Fox News at a financial loss.
Reading back in this thread, just in case this is what you are basing your whole silly thesis on, here are a few random things you might want to consider:
(1) Protesters are generally not associated directly with the other party. In many cases, they don’t even consider themselves well-represented by either political party. They are certainly not under control of either party.
(2) Do you have any evidence that most of those arrested in NYC were trying in any way to prevent Bush from speaking or the RNC from occurring?
(3) Do you normally equate any sort of protest that leads to arrests with “brownshirt tactics”?
Like I said, given the Bush Administration’s record on civil liberties, government accountability, honesty, and openness and other issues of vital importance in a democracy, you might want to be a bit careful on who you start talking about as engaging in “brownshirt tactics”.
Shodan, See, the problem that I have here is that you are not really addressing my point. My point is that the Republicans have a lot more people feeling angry, disenfranchised and scared than do the Democrats. I submit that this is significant.
Last bit on this hijack. Really.
Sure, but then that shows that launching any talk-radio presence is as notable as launching any kind of radio network – whether it’s country-western, punk rock, classical music, 24-hour traffic reports, etc. Which brings me back to my earlier point, that Air America’s launch was so newsworthy because they actually dared to start a liberal talk-radio network, in a field that’s already overwhelmingly conservative.
If the media was as neutral as John Mace likes to believe, the launch of Air America would be as un-newsworthy as the launch of Yet Another Country-Western/Punk Rock/Classical Music/etc. radio network. Instead, because liberal talk radio is as commonplace as green polka-dotted unicorns, it becomes news merely by showing up.