26
May
“Radicals for Media Reform”
Guest-blogged by Doug George, MediaChannel editor.
Whatever you think about Brent Bozell, conservative media critic and frequent flyer on Fox News, he is always provocative.
In his latest piece, Brent insists that the forces behind the recent Media Reform Conference in St. Louis comprise a radical elite who have troubling concealing their “disdain for America.”
“They want a media that focuses public attention on their agenda: protest capitalism as a death trap, resist the evil military-industrial complex, lobby for massive redistribution of wealth, and You Shall Have No Gods Before Mother Earth.”
Bozell lashes the left for crying conservative coup over Ken Tomlinson’s efforts to bring “balance” to PBS, claiming that the left cannot survive a fair and balanced dialogue, preferring instead “an ‘independent’ news media that screams with one voice, with one mind, and with one bleeding heart.”
Read the full column on MediaChannel and post your comments here.
I was at that conference. He is correct…We Progrressives were leaning to the far left…and were damn proud of it! Because this is the only place Americans will hear the truth about the events affecting each and every one of us across the globe. He can spew his hatred towards us. He can try to shut us up with his slanted far right wing spin. What worries him is that we Progressive thinkers are gaining in numbers, as they watch the Republican poll numbers drop every week. Our goal is to shout out the truth about all the lies and corruption taking place in Politics today. We want the MSM to put on their boxing gloves along with us. We want the Democrats to wear brass knucles. We want to punch the lights out of the right-wing propaganda machine that is destroying democracy in our once-glorious country, and we want truth, justice and liberty to reign in America once again.
May 26th, 2005 at 2:02 pmSee Eric Boehlert in Salon on connections between Ken Tomlinson and William Schulz, an ombudsman, and Fulton Lewis, old McCarthyite right wing nut John M
May 26th, 2005 at 3:20 pmHaving seen many of Moyers’s presentations over the years, including his full address at the “confab”, I can only conclude from reading Mr Bozell’s rant that Bozell is just another right-wing ideologue rather than a thoughtful, constructive critic. In my book, he’s a source of noise and smoke, thus disqualified as a source of meaningful contributions to the discussion. Thank you for the opportunity to state that as a retired, life-long Republican.
May 26th, 2005 at 3:25 pmMr Bozell should be careful not to smoke too near all of the straw men he has set up in the first few paragraphs of his “fair and balanced” screed.
Contrary to his idea, it is precicely when your enemy is atacking that you should and must strike back as forcefully, and clearly as possible.
Mr. Bozell’s right-wing inspired characterizations do him small credit, nor do they evince any deep intelligence on his part. The patriotic duty of every citizen is to criticize what he views as wrong in this society. This is not a left-wing nor a right-wing prerogative, but a necessity for the preservation and advancement of a (hopefully) fair and fair minded society.
The right’s vision of social Darwinism as the proper paradigm for this nation was discredited more than a century ago. But the motto of those who think like Mr. Bozell is: “Forward into the past.”
May 26th, 2005 at 3:31 pmI am a conservative. I want to conserve our air, our water, our children safe and healthy, our land not poisened, and our airwaves open to real public debate. Bosell is a radical rite- wing blind man who didn’t hear what anyone in St. Louis said, because if he had, he might have agreed that the attack and occupation of Iraq was wrong, we need to shut down the Y12 atomic weapons plant in Oak Ridge Tennessee where WMD are still being produced, and that pundits pontificating is not a news show. The Dominist rite is bent on overthrowing our government, and a longer way into doing that than the commies ever got. Actually, I have thought for a while that the red scare was a red herring that was swished out there while the rite cult was manuvering to get into the position it occupies at this time.
May 26th, 2005 at 5:44 pmHaving monitored Mr. Bozell’s websites (for the Media Resource Center and the Parents Television Council), I can only conclude that there doesn’t seem to be a progressive voice out there that will ever be to his liking. On the subject of public broadcasting (NPR, PRI, PBS, et.al.), he has been firm in his demand on behalf of his fellow Conservatives that any monies allocated to it be returned “to their wallets and purses, where it belongs.” (MRC website, May 4th essay). Never mind if it merely turns out to be chump change.
Mr. Bozell is a bully, pure and simple — and very set in his ways. The only unknown is whether or not the rest of the world will see him that way, and speak out as often as necessary.
Our government isn’t Burger King™, and Mr. Bozell and his kin cannot always have things their way. And for good reason to boot.
May 26th, 2005 at 5:51 pmI read Moyers’ definition of objectivity several times, and I STILL think it’s spot-on. Report on the facts and describe the situation accurately, even when it means exposing what the power elite are doing behind the scenes— that sure sounds like objective reporting to me. So what’s Bozell’s definition? He doesn’t give one, and that’s the kind of noncommittal jab so popular with the defenders of the powerful today. Don’t stand anywhere. It’s like the kid who cheated at Battleship when you were young, the one who howled like a monkey when he hit one of your ships but didn’t seem to have any ships of his own on the board—because he moved them when you got close. But you get a feeling you know where Bozell’s ships are located, and it ain’t a place where they can credibly say they’re guarding the interests of the average citizen.
May 26th, 2005 at 9:31 pmBozell doth protest too much. Bozell’s critique of the St. Louis National Media Reform event could have been written by me, since I understand the GOP template. Blather on using words such as “radical left, evil military-industrial complex, anti-capitalists.” I saw lots of capitalism going on at the book sales tables for three days. Bozell used lazy journalism that did not contain critical thinking skills that were one bit persuasive. I was at the National Conference for Media Reform. I am a middle-aged, white, mother of two young adults, married 31 years. I run an oil and gas business (a capitalist). I did not see what Bozell saw since he was wearing his red colored GOP glasses colorblinded to the blue in the room. I saw Americans speaking out and Jim Hightower entertaining with wonderful aphorisms. I loved Hightower’s agitator example: “An agitator is the center post in the washing machine that gets the dirt out.” Americans have always spoken up for themselves and will not be shut down by the likes of Bozell. It’s too bad that he cannot enjoy free speech at it’s best and realize democracy includes many views, is messy, and takes time to formulate best practices. But the end product is better for the messy process than a plutocracy which America is under when citizens become lazy in their citizenship. I saw citizenship at it’s best in St. Louis. I am pleased to have seen 2,500 activists who love America all in one room. This was energizing for me and obviously threatening to Bozell.
May 27th, 2005 at 5:04 amI wasn’t in St. Louis, but I noticed a few things about Mr. Bozell’s column that seem suspicious. He includes links to many of the things he criticizes, but there are no links to any credible data to support his conclusion. Where’s the evidence that NOW was biased, that NPR and PBS are a “nest of left-wingers,” or even that the world is “embracing Western-style democratic capitalism.” Additionally, MR. Bozell has no problem reporting on “the big lie of people in power,” when we’re talking Clinton or Castro, but he has a problem when we’re talking chemical companies. Without any data to support his conclusion, Mr. Bozell’s argument boils down to: “they don’t believe what I believe, so I’m going to compare them to Clinton and Castro.” Mr. Bozell was right to imply that conservativism does not equal “war, torture, environmental poisoning, starving the poor, and squelching free speech;” however, all of those things are happening under the current administration, so why do self-proclaimed “conservatives” defend it?
May 27th, 2005 at 1:13 pmBrent Bozell has no credibility. Brent Bozell is one of the biggest mouths that scream about a supposedly “liberal media” On Scarborough Country of May 16 Bozell and Scarborough go beyond mainstream media’s suppression of the fact that the Army has said that soldiers have committed homicides and gave the false impression that it didn’t happen! (note mainstream media has basically not reported the story or severely under-reported it. This undermines Bozell’s central premise. I wrote Bob Jensen (who Bozell aggressively confronted on the show and he said he sent the info to him. Note that neither Bozell nor Scarborough has admitted that the facts laid out by Bob Jensen are correct. And of course the mainstream media basically continues the suppression of these explosive facts: US Army says prison deaths are homicides)
May 27th, 2005 at 2:45 pmNeo-con ultra-rightists like Bozell are coming out of the woodwork, it seems. His lame comparisons to ’60s culture stands logic on its head. One could fairly argue that all the U.S. nuclear weapons amassed to sustain the MAD [Mutually Assured Destruction] concept was not what led to the disintegration of Eastern Europe. Rather it was due to a virtual economic collapse brought on by trying to compete with American weaponry. In any event, it’s a moot question, impossible to prove.
As a former broadcast journalist in Tokyo for several years, I’d much rather have Bill Moyers deciding what is and isn’t news as opposed to talking-head Fascists like Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity, Michelle Malkin, et. al. Nowdays I watch FSTV [Free Speech TV], Jon Stewart’s Daily Show and read The Nation for the real news, as it’s crystal clear that what emanates from the networks is essentially corporate claptrap designed to sustain the current administration’s fear of terrorism in order to keep the public from questioning massive amounts of public funds wasted on military ventures quite possibly initiated to provide larghess for corporate entities not subject to competitive bidding.
And this guy has the unmitigated gall to cite the transfer of wealth as a negative occurence from the rich to the poor? It was ex-Texas Sen. Phil Gramm who, after one of the national elections won by conservatives, said “One more election and we get our money back.” There has been a massive redistribution of wealth in the last two decades during rightist political ascendancy all right, but it has been from the middle class to the rich. C’mon, Bozell, get a life!
May 27th, 2005 at 11:46 pmInteresting how all, note all, of your respondents to Bozell used the type of epithets and ‘facts’ without backup that Bozell is accused of. Might not your audience look into their own mirror and measure Bozell’s conclusions on their own standards; ‘Watch what we say, never mind what we do’.
May 29th, 2005 at 8:15 pmI (mostly) agree with Stig. The current public “debate” between political factions has degraded to little more than endless schoolyard put-downs and harassment. If there is any positive result at all it is the convincing demonstration that:
1.) American Democracy can be subverted and trashed by both orchestrated and random partisan diatribe.
2.) Most Americans are woefully ignorant of their history, historical documents, and the art of productive dialog about them.
What we’re letting happen to us today is truly dangerous. It has happened throughout history, most dramatically during the ascent of dictatorships and fascist regimes. That danger cannot be neutralized by engorged rhetoric no matter how energetic. That too has been amply demonstrated.
Fortunately for us there are also good examples of where that kind of danger was neutralized through informed debate and carefully reasoned rhetoric. Global nuclear disaster has been avoided (so far) in that way. With relatively few but notable exceptions, our Senate has served Americans very well here at home.
Awareness of both failure modes and success modes throughout our history is a critical component in the “immune system” for American Democracy. That awareness plus the principles that produced our Bill of Rights, Declaration and Constitution will serve equally well in both domestic and global arenas.
I’m saying all this as a retired, life-long Republican who is terribly concerned that American Democracy is being hijacked by extremist ideologues. They evidently have the skill, resources and patience to sustain a campaign that would create a grotesqely distorted America, one that would truly be a plague on all nations.
Please don’t ridicule me and other concerned citizens simply because of party affiliations. In stead, let’s find ways to reason our way through this awful mess. We’ve wasted way too much time, energy and good will and I just hope it isn’t too late.
May 30th, 2005 at 11:10 amMost sincerely,
sslyon
Stig Persson complained, “Interesting how all, note all, of your respondents to Bozell used the type of epithets and ‘facts’ without backup that Bozell is accused of”
Stig, you need to concentrate when you read things. My post had two links that backed up what I wrote. 1) Brent Bozell displays his ignorance
May 30th, 2005 at 1:27 pm2) US Army says prison deaths are homicides My post not only highlighted Bozell’s ignorance, and exposed the fact that mainstream media has once again suppressed facts that according to Bozell’s theory “they would report.”
I saw Mr. Moyer’s speech on c-span a few days ago. He seemed to me to be ready for a padded cell. Funny, isn’t it how the big government media types just don’t take well to having to defend their ideas.
Mr. Bozell’s comments seem tempered, and right-on. Mr. Moyers and his book publisher, and his family have lived at the public trough of PBS long enough. If PBS can’t stand any ideas other than those of the leftwing of the Democratic Party it should be closed down.
Become fair or close it down.
May 30th, 2005 at 3:58 pmIt’s a mistake to think that media objectivity exists. Bozell argues that Moyers uses “loaded” language. But as George Lakoff argues, there is no politically neutral language. It is perfectly acceptable for two sides to come to different conclusions based on the same evidence. For example, a glass of water can be thought of as half-full by one person and half-empty by another. This is known as “reasonable disagreement” in epistemology.
To think that political objectivity exists because YOU perceive some piece of news in a particular is to mistake objectivity for subjectivity. It is a necessary truth that we can’t escape our own perspectives and this is especially true for those of us who carry the baggage of strong political commitments.
So what’s the solution? Well, really there isn’t one. I think that people just need to come to the realization that political objectivity doesn’t exist and that this is simply political war.
In other words, keep arguing that each side’s media is biased; but only as a means of garnering more support for your own side, i.e. “frame the issues.” Sounds dirty, doesn’t it? This is what we’ve come to; whether you are a liberal or conservative, you must keep doing what you can to win.
Unfortunately (for me at least), I think conservatives have realized this for a much longer period of time than liberals have. It probably has to do with the liberal notion that rational consensus can be achieved through argumentation. I just happen to think this is utopian.
May 31st, 2005 at 3:09 amI had a lifelong friend who sadly took his own life several years back, but, memories of a lifetime are instructive to me, at least. We frequently disagreed on just about everything and came to blows more than once. When my friend was losing his point of logic, he would invariably sink to attacking me as a person (”well, you’re just stupid” et al.) However, and this a big however, we never stopped loving each other and our ultimate respect for each other never diminished.
May 31st, 2005 at 9:03 amIn line with some of the earlier posters here, it is a bit disheartening to witness the increasingly shrill and polemical nature of current public discourse. On virtually all popular issues, I find myself determining my position based on the merits of each case, not on a particular partisan or philosophical bias. Thus, on many issues, I would gladly be called conservative, moderate, liberal, progressive and sometimes even radical. Does this make me right or wrong? Yes. Does this make me less human or humane than others? I think my lifelong friend Peter would have said no.