Holding Debate Hostage: THE DISTORTION AND RHETORIC OF A SHOW POSING AS A NEWS SHOW, ON A STATION THAT POSES AS A NEWS STATION

[[update: for numerous links and examples, see bottom of post]]

One of the most popular talk and radio show hosts in America apparently thinks that al-Qaeda Terrorism leader Usama Bin Laden, by voicing opinions, ought to be able to stifle debate in America -- the land of the free and home of the brave.

The following exchange, between former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, and host Sean Hannity, is from the Fox Channel's Hannity and Colmes entertainment show, where they pretend to discuss serious issues, and often distort fact and logic beyond recognition in the process. (But in a "fair and balanced," way, as this manipulative channel is quick to point out every ten minutes or so.)

NEWT GINGRICH: I think it's quite clear as you point out...that bin
Laden and his lieutenants are monitoring the American news media,
they're monitoring public opinion polling, and I suspect they take a
great deal of comfort when they see people attacking United States
policies. That doesn't mean we shouldn't be a free society and have
open debate, but we should recognize, when some of our politicians
use very extreme language or some of our celebrities -- like Michael
Moore -- use very extreme language, that the enemy does, in fact, take
great comfort from that. [This is an interesting point. Michael Moore's
often inane and unhelpful rantings aside, let's stifle debate for these
psychopaths on top of having 3000 of our citizens murdered,
because heaven forbid, they "take comfort." How about we
capture and eliminate them?]

HANNITY: It's more than that. I think it's also the leaders in the
Democratic Party that, from the very beginning, have undermined
this war. If I were to give you a quiz, Mr. Speaker, and if I would
say to you, "You know, was it [Sen.] Ted Kennedy [D-MA], [House
Democratic Leader] Nancy Pelosi [D-CA], [Rep.] John Murtha [D-PA]
who said, 'George Bush gives continuous, deliberate misinformation.
Polls reveal that we want to withdraw from Iraq.' " You would have
guessed either of -- any of those. Well, it was bin Laden who said that.

A question for Mr. Hannity, and for the many other far right wingers in the media who are using UBL to propagandize their own form of inane logic: If Bin Laden said that polls reveal that we wanted to stay in Iraq, should we then leave Iraq because of what Bin Laden says? What if Bin Laden asked us to stay? What if he asked us to leave? Separate question; why are you even listening to him?

Hannity is arguing that by disagreeing with policy, democrats undermine it. (As a side note: does this apply when democrats are in office as well, or just when far right wing republicans are?). The host of the show preceding Hannity and Colmes, Fox's Bill O'Reilly, has often made the same point. But O'Reilly adds that "dissent is okay, undermining is not okay," without realizing that the distinction between "dissent" and "undermining" is solely dependent on the point of view of the one making this contention.

A new standard of doublespeak occurs on this channel, where Hannity, O'Reilly, and others continue to say "dissent is okay," and then almost each time an example of dissent is discussed, say that it "undermines" the war, or something else.

Hannity, taking this same illogic even further, even wrote a book that by its very title labels Despots, Terrorists, and Liberals as similarly evil.

Intriguingly, a despot is a regime leader that tightly controls information, and usurps power, often even beginning with good intentions or motives. Under the laws and Constitution of our democracy, it is difficult to do this. But the current administration, which Hannity is such a big fan of, has pushed the bounds of both the law and the Constitution to move us in this direction.

So maybe it should be "Despots, Terrorists, and Conservatives"? Both suggestions, of course, are absurd. But the first two categories cited, Despots and Terrorists, have more in common with conservative; the latter engage far more often in propaganda, and, at least today, seem to believe in far more and even unchecked power of the government over individuals. History note to conservatives; almost ALL despotism arose out of "good intentions."

With respect to Hannity's ridiculous logic, and, it can not be emphasized enough, the logic of other far right wingers in the media, the idea that democrats may make a point that terrorists may make is not a similarity, any more than the fact that if a terrorist says something correct, e.g.,"the United States is a big country," makes the terrorist any less of a terrorist. A terrorist is one defined by one's actions, and threats, not the logic of their policy belief. But that is the type of inverted logic that the right wing engages in. (Logic, incidentally, that more closely parallels the logic patterns of al-Qaeda than the logic patterns of other political groups do.) Even more ironically, the type of anti-Western fundamental Islamic extremist terrorism that we are seeing, hates our freedoms and open democracy, the very things that the far right would to some extent sacrifice under the notion of "fighting terrorists," in effect giving them an immediate victory in some sense. That is, by moving closer towards the ideal of the closed and more restrictive state that the terrorists (with the one distinguishing aspect being the "feature" religion, of course) favor -- and that we, as one of the things that as Americans distinguishes us from them -- disagree with.

[[ update: Perhaps two of the more important paragraphs written in America in a long time (albeit the first is actually a quote from George Orwell) help explain why the far right wing is so wrong -- and it is not, as some liberals often incorrectly surmise, that conservatives are "evil," or, even, "liars," but that while touting the rhetoric, they don't understand the principles that make America, America, the principles upon which this country was founded, the principles of our Constitution, and more importantly, why they matter. Read the first two paragraphs here.

Even a conservative reading these paragraphs, if minimally open minded, will be able to see how clearly they apply to the logic of Sean Hannity, and, indeed, to the very title of his best seller itself. A far right wing conservative? Often, they don't seem to be able to see this. But perhaps, other than those few who really don't believe in the fundamentals of democracy and simply don't recognize this fact(Hannity may well fit into that category), that is because the case has not been made sufficiently and consistently enough.

If there were a legitimate predominant gripe about democrats, it is is not, as Hannity suggests, that they undermine "Hannity and others'" vision of America by disagreeing with them on policy and the need to discuss that policy, it is that they don't make the correct and most important case (or any case, really, seemingly allowing the far right to dominate the debate while misfocusing on "handicapping the horse race," concluding, arguing, complaining of calling the other side names because they just can't believe that they "don't get it."). Let alone in a manner that can be understood and appreciated by a cross section of America, and, let lone focusing on it and saturating the market with it. The far right, on the other hand, constantly saturates the market with what, at least in this instance, has been clearly shown to be propaganda, even if believed by those blindly uttering it in the name of their narrow vision of what America is. And almost always constantly saturates the market with what it thinks it believes, even if wrong.

Additionally, even if what defines a "far right wing" conservative is that they really don't believe in the fundamentals of openness, limited government, and equal freedom and liberty for all that this country was founded and has grown on, that would not include most Americans. But because of all the misleading, confusing rhetoric out there, and the dearth of constant attention on the right things that need to be focused on, many people are confused, and mislead on these matters.

Such misunderstanding (and accompanying domination by rhetoric rather than reason and fact) is how and why a good portion of the world has not been completely free for much of its history. There is in fact a reason that America has stood for so long as a beacon to the world for some of these principles; Because of constant attention on them when it becomes relevant, and on an understanding of what they mean, and why they matter.]]

The hypocrisy over saying that one respects democracy on the one hand, then lashing out at one of its essential elements, on the other, are bad enough. Yet the implications of what Hannity (and to a lesser extent, other far right wingers in the media) says are worse: Does this mean that if Bin Laden said that if the Red Sox won the World Series, anybody in America who also said that the Red Sox won the World Series (or should win the world series, or any other point of view for that matter), is also a "traitor?" (As Hannity has said he thinks anybody who "undermines" the war in Iraq is). Or is it just on matters of national policy that we are stifled from debate, under the perverted "let us be ruled by what some terrorist says" logic of this joke of a show that somehow not only passes for news, but is a popular program on just about the most watched so called "news" cable station in America.

Here's another suggestion for Hannity, or for any American who thinks we are doing a great job on terrorism just because of all the rhetoric we are hearing and all the spying on Americans we are doing:

How about we catch the guy responsible for the brutal murder of 3000 American civilians, and for destroying a small portion of our largest city, then we don't need to worry about what he says.

This is America, one has a right to a view, no matter how illogical. Disagreement is also one of the cornerstones of democracy. It is ironic that that same someone (and others), whose logic is often backward, labels most of those who disagree with him as traitors. Yet Hannity (and others) does not even seem to understand the views that he condemns, or the views of those that he condemns, as not a show goes by where he does not grossly distort those views or engage in some paradigm of logic, often repeatedly.

Why would he, and other far right wingers, need to do this? If it is purposeful, Hannity is manipulating and lying to his audience. If not it means he does not even understand the views that he is condemning. That's not journalism. That's zealotry.

Those who recognize this about the show, nevertheless not only allow it and allow it to mischaracterize them, but legitimize it as well by constantly referring to or appearing on it as a source of news. Then, on the other hand, with respect to making such points as these here, instead marginalizing the station's importance as if "everybody knows this." (If they did, it wouldn't be watched, and it would not constantly be referenced as a mainstream source of news, let alone among the most watched if not most watched "news" related stations on cable television.) This needs to be reversed; That is, towards marginalizing the station's importance as a source of "news and analysis," and maximizing the manipulative effect of this station by posing as an objective source of news analysis as well as a mainstream news station when, in the coverage of policy and politics related news, it is anything but. In fact, again, typically democrats have done the opposite, counterproductively in each regard.

Where are the democrats, the moderates, the independents, even that dying breed of moderate republicans, out in the mainstream making the correct case about this station? And where are those dastardly traitors, the "liberals" themselves (although Hannity, and most of the representatives of Fox's 'balanced' hosts label almost anybody who makes a reasonable point that disagrees with their position as a "liberal"), who incorrectly marginalize Fox's importance while at the same time getting ripped apart in the public arena by it?? (also mistakenly refered to, for the search engines only, as the "Fox news channel").

For examples regarding this show, see here, here, here here, here, and here,

Here, the Dean of Hartford Seminary College convincingly argues that host Sean Hannity needs a course in basic logic.

More on the clever as a fox station itself is here, here and here.

For examples on the sister show preceding the Hannity and Colmes debacle, the "O'Reilly Factor," and its "fair and balanced" right wing conservative host [update: Not the "no spin zone" but the "Orwellian Zone"] see:
Here, here, here, here, here here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here here here, here, here, and here.

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS AGAIN MISSES the point of democracy

This is just another example of a pervasive pattern. A pattern that requires far more attention than it is getting:

Horrendous media coverage of the issues. And the ensuing tendency by the far right wing to distort the facts, and engage in misleading rhetoric or inverted logic that nevertheless "sounds" good without any further examination.

"Without any further examination" is exactly what the AP's Laurie Kellman did with respect to the Bush administration's argument that it can use signing statements to accomplish what in effect amount to changes in the law.

Give the AP credit, at least, for covering what is a huge story, yet one which has been barely noticed by the media. It was covered here, because Senator Arlen Specter, serving in his once again dual role of conservative Senator who nevertheless realizes something is not quite right with this far right wing conservative administration's interpretation of it, has stated that Bush's use of signing statements are "a challenge to the plain language of the Constitution."

This statement, however, was buried deep in the article, which started off with the administration's claims, presented almost as fact, rather than as anything even remotely resembling the basically meaningless and seemingly made up rhetoric which they represent.

As originally reported by Charlie Savage of the Boston Globe, one of the few reporters that had been paying much attention to this issue of all:

Two senior Democratic House members yesterday demanded that President Bush withdraw his assertion that he can ignore portions of the USA Patriot Act calling on him to provide periodic reports to Congress on how new law-enforcement tactics are being used.

..."We ask that the administration immediately rescind this statement and abide by the law," the lawmakers wrote. ''Many members who supported the final law did so based upon the guarantee of additional reporting and oversight. The administration cannot, after the fact, unilaterally repeal provisions of the law implementing such oversight"(emphasis added).

Kellmans's piece nevertheless begins:

The White House on Tuesday defended President Bush's prolific use of bill signing statements, saying they help him uphold the Constitution and defend the nation's security.

"There's this notion that the president is committing acts of civil disobedience, and he's not," said Bush's press secretary Tony Snow, speaking at the White House. "It's important for the president at least to express reservations about the constitutionality of certain provisions."

The Bush administration has simply come up with these magical catch phrases, "constitutionality," or "constitutional grounds," that have absolutely no meaning herein, for simply changing laws that it disagrees with.

Yet Kellman's article gives almost no indication of this.

To be fair, the administration is likely referring to its overall, implicit view that it can basically do whatever it believes in or wants to in the name of national security. Despite the fact that the President is sworn first and foremost to defend the Constitution, this bizarre (or, alternatively, simply anti-constitutional) assertion is illogical.

As Glenn Greenwald notes:

Notwithstanding those threats, the Founders, in creating an Executive branch, sought first and foremost to ensure that the President could never wield unchecked powers which would exist above and separate from Congressionally enacted laws.

With respect to the NSA surveillance and related issues, and, one assumes, the sudden magical ability of the President, through the use of signing statements, to merely change Congressional laws as he sees fit; that is exactly, as noted here, what the administration has done.

Think of as akin to the right to vote. Say that the executive branch decided that anybody who disagreed with the Administration's policies was not allowed to vote, because this might help vote out of office those who would "correctly apply the Constitution to fully protect us and our national security."

Or if it decided that the first amendment's right to a free press meant "one controlled by the government based upon national security concerns." Or if it decided in favor of the immediate incarceration of anybody who is Middle Eastern. Or who has red hair for that matter. Or any one of an infinite number of seemingly increasingly absurd propositions, wherein it would be patently obvious (even to the far right wing, that otherwise does not seem to understand these basic principles of democracy upon which our country was founded) that this was unconstitutional.

All of these are precisely analogous to the current argument. That is, as noted in this same piece:

The discretion to do "one thing" in the interest of "national security" is no more constitutionally valid, if it violates the separation of powers clauses, or some other clause of the Constitution, because it seems "reasonable" to some people, than the discretion to do "another thing" which seems [as in the above analogies] to be patently unreasonable on its face. The principles are identical.

The reason is simple. Yet I have not yet seen it presented in any mainstream article relating to this subject. That is, we already have a mechanism for determining what is, and what is not, reasonable. It's called the will of the people that grant our government its sole power in the first place, as expressed through their elected representatives; Congress. Hence, why the very precise, clear, and unambiguous delineation of powers as set forth by the first three (and main) Articles of the Constitution. It's also the basic difference between a democracy -- where the people make these decisions, including ones that directly impinge upon their own freedoms and liberties, and a Monarchy -- where the Executive unilaterally makes these decisions.

Kellman not only ignores any such type of analysis, she does not even address the question.

Instead, she cites a line from a Justice department lawyer "defending" the bush administration's view, that is a classic example of pure Orwellian doublespeak:

"Congress has been more active, the president has been more active," she added. "The separation of powers is working when we have this kind of dispute."

"We have disputes," in this case means; "Congress passes a law, acting pursuant to its legislative powers. We, acting pursuant to legislative powers given specifically and only to Congress under the Constitution, simply rewrite that portion of the law that we don't like, on our own."

As for the line; "the separation of powers is working when we have this kind of dispute;" that's like saying "the separation of powers clauses of the Constitution (Articles I, II, III) expressly prohibits this, so, by doing what it expressly prohibits, we'll put out a statement that says, "this shows its working."

This basically amounts what would otherwise be meaningless rhetoric if it were not fact reversing. Up is down. Black is white. Forward equals reverse. Dark equals light. Yet to the media, it's all he said/she said reporting. This particular piece takes it one step further, and mainly focuses on the Bush administration "arguments" (if one can call them that), and does not really even present many claims in disagreement, let alone the far more common omission of the critical underlying facts.

The article does make a rather big deal out of noting that "signing statements," technically aren't supposed to have the effect of law -- but that's basically the entire point. They are supposed to clarify interpretations, not rewrite the law. (Moreover, unless a Court somehow decides it has jurisdiction, and is not precluded by the administration from adjudicating the manner based upon the in the past infrequently and narrowly used, state secrets doctrine, or for some other reason invoked by the administration, this technicality has no effect.)

Pointing out this technicality as a "defense" for the way the signing statements have been used is classic circular logic. "This" technicality is exactly why the issue is germane in the first place. Playing it up would be similar to downplaying the NSA surveillance issue, by stating that since it is in direct contravention of FISA (and thus expressly prohibited by law), it doesn't matter much. Constitutionally (aside from the fact that it involves potential bill of rights issues and is more representative of a cowardly and paranoid police state than a country that serves as a beacon of what freedom means to the world) this is exactly why it does matter.

And the same thing with signing statements. In fact, that's the whole point. Signing statements are technically not supposed to have the weight of law, because the Executive Branch does not have the authority under the Constitution to change the law in such manner. But by the rather unprecedented use of such signing statements by this administration, that is precisely what it has done. Yet a reader of this AP article, if anything, is also left with the opposite, and completely illogical impression that, because of the precise reason why the administration can't do this in the first place, it is therefore "no big deal."

[Update: when I spoke with a representative of PBS's "Newshour" regarding similar coverage of the signing statements on their July 24th show, with former Reagan Deputy Attorney General Bruce Fein and far right wing Vanderbilt University Professor Christopher Yoo, I was told that their job is only to present the arguments of "both sides," regardless of how flawed or illogically presented. Naturally, I strongly disagreed, because, as I suggested, by using convoluted and impressive sounding legalese (that as a constitutional scholar I knew to be both specious if not flat out ridiculous), Yoo might otherwise appear to many to be making sense, or seem to be reciting things that sounded accurate, but that were not.)

Without the accompaying facts, there is no way for a listener or viewer to put the "arguments" or asserted"facts" into any kind of context. Fein, who has been a critic of the administration's anti constitutional policies, made some counterarguments, but Yoo made so many misstatements that they could not adequately be addressed. Additionally, NPR was in the odd position of having a republican argue the "side" against the way the signing statements have been used, and a far right wing republican argue the "side" in favor of their use.

I asked PBS in response if people did not have the view of the earth that we today provide, and they had two experts on "debating" whether the earth was flat or round, all in complicated scientific physics and mathematical terms, would it similarly be their job merely to present the arguments of the two sides with no context or underlying fact?

While PBS is not nearly as poor as most of the commercial mainstream media, I suggested that they were similarly afraid of constantly being accused of being "biased" by the right and far right, for merely reporting facts which would paint an unpleasant picture of reality to the right and far right, by contradicting their illogical or misleading assertions. The question was ignored as if it was patently inane. Since, of course, we all know that the earth is round. But the point is, we don't "all know" what presidential signing statements are, or how their usage both now and in the past relates to the Constitution or the separation of powers clauses of Articles I and II thereunder.]

In the case of this particular signing statement -- one among many that the executive branch has used, in effect, to change both law and clear Congressional intent -- Congress extended the executive branch's unprecedented power over American citizen civil liberties (as the Patriot Act inherently grants), and so required that the FBI keep track of its use and that the administration provide information to Congress therein. It's giving the executive branch perhaps too much power, if anything, but at least building minimal checks into it.

Then, in response, the new Orwellian administration took those checks out, and now asserts that "the Constitution prevents such checks," when the Constitution does nothing of the sort. In fact, and more than a little ironically, the entire Constitution is premised upon such checks in the first place.

In other words, the very matter at issue involving the executive branch's abuse of power, perhaps not so coincidentally, involves the granting of more executive power itself.
The larger separation of powers issue, which prohibits the President from usurping the role of Congress' (read; usurping the role of the American people through their duly elected representatives), is being violated here, both directly and indirectly.

It is being violated directly by the usurpation itself (that is, the President dictating the law instead of Congress), and indirectly because that usurpation involves the self-appointment of EVEN more direct power than Congress granted under the bill.

Yet, at the very same time, the same far right wing is busy attacking and outlandishly vilifying this same mainstream media, for doing its job and reporting on these very same potentially unconstitutional infringements: A mainstream media that needs to learn that so long as remains a reporter of news, and not a spokesman for the far right wing, it is always going to get criticized.
In other words, as its coverage has moved to the right, the right wing has moved to the right, and will never support the media until is covers what it wants it to cover, in the manner is which it wants it to say it (just like the fox channel, that poses as a news station, does right now).

Therefore the media needs to learn that its best defense is to honestly report the news, and stop trying to simply report "he said/she said" stories regardless of the underlying facts or divergent standards necessary to "appear balanced," rather than actually be balanced. That's also good journalism And it also happens to be an essential element of democracy. After all, information is the lifeblood of democracy, and an overwhelming majority of Americans still get their foundation of information from this same media.

Flag Burning Logic - and American Principles

Yesterday, the Senate voted on a proposed Constitutional Amendment to ban flag burning.

Last year, the even more radical House, by an overwhelming margin (286 to 130), voted in favor of just such an Amendment.

67 votes were needed for passage in the Senate, and to send the Amendment on to the states for ratification. (Where three-fourths of the states, in turn, would have to ratify it in order to turn it into an Amendment). It fell one vote short.

Senator Dick Durbin (D-Ill) suggested that the Amendment was being pursued as a political measure, since, it is suggested here -- in a largely sound bite world -- it is an easy issue for people to rally around.

According to an article in Yesterday's Washington Post, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, however, explained the issue in "loftier" terms:

Many Americans have come to see the flag as a sacred symbol of our nation and its values. Those who dislike American values have the right to express their opinions even when they are offensive. But I do not believe that the right to desecrate a symbol like our flag belongs in the same category"American values.

This is a nice catchy bit of rhetoric. But what does it mean? What are those "American values"?

One of the most fundamental is the right to freely express ideas that don't cause harm, or don't incite others to cause harm to other people. Even "repulsive ones." Sounds a bit unnecessary at first, which is why it is easy to come up with such catchy rhetoric that undermines the principles in the first place.

Since the definition of what, in terms of an idea, is repulsive, unnecessarily offensive, just plain offensive (or, in the case of flag burning, probably just plain idiotic) varies among people, freedom of expression requires that we don't dictate by a majority standard or otherwise what is considered sufficiently repulsive, again so long as it does not harm others, or incite others to harm others.

That's a basic, if not core, "American Value." It is one of the same "American values" that Senator Frist, along with the majority, ironically, seeks to protect the symbol of, by undermining the principle itself, and making a purely symbolic act of expression, a crime.

Another basic value is that we don't let the views of the majority restrict the ability of the minority from being able to express their views, in their chosen fashion (again, subject to the limitations of not harming others, or inciting others to harm others), since such expression is, under the Constitution, an inherent right. (Incidentally, although the right of free speech is specifically enumerated under the Constitution, it does not have to be protected: Consider, for example, the rarely discussed but extremely important Ninth Amendment.)

But yet Senator Frist, once again espousing just such American values, noted (whether correctly or incorrectly), in a statement put out earlier this month, that over 80% of Americans favor an Amendment to ban burning the flag.

In other words, the exact same impingement upon the minority right to expression that American values so embodies.

One might wonder how this differs from the passage of a "law" that only the majority favors: Laws have some collective purpose as their basis. Either to help accomplish something that we can not effectively accomplish individually, or something that helps the greater good without impinging upon individual liberty under the Constitution. Thus, all laws are ultimately designed, at least in theory, to either maximize freedom and liberty, or maximize the greater good without impinging upon freedom and liberty.

Obviously, not all laws meet this standard. There are bad laws, and maybe a few that should be passed that haven't (the suggestion here is that there are likely more of the former, and less of the latter), But they all strive to meet this purpose, either explicitly, or implicitly.

A law, on the other hand, that strives to simply dictate to others what expression of ideas is unacceptable, merely because those that favor the law don't like the idea, or find it offensive (as many people find many different expressions of ideas), is not a law per say, but a classsic expression of majority belief.

An extreme, almost ridiculous example of a law codifying such a belief might, say, involve deciding that most of us like McDonald's, and therefore it shall be a crime to say anything disparaging about McDonald's.

Yes, there is world of difference between saying something disparaging about McDonald's (that hamburger joint that serves crappy food, for example), and burning the U.S. Flag, symbol of our country ("and of the freedoms for which it stands," let us not forget).

An enormous difference. Except in principle. Where there is no difference. And that is the whole point about why we have the principles, aka the "American values," that we do.

It is also why on the flag burning Amendment issue, unlike many others, there is a right answer and a wrong answer.

In principle, there is no difference between the varying levels of "offensive expression of ideas," and ideas that are offensive to things that we hold to be "sacred." (Some people hold the Red Sox to be sacred. Perhaps not as sacred as the United States (for most Sox fans anyway) but Sacred nonetheless. The first Amendment lays this principle out clearly, if implicitly. And America was founded upon principles, not upon what most Americans might find offensive, or what they might find sacred -- and frankly, for many people, it may be the principles for which the flag stands that are more sacred, not the flag, as the symbol of those principals, itself.

(Incidentally, the dissent in the Supreme Court case upholding this principle, mistook the legitimate protection of the national monument, with the protection of a private replication or symbol of the monument, thus rendering the action of flag desecration, however idiotic or inane, utlimately, as expression and not desecration of a publicly owned good.

To violate one of those basic principles in order to show how much we love the symbol of those very same principles, ultimately -- as easy as it is to spin it in a way which is very politically appealing -- does not make sense in a free country. Let alone one whose First Amendment (part of which this Amendment obviously sought to repeal) states: "Congress shall make no law ... Abridging the freedom of speech."

Why do 80% of Americans, or whatever the figure (presumably much lower) is, allegedly "support a flag burning amendment?" Because the issue has probably never been adequately explained, or fully analyzed. It takes a lot of time. With a full understanding, the figure would probably be much lower.

Does it need to be below 50% to make it "right"?

No. Consider the second basic value enumerated above. Our democracy is founded upon the principle that the majority shall not, by virtue of their own opinions, infringe upon the right of the minority, however small that minority might be (and however well formulated the opinion of the majority), from expressing theirs.

That is why we have a Constitution, including a Bill of Rights. It is why we have a judiciary, to serve as a check upon the will of the majority, in accordance with the principles upon which America was founded. If this were not the case, the majority, simply by following good intentions (as, ultimately, what else are belief?) would, ultimately, simply impose its will upon the rights of others with respect to whatever it thought best -- antithetical to American principles when what it thinks inadverntely impinges upon the rights of the others more than it protects the rights of the majority.

For instance, with respect to flag burning, as offensive as some may find it, there is no inherent right to keep someone else from such expression greater than that person's right for the expression in the first place. These principles are also enumerated in the Declaration of independence, and again are the very principles of freedom and individual liberties upon whcih America was founded and based. Thus, the idea of protecting the minority from the unfettered will of the majority, and the establishment of that same separation of powers of which the judiciary plays such a vital role, are the basic reasons why we have a Constitution in the first place.

The issue can best be explained by something that Senator Frist stated above, ironically, in defense of the proposed Amendment. Frist stated, as noted above:

[Americans] have the right to express their opinions even when they are offensive. But I do not believe that the right to desecrate a symbol like our flag belongs in the same category.

That statement expresses exactly why the flag burning Amendment is wrong in the first place. Ultimately, it's his belief. And one of the most basic founding principles, or "values," for which America stands, is to protect others, including the minority, from the "beliefs of others" when such belief itself is the sole rule for imposing the otherwise restricting rule in the first place.

Ironically, someone might believe far more firmly in those same American principles (and understand far better what they are) that the flag represents, than someone else who might support such a law to "protect" the very symbol of those principles in the first place: That is, our exceptional symbol of America derives its strength not because we as a group have to manufacture conformity to the beliefs for which it stands, but, precisely, because, we do not.

And those are among the most basic of principles for which America stands. As noted in a comment here:

A country that needs to criminalize the desecration of the "symbol" ofthe very
freedoms for which it stands, is losing its grip on those very samefreedoms, or
doesn't understand what they mean in the first place (which is ultimately going
to mean the same thing).

That we have a citizenry that may not all understand these principles, is perfectly fine. That is not their job. It is why we have legislatures, Courts, a Constitution, etc., in the first place. That we have a Congress that does not understand these principles, or worse, does not believe in them, is not.

It is more than a little interesting that the last two proposed Amendments to our Constitution, both sought restrictions, rather than expansions, of the rights of individuals. That is not exactly "burning" the Constitution," but it comes awfully close. (On a far less tongue in cheek note, this actually comes much closer, because at least the last two proposed Amendments, however misguided, followed the rule of law and the basic structure set up by the Constitution in the first place.)

Iraq War Spin

This comes from a great post on the Daily Kos by SusanG earlier today, and a great comment therein.

As the piece noted, this AP article included a quote by Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) from CBS's "Face the Nation:

"If we do shows every Sunday talking about every mistake, we're going to lose this war."

As Katchen aptly noted therein, what Graham probably really meant was:

"If we do shows every Sunday talking about every mistake, we're going to lose this election."

The Bush administration and the media is starting to spin Iraq into the arbiter of this presidency -- and not whether going was a strategically sound move, not whether it was misrepresented to the American people, not whether it has been poorly managed, but whether or not Iraq ultimately turns into a semi viable democracy.

John Harwood, CNBC's Chief Washington Correspondent, and the Wall street Journal's political columnist, is an apt example:

Last week on MSNBC's countdown (Wednesday, June 14), Harwood reiterated a Bush adminstration talking point straight from its own playbook. He talked about "staying the course," and how Bush has "doubled down" on Iraq, and, as have many journalists and pundits, how he has "staked his presidency on it."

What Harwood, allegedly but hardly an objective journalist, nevertheless chooses to ignore in his appearance on Countdown, is that the President has no choice, Iraq may become a democracy even if we leave and even if staying is the wrong idea, he can't win on this issue by leaving, and that if we achieve democracy in Iraq, this is hardly the crowning achievement that it has been made to be, costs and controversy aside. It is a good thing. That is all it is. It is one small piece to the international puzzle. And the international puzzle, in turn is only one piece of the Bush presdiency, let alone of the pressing needs of democracy here at home in America. (And it is a good thing relevant to the present situation, which was the expenditure of countless dollars, lives, and international capital to turn Iraq potentially into something it was not before the war: a breeding ground for international terrorism. )

But Harwood, and others, since the Bush presidency has been wildly unsucessful, is turning it into something much different. The end all be all, of all things good and bad.

In other words, it will be spun as if the world is now safe, even though Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, was no more connected to international terrorism than dozens of other countries, Iraq had no WMD and inspectors there were starting to tell us this back in march of '03 just before we went, and as if the 400 plus billion dollars that perhaps could have been better spent in the war on terror, or countless soldiers' lives lost, or pattern of mismanagement that exacerbated the process, are not relevant. It will be spun like this:

See, Bush was right.

What will be largely lost in the mainstream media is the far more relevant inquiry

About what?

Keith Olbermann, al-Zarqawi, Joe McCarthy, and Bill O'Reilly

Keith Olberman finally got fed up.

While writing back insulting emails can never be good strategy, I can't imagine even a string of the most horrendous curse words and insults approaching the antagonism level of such an outrageously illogical statement as calling Abu Musab al-Zarqawi Olbermann's "hero."

Granted, it's just a taunt. But unlike the taunt of a string of insulting four letter words or similar, it is a taunt that is also usually, at least in part, based upon a profound ignorance and miscontruction of what are fairly serious issues.

So, as the Daily News gleefully reports, Olbermann lost his cool and wrote back to a few of the worst emailers, hurling insults right back at them. Unprofessional, inadvisable, and flat out wrong, and for which, Olbermann apologized.

On a seemingly unrelated note, McCarthyism, from the 1950's, has become synonymous with political persecution and "witch hunt." (See also the highly acclaimed film "Good Night and Good Luck.")

One rather well written website, however, seems to have otherwise merged the two:

Wondering if Olbermann would name Worst Person in the World someone who engages in McCarthy-esque “acriminious” exchanges in which that person writes “insulting and frequently obscene” e-mails. That person? Keith Olbermann.

The only commonality here is that the issue was politics, and unfair. And by this extremely broad, if not almost ubiquitous standard, it would seem that the original e mailers are the more apt (if, again, poor) comparison. All Olbermann did was write some insulting emails back to emailers who used twisted and emotionally inflammatory logic in their hurled political insults.

Keith Olbermann, always providing a good story -- even when it's not about Bill O'Reilly, whom, in tepid defense of the Website's analogy, Olbermann calls "this generation's Joe McCarthy. From a broadcast of MSNBC's Countdown, as reported by media matters, here :

He has solidified in his status as this generation's Joe McCarthy. Just like the"Red Baiter," he now has his own list. His website reads: "The following media operations have regularly helped distribute defamation and false information supplied by far left Web sites." The list: the New York Daily News, the St. Petersburg Times, and MSNBC! You call it defamation, Bill. We call it precise quotes from your show.

Applying Vastly Different Standards to Spin in Lieu of the Facts

Glenn Greenwald, author of How Would A Patriot Act, aptly illustrates the often wildly divergent standards that the far right applies to those on various parts of the political spectrum:

Editor Rich Lowry can't believe that John McCain, whom Lowry notes is a "war hero," was treated so disrespectfully when he spoke last night at the New School in Manhattan. Lowry finds it "incredible" and "amazing" that a war hero would be subjected to heckling when giving a highly controversial speech praising a highly unpopular war. Apparently, heckling a war hero during a speech is a despicable act. But it's perfectly OK to waive purple band-aids at decorated, wounded war veterans; and it's fine to accuse them of being soft on Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein even after they voted for the Iraq invasion and co-sponsored creation of the Homeland Security Department; and there is nothing wrong with going to the floor of the House and labeling a war hero a "coward" and then following it up with a year's worth of accusations that they are also a traitor. Calling into question a war hero's patriotism, their courage, the seriousness of their war wounds, and their allegiance to the United States (emphasis all added) is all perfectly fine. Just don't boo them at a speech.

As suggested at Media Matters, here, and elsewhere, the Press, though not as flagrantly, often applies different standards to the two main political party candidates as well. It is very difficult to come up with the correct analysis, when vastly different standards are applied depending upon political slant, perspective, motivation or bias, or, in the case of the media, caving in to constant pressure from the right wing, and a fear of being labeled "liberal."

The Case Being Missed by a Majority of America

Markos Moulitsas, of the Daily Kos, wrote an interesting piece yesterday:

It's no secret that I look to the Mountain West for the future of the Democratic Party, people like Brian Schweitzer and Jon Tester. But I also look to candidates like Jim Webb in Virginia and Paul Hackett in Ohio.

And what is the common thread amongst these candidates?

They are all Libertarian Democrats. Ack, the "L" word! But hear me out.

Traditional "libertarianism" holds that government is evil and thus must be minimized. Any and all government intrusion is bad. While practical libertarians (as opposed to those who waste their votes on the Libertarian Party) have traditionally aligned themselves with the Republicans, it's clear that the modern GOP has no qualms about trampling on personal liberties. Heck, it's become their raison d' etre.

The problem with this form of libertarianism is that it assumes that only two forces can infringe on liberty -- the government and other individuals. The Libertarian Democrat understands that there is a third danger to personal liberty -- the corporation. The Libertarian Dem understands that corporations, left unchecked, can be huge dangers to our personal liberties. Libertarian Dems are not hostile to government like traditional libertarians. But unlike the liberal Democrats of old times (now all but extinct), the Libertarian Dem doesn't believe government is the solution for everything. But it sure as heck is effective in checking the power of
corporations.

In other words, government can protect our liberties from those who would infringe upon them -- corporations and other individuals. So in practical terms, what does a Libertarian Dem look like? A Libertarian Dem rejects government efforts to intrude in our bedrooms and churches. A Libertarian Dem rejects government "Big Brother" efforts, such as the NSA spyingof tens of millions of Americans. A Libertarian Dem rejects efforts to strip away rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights -- from the First Amendment to the10th. And yes, that includes the 2nd Amendment and the right to bear arms.

So far, this isn't much different than what a traditional libertarian believes. Here is where it begins to differ (and it shouldn't).

A Libertarian Dem believes that true liberty requires freedom of movement -- we need roads and public transportation to give people freedom to travel wherever they might want. A Libertarian Dem believes that we should have the freedom to enjoy the outdoor without getting poisoned; that corporate polluters infringe on our rights and should be checked. A Libertarian Dem believes that people should have the freedom to make a living without being unduly exploited by employers. A Libertarian Dem understands that no one enjoys true liberty if they constantly fear for their lives, so strong crime and poverty prevention programs can create a safe environment for the pursuit of happiness. A Libertarian Dem gets that no one is truly free if they fear for their health, so social net programs are important to allow individuals to continue to live happily into their old age. Same with health care. And so on. [[or, we would add here, a few of those]].

The core Democratic values of fairness, opportunity, and investing in our nation and people very much speak to the concept of personal liberties -- an open society where success is predicated on the merit of our ideas and efforts, [not] unduly burdened by the government, corporate America, or other individuals. And rather than always get in the way, government can facilitate this.

Of course, this also means that government isn't always the solution to the nation's problems. There are times when business-government partnerships can be extremely effective (such as job retraining efforts for displaced workers). There are times when government really should butt out (like a great deal of small-business regulation). Our first proposed solution to a problem facing our nation shouldn't be more regulation, more government programs, more bureaucracy.

The key here isn't universal liberty from government intrusion, but policies that maximize individual freedom, and who can protect those individual freedoms best from those who would infringe.

I am very much a Libertarian Dem, and this is exactly what my next book will be about. It's progressivism for a new century. And that's what this new breed of Democrat is building in the Mountain West and Virginia and Ohio.

Government exists to do what we must do collectively (national defense and environmental protection are the two naturals), and what makes more sense to do collectively rather than individually, and that in turn creates more liberty than infringes upon.

We are a government of the people, for the people, and from the people, only. Our govermment derives its sole power, therefore, from the consent of the governed. These principles have not been articulated enough in the mainstream, and have been lost upon America in the past several years, at the same that that far right wing republican leadership has emasculated them.

The republican party has become the party of big govenment, big brother, fiscal irresponsibility, lack of accountability, and it talks national security up the ying yang while doing very little about it except violating the Constitution by spying on Americans without any oversight, and misfocusing on Iraq, even while it continues to somehow confuse the nobility of the soldier sent off to war, with the crass politicians who send them.

Dems have to show what they are for, how it is something different, more consistent with fundamental American principles and values that most Americans believe in, that our forefathers believed in, not more of the same empty rhetoric that we have heard from the right and far right and that has belied reality for the past five plus years...

Robert Kennedy Jr. has said, and I say "most people are democrats, they just don't know it." They are mislead. They are mislead because democrats tolerate a media that mischaracterizes their message, and they tolerate the other side mischaracterizing their message, instead of focusing like a laser beam on it. and they are mislead because democrats don't focus on making an effective case, and doing it consistently, and every opportunity they get.
food for thought
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/5/25/74730/5092

Election Fraud, the Media, and the Right Focus

Chris Bowers wrote a fairly important diary, also cross posted over at MyDD. The piece dealt with the issue of election integrity, in the context of the critical issue of our times -- the media. This piece also contained a strong central premise; namely, the importance of not allowing the recognition of problems to be used as an excuse (the classic example of this being democrats in the media spotlight, recognizing the role of the media in the election of '04, or of the Bush Campaign's misleading statements therein, who do not look at their own very critical role in failing to counteract the highly misleading Campaign of the Bush Administration and use it against them). Bowers wrote:

I can sense something really depressing at play here, similar to what I wrote
about in my recent dairy Draft Gore--But Only If You Mean It. All of the
complaints that the Big Bloggers were not writing enough about election reform,
the desire to see election reform talked about in the Mainstream Big Papers, the
desired hopelessness at play in some "stolen election" threads--I can see where
this is all leading now. The mentality surrounding the "stolen election" diaries
has the clear stink of looking for someone else to solve the problem for you.
There is no sense of "Do It Yourself" grassroots action to fix the problem in
these dairies. In the same way that these diaries imply individual voters are
being denied by a great outside power of some sort, the same dairies look to a
great outside power to solve the problem.

He also wrote:

People interested in election reform and worried about stolen elections need to
become judges of elections in precincts and counties all around the nation. They
would go down to their local board of election, as I did, and go through every
single result from ever single voting machine in whatever district was in
question.

Everyone should be interested in election reform if it is not working properly. But it is not only not working properly because of a lack of people going through every single vote, it is not working properly because we have foolishly decided to use machines that are not 100% verifiable, in place of paper ballots. (I also don't' understand the point in some comments about how fraud would be easier to carry out with paper trails. It would be harder, and oversight would have a much more robust effect than on machine tallies which could themselves be inaccurate or altered.)

This is the overriding issue, and it does not get addressed only by excessive manpower. It also gets addressed by the appropriate legislation. That legislation will come from public pressure (which again, still goes back to Bowers' point) and from the election of democrats and more moderate republicans.

Unfortunately, on the national level, a small fraction of the republicans in Congress are moderate, by any standard. This is another key point that is often overlooked, ignored, or mischaracterzied by the mainstream media, because of its potentially explosive implications. But it needs to be made.

Why is Congress so far right wing? Mainly, misinformation. Both of these issues -- the unanswered questions of the 2004 election and ongoing election issues, and the election of far right wing conservatives -- and others, will be addressed by better mainstream coverage. That is, to the extent "big papers" and big media report on these things, is the extent to which mainstream America knows about them.

Thus, the key part of the equation, and what is sometimes overlooked in what are otherwise very good analyses, is that, most of America does not know what [you might] know. They find out what they do know, through the mainstream media.

Again, more national awareness -- knowledge -- leads to better legislation and focus on the right issues (such as our constitution, for instance). In turn, better representatives, also lead to better laws.

More importantly, it is poor information that has allowed rhetoric heavy campaigns to help elect far right wing extremists (there's a particular Senator from Bowers' state, PA, who leaps to mind), who then govern in Congress while getting sugarcoated mainstream press as if they were "moderates."

It's about process. Processes in America matter, more than anything else. One of those fundamental processes is voting. Manpower is great, but the underlying issues have to be addressed, as well. And part of that means bringing attention to them, in the mainstream national debate.

With respect to Bowers' main premise, here slightly modified. The tendency to come up with an excuse for failure. A tendency to want something else to blame, or to solve things:
There is a lot of awareness on blogs now of the poor nature of mainstream media coverage of the important issues of our day. Still not enough I say. But the tone is closer to what Bowers' describes, rather than the tone that right wing republicans started to take over a decade ago. Namely, that "the press is biased against us, and we are going to do something about it." They did, orchestrating a national movement that continues to this day, revolving around this concept, and that continues to have a disproportionate effect on the media and on their coverage of events and issues.

Democrats, on the other hand, echoing the first theme, sometimes bemoan the media, how it is poor, biased, unfair, and then often don't seem to want to do anything about it. Worse is the defeatist attitude that "it won't do any good," when one suggests to constantly make these points, effectively and courteously, to various major media sources.

Somebody who is a leading expert on the media, wrote me on this point the other day, saying "When someone tells you contacting media outlets doesn't do any good, give them [something clearly designed to have them reconsider their thoughts]. They absolutely have to be kept under pressure, constant pressure, to do the right thing."

Taking these points about defeatists attitudes, finding reasons for failure, things to blame, and not wanting to do anything, and contrast it with the tremendous energy otherwise flowing on some of these issues and on some of these excellent websites, that needs to be rechanneled to the heart of the matter.

This diary addressed the issue of the media. It didn't stop at blaming the media, though, but went further and tried to address the most critical reasons as to why, and suggested that democrats take a proactive approach to poor coverage of the issues. It received 3 comments. Commendably, it got rescued, and received a few more. Don't know what to write? Write a copy of the letter on a critical coverage issue that you sent to all the major TV news stations (and Fox doesn't count, btw. It's not a news station. It masquerades as one) or to a major newspaper.
A democracy is only as strong as the quality of its mainstream information (not info people get by actively seeking it out on most websites, but what they get, by the tens and tens of millions, passively, from the radio and TV airwaves, and to a lesser extent the newspapers and their associated websites that have become a part of our nation's routine). And America's mainstream information has been poor.

Readers of the many excellent web blogs out there can effect the way that the media, overly corporatized or not, presents news, and help them do a better job -- by constantly making the effective case to them. It's not so much that they don't want to do a good job, its that they have fallen into the pattern of not doing a good job. One of these reasons is because of constant pressure from the right, that has convinced America that the media is "liberal." This makes it even more important to constantly and persuasively make the case otherwise, on non partisan websites and sources, and most importantly, to the media itself.

(Note; this article was cross posted on the Daily Kos. Therein, one of the few comments noted something that is important to respond to, because it indicates a prevalent pattern and attitude that gets in the way of effectively addressing this issue:

The media is happy with the deregulated status quo because they own the
information iron curtain now. Both major parties are happy with the status quo,
because so long as there is no revolution, corruption as usual can continue, the
war can continue, defense contractors will continue to make campaign
contributions, and everybody can go play golf.

Trying to sway the mainstream media or elected officials is a suckers' game. They know which side their bread is buttered on, and it ain't ours.

Losing to far right wing rule constantly, because of mischaracterization of the issues, while the underlying principles of America are slowly being eroded, is the suckers game. Not, recognizing the critical role of the media in all of this, and doing something about it, including, making the case about the media, and making the case to the media.

Democrats are not necessarily anti-Corporation. And even to the extent they are, they are anti oligopolistic corporate power, which in turn is anti competition, and anti capitalism, which is based upon true competition. Moreover, journalists in the media are not necessarily opposed to telling the truth just because they work for large media conglomerates. The far right wing has made the case against the media. Repeating a key sentence from the above piece:

The tone is closer to what Bowers' describes, rather than the tone that
right wing republicans started to take over a decade ago. Namely, that "the
press is biased against us, and we are going to do something about it."
They did, orchestrating a national movement that continues to this day,
revolving around this concept, and that continues to have a disproportionate
effect on the media and on their coverage of events and issues.

The response of democrats? Throwing their hands up, and making irrelevant excuses, or simply just focusing on the wrong things. That was the whole point of the piece. )

There's a Reason Why the Media Runs with Certain Caricatures

This article at Media Matters, by Jamison Foser, notes:

"Sure, maybe reporters got a little overzealous, the argument went, but it's just because the Clintons were a little dodgy...and it was suspicious that they didn't remember every detail of an ancient real estate deal. Surely that kind of frenzy -- or the Lewinsky-era media malpractice -- was something unique to coverage of Clinton.

And then Al Gore came along and, as The Daily Howler's Bob Somerby argues convincingly, was treated to the most relentlessly hostile (not to mention dishonest) media coverage any major party presidential candidate had ever seen. ..And..when we say reporters ... We're talking about The New York Times and The Washington Post.

And still, reporters and pundits and progressive activists and Democratic leaders -- people who should have known better -- chalked it all up to Gore being a lousy candidate. Sure, they said, the media exaggerated about Gore's exaggerations, but they wouldn't have if he wasn't such an exaggerator. Never mind that every example given fell apart under scrutiny: each lie told about Gore being a liar reinforced the others. It was Gore's fault the media went overboard, just as it had been Clinton's. (emphasis all added) ...

Then Howard Dean emerged as the front-runner for the 2004 Democratic presidential nomination. And the media depicted him as a crazy man, a wild-eyed hippie liberal freak -- despite the fact that he had won the endorsement of the National Rifle Association during his career as governor of Vermont, during which time he was widely regarded as a moderate. And still, reporters and pundits and progressive activists and Democratic leaders -- people who should have known better -- chalked it all up to Dean being a little crazy...Sure, some reporters eventually acknowledged that they overplayed it. ..The same press corps that swoons daily over the notoriously ill-tempered John McCain relentlessly attacked Howard Dean for being "angry."

Enter John Kerry. Sure, Clinton, and Gore, and Dean had all been misleadingly slimed by the national media. But that's just because, by stunning coincidence, they were all deeply flawed candidates .... But John Kerry was a genuine war hero -- and so people who should have known better by then were surprised when right-wing activists connected to the Bush campaign smeared his military service, with the ready assistance of the nation's leading news organizations. And they were surprised (or worse, thought nothing of it) when Kerry was portrayed in the media as a flip-flopper and Bush was given a pass on his own lengthy history of flip-flops. [note; see here]

And still, too many journalists, pundits, progressive activists and Democratic leaders chalked this up to John Kerry's failings as a candidate [note; as opposed to George Bush's incredible communication skills, not to mention policy positions]... He spoke with too many qualifiers (remember: when Dean was blunt, he was derided as angry and crazy). He flip-flopped too much (Bush's own flips and flops escaped similar scrutiny).

Those who would apologize for the media's treatment of Clinton, Gore, Dean, and Kerry -- or who somehow fail to recognize it even now -- chalk it up to Clinton's supposed slickness, or Gore's trouble with the truth, or Dean's craziness, or Kerry's liberalism, and on and on and on -- somehow failing to recognize that they're excusing flawed media storylines about these candidates by citing those same flawed storylines. Hopefully hoping for the day when a progressive leader would emerge without these weaknesses. [note; like George Bush, except a democratic version].

The underlying point of this piece -- that major democratic candidates (and even Presidents) of the past several years have received coverage by different standards than republican candidates (and Presidents) -- and that democrats have not focused on this enough, is correct, and critical.

Media coverage is the heart of the problem. A democracy is only as good as the quality of its mainstream information. And America's mainstream information has been poor.

Gore received horrendous media coverage. This poor coverage fundamentally altered the course of history.

Many in the media, who are democrats, and who are loathe to appear or be accused of being "liberal," then were flabbergasted as to how Gore could have lost (and likewise, but even more so, with response to Kerry in 2004). They just don't get, as democrats often don't seem to get, that media coverage is critical. It is where the heart of America gets its foundation of knowledge and perception.

I also routinely heard from democrats how "well, this was Gore's fault." He did run a poor campaign. That was his fault. Bad coverage, on the other hand, was not his fault, other than to the extent he personally, along with his campaign, and the hundreds of thousands of other passionate, committed democrats, tolerated it from the media, and did not take the appropriate, CONSTANT, and focused communications necessary to set the record straight.

This same pattern repeated itself in 2004, with the refrain of the democrats that "well, Kerry was such a bad candidate" (when he was running against GEORGE BUSH) becoming an apt symbol for just how misfocused democrats can manage to lose when they have virtually every single fact on their side.

This letter, also linked above, makes the case with respect to the media's coverage of Kerry, on the seminal issue of that election. How did the democrats tolerate this?

Again, focus on the wrong things. Foser's article here, even if one does not agree with all of the detail, focuses on the right things.

It's simple. Voters will act upon the information that they receive. They always have. They always will. Voters are not, for the most part, the relative few who read Harpers, or the Atlantic monthly, or even most of the widely popular and often excellent but self selecting blog sites.

Voters are the tens of millions upon tens of millions of American citizens who get the bulk of their news impressions from, "The news," be it print (decreasingly), the Internet (to a limited extent but increasingly), which supplements and replaces print, radio (perhaps increasingly) and TV (always by far the most important). The News, and how it is presented, is ultimately, what matters.

Mediamatters gets this. Now it needs to convince the rest of the blogosphere.

Several of the comments to this piece, however, illustrated a misunderstanding of the problem, as well as a not completely rational exaggeration of it.

By exaggeration, I do not mean of its importance. I mean of its scope. the Author, Jamison Foser, albeit very credibly, painted the democratic perspective. And while this was one of the best articles that I have read in a long time (and far better than I could have done) there are minor things that one could take issue with.

Even this scenario however does not suggest that reporters sit around and decide to conspiratorially rig everything.

What it suggests is that there is a systemic proclivity in the media to apply different standards to democratic candidates than to republican candidates.

There are a couple of reasons for this , and they are all conceptually easy to address. But it takes the kind of effort that Mediamatters makes, on a wide scale. On the other hand, those commenters -- and there are many on many different sites -- that take the view that this is all purposeful because "the refs work for the other side" exhibit a defeatist attitude that has a lot to do with why the "other side" has been able to so successfully mischaracterize both democrats and the issues the past few years.

First, policy wise, it is important to return the media back to numerous independent sources, rather than a few enormous conglomerates. (Will democrats focus on this if they get into power in 2006? Maybe not. They may be too busy congratulating themselves on what a fine job they have been doing to finally get a little traction after a long predictable backlash from radical right wing republican rule...and on fixing superficial issues, rather than the underlying processes...but that is what needs to be done. And that is I think they need to be constantly reminded of to do.)

Second, democrats have to understand why the media has this proclivity. It is to a large degree because right wing republicans have effectively made the case, and it is an easy case for them to make.

First, most journalists are democrats (even if this is become less and less so, as the line between rigorous journalism, punditry, and entertainment all continue to blur). Lazy logic leads most experts, even, to conclude the the media is thus "liberally biased."

Maybe most journalists are democrats because most journalists know the facts, and the fact is, most people are democrats who have been bamboozled into thinking that they are republicans, because they have been misinformed.

But even if not, all that is relevant is the slant of the facts presented, not the person presenting them (Michael Kinsley, among many others, is a classic example of a liberal who often writes with a conservative bias, for instance).

More importantly, if a story comes out that simply tells the facts, and these facts support the democrats, and not the republicans, it is easy (if illogical) to argue, and "show" bias because the story has appeared to favor, and thus be biased towards, democrats.

A classic example: 2004. One of the major journalism centers did a study and concluded that in a few of the months leading up to the 2004 election, stories were more favorable towards Kerry. This was interpreted by many as bias towards Kerry.

It wasn't anything of the sort. Think of the facts in 2004. Net job loss, first time in over 50 years. Wide scale and disastrous terrorist attack on our own soil, after the Bush Administration fell asleep for 9 months on the issue (something else not adequately covered by the media). Outrageously reckless fiscal policy. Misfocus onto Iraq away from the war on terror. The worst environmental record of any administration ever, etc etc. And a campaign that ran on the platform of trust and candor, that repeatedly misrepresented the facts and the issues in that campaign as well.

How could any reasonable coverage of the issues, not appear slanted towards Kerry?
There was an easy out. As one example, the Bush campaign defined Kerry early on, falsely, as this pandering flipper flopper (similar to what they had done in 2000, with Gore as an alleged liar). So the media, eager to show and prove how "balanced" it was and is, jumped all over this stuff. To the point where with respect to Gore and Kerry, many members of the media themselves WERE MISINFORMED.

And far from focusing heavily on counteracting this perception created by years of orchestrated, focused and constant hard work by the far right, setting the record straight, democrats would largely just throw up their hands and go, "well the media's just biased." Of course it's biased, they are humans, like anybody else. The right has convinced them and America of this, and the democrats have not countered it. And a few letters to the editor here and there don't counter it.

Obviously there are other factors. One key one which can not be directly addressed by everyday citizen (but it can be constantly brought to the attention of their representatives) is, again, media conglomeration. And there are others.

But the key point is that the media essentially tries to paint itself as "balanced," rather than actually be balanced -- with any overreaching to the right very helpful in this regard, because it is projected to be, and still perceived as, liberal.

Until the media comes to believe that it is their interests to actually be thorough and balanced, and simply make the case, this won't change.

Human nature being what it is, they media will not do this until it is backed up on this. It is not backed up on this if the media does this, and the republican attack propaganda machine -- buoyed by self conditioned earnest belief -- come down on it with a full court press, and the democrats, meanwhile, as they have for the past ten years, sluff it off in essence by saying (as they do now about the highly manipulative fox channel) "oh, everybody knows that's not true." No, they don't. and until democrats learn to effectively and continually make this case as often and as consistently as republicans, this trend will continue.

Fighting for America's Principles:

President Bush, in a televised speech to the Nation, September 20, 2001.

We are in a Fight for our Principles, and our First Responsibility is to Live by
Them.

Illuminating the stark contrast between those words, and President Bush's policies:

It really is hard to imagine any measures which pose a greater and more direct
danger to our freedoms than the issuance of threats like this by the
administration against the press. If the President has the power to keep secret
any information he wants simply by classifying it -- including information
regarding illegal or otherwise improper actions he has taken -- then the
President, by definition, has complete control over the flow of information
which Americans receive about their Government.

This is also the President, who stated, again back on September 20, 2001 with respect to fighting that same terrorism threat:

I ask you to uphold the values of America.

Did these values include the most basic protections of liberty, separation of powers, and checks and balances upon our government under the U.S. Constitution?

Once again, it would appear not. As noted:

The system of checks and balances which our Constitution was written to
institute, is thrown right out of the window. Under this contorted reasoning,
the executive branch can do whatever it wants under the auspices of national
security (secretly, too, to boot, and, prosecute any whistleblowers or press
members for reporting it), prevent any review if there is a difference of
opinion, and prevent the rest of the country, even Congress, from knowing
about it.

President Bush also told the Nation, on September 20, 2001:

These terrorists kill not merely to end lives, but to disrupt and end a way of life. With every atrocity, they hope that America grows fearful..

Fearful enough to accept the beginnings of big brother that the Bush Administration has initiated, under the guise of "protecting us"?

This is a far right wing administration. It won reelection despite easily establishing itself among the worst in history. (To the extent it hasn't usurped powers, it is also hardly balanced by what is currently a fairly far right wing Congress.)

How did this happen? Why did this happen? The answer is not nearly as simple as September 11. Such an atrocity on our soil could (and should have, under the facts) easily hurt the party in power more than helped them. We also haven't secured our ports, secured our borders, secured unsecured fissile materials (our most critical mistake), caught Osama Bin Laden, or al Zirqawi, and we have spent several hundred billion dollars in Iraq in order to see it devolve into potential long term civil war. And this administration fell asleep in the months leading up to September 11 , despite strong evidence suggesting the compelling need to do exactly the opposite.

So what is it? Simple. It's a failure to recognize exactly what the far right wing is doing in its communications with a majority of Americans, a failure to recognize the fundamental need to counteract this, a failure to counteract it and turn it around to effectively and consistently illustrate to a MAJORITY of Americans how rhetoric is being used to manipulate the facts and the issues, a failure to adequately communicate the issues, a failure to show rather than tell, a failure to recognize the fundamental need to do all of these things, and a complete and utter failure to understand the far right by democrats and liberals, cynically believing en masse that their current political opponents are driven by the worst possible motivations, rather than simple preconditioned beliefs that allow them to fool themselves almost as easily as the American populace, AND an absolutely pervasive, self defeating, and unnecessary refusal to accept this reality.

This "rescued" diary on the website Daily Kos provides an apt illustration of exactly what the far right wing does to perpetuate misinformation. It is critical because not only does it provide the classic example of what the far right (including the Fox channel) constantly does at every opportunity, and on every level ranging from overt to subtle, it also serves as an example of something which itself -- rather than the manipulated story which the far right presents via it and similar methodologies, needs to repeatedly be turned into THE STORY. This is something that is both essential to making the effective case to mainstream America, and which has been largely ignored by democrats over the past several years, while unknowingly foundering with respect to what cases to make, and how to make them.

This diary, tellingly, received almost no attention at the same wildly popular and often cited Daily Kos site. It is telling because of the critical subject matter. It focuses on the crucial and fundamental role of the media in providing the essential information necessary for a democracy to work, the need right now to constantly communicate and work to improve this, and the patterns that have led to the right wings' ability to mischaracterize both the issues, and their opponents. Most of all, it shows the democrats critical role in all of this.

With no effective balance presented by a communication emasculated democratic party (the above piece provides links that illustrate the tendencies why), the republican party has lurched to the right, so rapidly, and so anti-Constitutional