General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsLiberals Are Ruining America. I Know Because I Am One.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/10/magazine/liberals-are-ruining-america-i-know-because-i-am-one.html?_r=1&pagewanted=3&hpw&pagewanted=allA very interesting opinion article, suggesting that we on the left have repeatedly fallen victim to clever diversions, resulting in our loss of focus on the actual problem.
At one point the author describes the very real issue of women's access to birth control, and how that tree was lost in the forest of Rush Limbaugh's blather. The implication is that we should spend less time obsessing on the media and focus on issues. That's worth considering.
By contrast, consider the popular response to the Great Recession. The Tea Party — inflamed and partly financed by well-funded lobbying groups — took to the streets to blame government for a crisis caused primarily by Wall Street. Liberals did little aside from condemning the Tea Party. It wasn’t until the Occupy Wall Street movement began, nearly four years later (at the instigation of the Canadian magazine Adbusters), that those on the American left began to protest economic inequality, and even then the movement could articulate no specific policy goals. The same general passivity marked our reaction to the perceived moral atrocities of the Bush era, from the war in Iraq to domestic surveillance to our torture program.
...
It’s for this exact reason that the left can no longer afford to squander time and energy engaging the childish arguments of paid provocateurs. We have to seek out those on the right willing to engage in genuine dialogue and ignore the rest.
Imagine, if you will, the domino effect that would ensue if liberals and moderates simply tuned out the demagogues. Yes, they would still be able to manipulate their legions into endorsing cruel and self-defeating policies. But their voices would be sealed within the echo chamber of extremism and sealed off from the majority of Americans who honestly just want our common problems solved. They would be marginalized in the same way as activists who rant about racial purity or anarchy.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
pinto
(106,886 posts)made to speak over the heads of the extremist RW media ranters and wedge issue partisans to the majority out there who want solutions not sound bites. 
GeorgeGist
(25,311 posts)How about President Obama.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)The rich are buying up the media and using it to brainwash.
When the 99% quits buying what the 1% are selling we will overcome.
PSPS
(13,580 posts)The biggest industry in media these days is what I call the "outrage industry" -- not only talk shows but also opinion shows masquerading as "news." This includes even purportedly "straight news" programs that have more than one person on camera. As soon as a second person is added, it turns into an opinion program for no other reason than the second person can express their reaction to what the other person says even with a facial expression, thus it becomes the "official opinion."
I swear that I often think the largest demographic comprising Limbaugh's audience is those who disagree with what he says. Rush utters another disgusting thought? You'll see DU posts galore expressing their "outrage" at what THEY HEARD him say. Um, why were you even listening? Because you've gotten sucked up by the lucrative "outrage industry."
The whole fiasco is just so unserious, I can't fathom anyone expending any of their time dealing with it. It's a circus sideshow.
bbgrunt
(5,281 posts)endless hours recounting the outrages of the right. It simply feeds the trolls and effectively derails any positive message.
It is also a considerably cheaper media production as no effort is needed for research besides finding clips of offensive items.
PSPS
(13,580 posts)Many "left" talk shows consist of nothing more than taking things from a "right" show and ridiculing it. I guess this is supposed to be "entertainment" these days. Stephanie Miller's daily radio show (a kind of "morning zoo" show) is nothing but this kind of thing. Ed Schultz does this a lot too and I'm sure there are others. I always tune out when confronted with this because I know I'm not going to learn anything and I don't find it entertaining either.
Thom Hartman is another one who seems to always find time for some RW nut bag on his show where he "debates" him. This isn't entertaining or informative, just more of the same schtick and that's the main reason why I rarely listen to his show.
I guess this can be called "media covering the media" and that is what "the outrage industry" thrives on. It's little different, really, than fans for two rugby teams yelling at each other. As a substitute for reasoned discourse or actually doing something productive, it's beneath the station of any educated person.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)They are online. You get serious interviews, sometimes even fairly lengthy, relatively in-depth, interviews with well informed experts.
coalition_unwilling
(14,180 posts)once or twice in the past 10 years. I listen on KPFK in Los Angeles.
Many on the left will listen, watch, repeat and obsess over RW talking points and issue frames to the exclusion of advancing LW ideas.
TV "news" is dead. We can turn it off now.
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)Have you ever seen one of these in the wild? I haven't for at least a decade and suspect they may well be extinct.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)characteristics to look for?
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)Scuba
(53,475 posts)... they all have them, young, old, rich and poor.
What you really want to do is identify those who can be engaged. That's a tougher proposition. I often take a very round-about way of getting to my point, which helps me figure out their mindset. Sometimes I'll just break off. Often not. Those are the fun ones.
Bolo Boffin
(23,796 posts)the blowhards agitate is indeed a hard thing to do. That's the only problem I see with this article.
just1voice
(1,362 posts)Propaganda repeaters who don't even know they are just repeating it or worse, purposely do it to avoid the real issues.
Skidmore
(37,364 posts)NO S(poop) Sherlock!
On this side of the political spectrum, all I see is the willingness to find fault but none to resolve issues or to find common ground between us. Yes, between us. Bill Maher this week made the point that occupying has become passive. It is easy to literally park in one place and yell but when that becomes the end result, nothing will ever become accomplished. When it is easier to sit in one place and blame one person for all of the havoc created over the past half century, then you become part of the problem. When it is the choice to sit in one place and engage in personal angst, then you have ceded power. When you think that teaching the big boys a lesson by sitting at home and not showing up at the voting booth is action, then you are a fool. You have given them exactly what they want from you, permission to keep on keeping on in the same mode. You don't form a movement simply by marching. After the march is over, take it back to your communities and do the ground work. Yes, occupying can be a passive word after a while.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)Adbusters didn't start OWS. The NYC General Assembly did.....here, Mother Jones had a very interesting article on that:
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/10/occupy-wall-street-international-origins
Just thought I might point that out. 
Scuba
(53,475 posts)lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)Exactly.
Turn off the TV and go help the next OWS.
hue
(4,949 posts)"I’m as heartbroken as the next liberal at the cynicism of the Republican Party and the inability of Democrats to confront them in blunt moral terms. But as Americans, we are endowed with the freedom to vote for the sort of democracy we want — not just at the ballot booth, but with our attention and energy. The more we devote to amplifying conflict, the less we listen to each other. Which is precisely what those special interests want: a nation too distracted by wrath to follow the money. "
Firstly, WI is a prime, real time effort to "confront them (Re/Tea Thugs) in blunt moral terms! From attempting to sit in on legislative sessions, to rallies in the Capitol & elsewhere, to a recall petition almost a million strong, to our representatives fleeing the state etc. I've never seen a group so organized and sacrificing in order to confront what we know is inherently wrong and against good, hardworking middle class and poorer class people. We made our voice and message clear and available to be heard. We wanted and worked hard for representation! WE ARE "the majority of Americans who honestly just want our common problems solved"!!
We went to the ballot booths and we gave "our attention and energy"--until some of us were truly exhausted!
We will never be marginalized as we ARE the people--the 99%.
IMHO--> WTF is this author talking about???
There is NO WAY to have a dialogue with the likes of Walker, Palin, Romney, Santorum etc. Besides, its the top 1% who are behind them, pulling the strings/running them, that remain hidden and are truly unavailable for dialogue/discussion! Let's get real! Their agenda is conceptualized and written behind closed doors--no input from the majority included!
Scuba
(53,475 posts)... we won't ever engage them in meaningful dialogue and we shouldn't bother trying.
Instead keep pounding on the issues, the issues, the issues.
In business I often said "attack issues, not people". Thoughts?
TheKentuckian
(25,020 posts)places the assumptions in the privileged default position of established fact.
One that there is any appreciable number of conservatives seeking serious debate.
Two, that the debate is actionable, that it can bear fruit because...
Three, it assumes this speculative group has any influence in their own party or are convincible to other arguments or that if we would just give in enough to their way of thinking that they would join us and we'd have a working majority to keep the barbarians off the gates (which three decades into just such a failed experiment has demonstrated to make the opposition more extreme and us chasing them trying and failing to fill the gap) or that they have anything to pull out of their failed ideology that is of any benefit to the people and if there is some worthwhile nugget it would have to be reexamined ground up to remove layer upon layer of distortion and lies.
Four, that there is some area of convergence of solution that is waiting to be seized upon just because if you broaden far enough we share common needs and desires.
Five, and by far the most Pollyanna is the assumption that the press would be forced to drill down on policy if only liberals would ignore the likes of Hannity and Rush. Forgetting we already tried and failed on that one as we stood by and watched their ascendancy in the first place. It is a solution for those who cannot remember just a little while ago or those trying to work the false equivalency/"sensible centrist" angle.
Six, it conflates willingness to have a serious debate with rubber meeting the road actual ability to do so. If you aren't operating from the same basic facts, the best intentions cannot overcome divergent realities and certainly not delusion. I bet nary a right winger wants his children to be breathing toxic air but even getting them to accept the air can be toxic is quite a way to go and getting them to make any effort to stop the toxins is near impossible and more difficult by the moment.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)(We've had good, inspiring liberal FM radio for a long time -- KPFK.)
But somehow, it has just gotten weaker and weaker.
Air America crashed -- a couple of times.
Out of the rubble we managed to salvage a few of the good shows -- Thom Hartmann, Stephanie Miller, Bill Press and Randi Rhodes. Al Franken ran for the Senate. Cenk Ugyer moved on to his own programming on the internet. Bill Press is nice. Stephanie Miller is funny, but the only hard-hitting liberal left is Randi Rhodes. Not that I always agree with her, but at least she has a strong voice.
Now, there are some kind of soft-sell, trying-to-be-liberal-without-offending-anyone (in my opinion) folks in the 10:00 a.m. to noon slot and this absolutely disgusting program with Clark Howard in which he apparently relies a lot on the Wall Street Journal for his misinformation after 3:00 p.m. I don't follow the evening programming.
If the media can't get advertisers to pay for the programming, they can't bring it. In my opinion based on having read some of their publications a number of years ago, certain business-oriented, right-wing newsletters have so propagandized business owners in favor of the ideas of the extreme far-right that businesses and really believe that liberals are socialists and don't want to support liberal shows on the radio.
That's fascism, sweet and simple. That's fascism -- my way or the highway -- get in line, in my line. They want "free" markets but not for ideas.
coalition_unwilling
(14,180 posts)on the ropes and they're now looking to consolidate a one-party state.
ThomThom
(1,486 posts)
Raine
(30,540 posts)muriel_volestrangler
(101,271 posts)because we know that the media never, ever says it has to 'report both sides', when one of them is known to be false. The wise media can always be relied on to isolate the loud, rich, wrong voices, and leave the area for discussion just open to sensible people.
in case it isn't obvious.
