Stop the strobe light and see the real world

Elizabeth Edwards has written a beautiful op-ed piece for the Sunday New York Times (4/27/08) imploring the media to do its job. It seems like it should go without saying, but the media has failed the American people and democracy in general for the better part of the last decade. The media is often referred to as the 4th branch of government, because a free press acts as a check on political power. If the truth is available, it’s much harder to be hoodwinked.

The internet has been the saving grace for many Americans, who know the “truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth” is out there somewhere, just not in the mainstream media. Mrs. Edwards, wife of former Democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards, uses the phrase “strobe-light journalism” to describe the outline-only perspective presented by the mainstream media.

…every analysis that is shortened, every corner that is cut, moves us further away from the truth until what is left is the Cliffs Notes of the news, or what I call strobe-light journalism, in which the outlines are accurate enough but we cannot really see the whole picture.

She frames the situation far better than I could, and offers a stronger voice. Although a politician’s wife is no more an expert than any blogger, this truth will receive much more airplay because of her higher profile. I don’t believe the media will actually correct this issue, mostly because “the media” is no more a homogeneous group than “the American people”. A few of the pundits and talking heads are beginning to report more on the real issues, even if they fail to point out basic inaccuracies in the positions of each candidate.

For example, John McCain is able to freely attack Barack Obama over his proposal to raise the capital gains tax. I have yet to hear any journalist correct the statements of McCain, although they frequently play the statement and ponder “will this hurt Obama?” It will if nobody speaks the truth. First take a look at Sen. McCain’s attack on Obama.

Senator Obama says that he doesn’t want to raise taxes on anybody over — making over $200,000 a year, yet he wants to nearly double the capital gains tax. Nearly double it, which 100 million Americans have investments in — mutual funds, 401(k)s — policemen, firemen, nurses. He wants to increase their taxes.

Millions of Americans have investments, most have jobs. The problem is that someone making a living from investments alone end up paying half the taxes of the working people. Low capital gains taxes make investments available to more Americans, but most Americans aren’t making more money to invest. Lower capital gains taxes do benefit average Americans to some degree, but the wealthy to a far greater degree. A post at the DailyKos points out just how fundamentally wrong McCain is on this issue.

Investments contained in 401-K’s (Or in the case of ‘policemen, firemen’ usually a 403-B), pensions, IRAs, tax deferred variable annuities, and similar retirement vehicles aren’t subject to capital gains tax — they’re not taxed at all. Changing the capital gains tax rate will have zero effect on them. Withdrawals from tax deferred accounts by retirees are generally taxed at whatever the income tax rate is for that person at the time of withdrawal (Which, incidentally, is usually a hell of a lot more than the current long term capital gains tax rate, yet another way to rip off the middle class).

Many may dismiss anything from the DailyKos, but anyone with an understanding of our tax code and economy can confirm. Of course, people in the mainstream media discredit “far-left” bloggers at the DailyKos and other sites. The problem is, someone isn’t coming clean, and any deeper research reveals it’s the media. Many bloggers can be wrong about their facts, but they can also hyperlink ’til their heart’s content, allowing anyone reading the story to see the sources. Unfortunately, there exists no such option for the mainstream media. They quote and cite themselves as the expert, and we’re asked to accept it as fact.

I’ve always considered myself a moderate, although I’m sure many would call shenanigans. It’s just harder and harder to maintain any moderate views when our democracy has been so hijacked by ideologues who give most conservatives a bad reputation. A recent poll shows that 53% of Americans have an unfavorable view of the Republican Party, which I consider a shame, even though I admit I would like to see a Democrat win in November. A two-party system is divisive in some ways, but it can be divisive to the point of stalemate when the media decides to pick sides and report as a two-party media.

Jonathan Capehart of The Washington Post and Ryan Lizza of The New Yorker both deserve some serious credit for putting recent comments by Reverend Wright into real context, as I try to point out any time I see the truth told on TV. On today’s Hardball with Chris Matthews, both attempted to point out that Barack Obama has never aligned himself with the views of Reverend Wright. If he ever had, he’d already be out of this race. We know his pastor and his bowling score, now if only we didn’t have to look so hard for his positions on the issues.

Did you, for example, ever know a single fact about Joe Biden’s health care plan? Anything at all? But let me guess, you know Barack Obama’s bowling score. We are choosing a president, the next leader of the free world. We are not buying soap, and we are not choosing a court clerk with primarily administrative duties. – Elizabeth Edwards

An interview so good, it deserved pre-release spin

This is the problem I have with the Reverend Wright controversy. It’s completely being spun by the media. If you ever see a 20- or 30-second clip, you should already know someone is presenting one side of an issue. It’s interesting how John McCain skates accepting the endorsement of John Hagee who flat-out, in-context said Hurricane Katrina was God’s punishment for New Orleans planning a gay pride parade and a complete circus be made of the comments of Barack Obama’s pastor.

I understand why it’s not compared to Reverend Wright’s comments like “America’s chickens have come home to roost” and “not God bless America, God damn America“, because when put into full context they aren’t nearly as damning. Now I’m not a believer really, but I was raised on faith. I have a lot of respect for faith and religion, but I don’t make my decisions based on a translation of a translation of a 2,000+ year old collection of scriptures. That is not to disrespect the bible, only to offer why it’s not the how-to book I consult for everyday issues.

The media is ridiculously biased, and even with the 24-hour news cycle we are still stuck with Sean Hannity on skip for 3 weeks about Reverend Wright while the economy falls into recession and we reach the sad milestone of 4,000 American servicemen lost in Iraq & Afghanistan. It was interesting to see all of the pre-spin done for this interview on PBS, of all places. PBS has been speaking the truth when corporate henchmen can’t afford to say a word.  They also opened up on the New York Times article I discussed here earlier about planted propaganda puppets in the mainstream media.  All of the pre-release spin did for me was make me want to double-check to make sure my TiVo had me covered.

My hope is that people will watch this interview and make their own judgement, but publicly calling a man an anti-American hate monger is hard to back up when it is blatantly false. This isn’t even simply the far-left blogosphere coming to the rescue of Reverend Wright. Father Michael Pflegler was criticized by Fox News (after having previously contributed for them) for daring to come to the defense of Wright. Former minister and Governor of Arkansas Mike Huckabee has also publicly defended the pastor. It’s too much to think these otherwise respectable people have “turned”. The more plausible reality is that we may be being sold a lie. Jeremiah Wright is a former Marine and Navy corpsman who has served his community in ways most reading this have never approached.

Regarding the pre-release spin coverage seen on Fox News and CNN (among others, I’m sure), none of it even came close to approaching the general theme and course the actual interview took. If you only caught the pundits on Thursday evening or early Friday you might have gotten the impression he only went on TV to defend himself, against the wishes of the Obama campaign. You may have even gotten the impression Reverend Wright took shots at Senator Obama for his response to the issue, saying “he goes out as a politician and says what he has to say as a politician”. Barack Obama knows Reverend Wright far better than any talking head in the media, save for maybe Moyers, who showed a picture of both of them in earlier years, standing over President Johnson’s hospital bed. The Obama campaign didn’t urge Rev. Wright not to be interviewed until after the election. If anything he was told to go tell more of the truth. It’s obvious, without a full interview with a member of the press, he’ll only be heard through 20-seconds looped ad nauseam.

I highly recommend everyone watch the interview, I’ll link it here as soon as it’s posted. It is of special import if you have been exposed and influenced by the constant coverage of these comments. His personal recollection of the morning of Sept. 11, 2001 is particularly interesting, recalling Psalm 137 and warning we must not respond out of sheer revenge. The entire sermon was actually very poignant in saying we must first look to ourselves, and make sure we are righteous before we move into parts of the world and ask them to be righteous.

UPDATE: Here is the entire interview, in 4 parts. Thanks to RealClearPolitics.com for getting it on YouTube.

TV analysts are the Bush administration’s Trojan Horse

The effort, which began with the buildup to the Iraq war and continues to this day, has sought to exploit ideological and military allegiances, and also a powerful financial dynamic: Most of the analysts have ties to military contractors vested in the very war policies they are asked to assess on air.

A lengthy article by David Barstow of the New York Times brings yet another Bush administration scandal to light. It details just how the administration planted “experts” branded as military analysts on cable news and talk radio to sell the war and keep it going. This is disturbing to say the least. It’s still early, but the fallout should be interesting.

A few expressed regret for participating in what they regarded as an effort to dupe the American public with propaganda dressed as independent military analysis.

“It was them saying, ‘We need to stick our hands up your back and move your mouth for you,’ ” Robert S. Bevelacqua, a retired Green Beret and former Fox News analyst, said.

Kenneth Allard, a former NBC military analyst who has taught information warfare at the National Defense University, said the campaign amounted to a sophisticated information operation. “This was a coherent, active policy,” he said.

___________________

Though many analysts are paid network consultants, making $500 to $1,000 per appearance, in Pentagon meetings they sometimes spoke as if they were operating behind enemy lines, interviews and transcripts show. Some offered the Pentagon tips on how to outmaneuver the networks, or as one analyst put it to Donald H. Rumsfeld, then the defense secretary, “the Chris Matthewses and the Wolf Blitzers of the world.” Some warned of planned stories or sent the Pentagon copies of their correspondence with network news executives. Many — although certainly not all — faithfully echoed talking points intended to counter critics.

___________________

There were also ideological ties.

Two of NBC’s most prominent analysts, Barry R. McCaffrey and the late Wayne A. Downing, were on the advisory board of the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, an advocacy group created with White House encouragement in 2002 to help make the case for ousting Saddam Hussein. Both men also had their own consulting firms and sat on the boards of major military contractors.

___________________

There’s a lot more, I just posted a teaser.

I don’t know why I’m even surprised by Fox News anymore

The weekend edition of Fox & Friends bills Obama’s statements in San Francisco about rural America as “Barack Obama attacks some voters and how John McCain and Hillary Clinton tell him to ‘back off!'” It’s repulsive to think these people have credibility with anyone in this country. I am sure a large portion of their viewers are aware of their extreme and unabashed bias. The individuals seem to care about reporting news, but the management and editorial discretion is atrocious. From the top down, this organization is a political one. It is not a reputable news organization.

Fox regularly attacks reputable news sources like the New York Times, Washington Post and even credible blogosphere buzz sites like ThinkProgress and DailyKos but their own reporting lacks any real news, merely analysis lasting weeks centering on a single 20-second clip. At least I’ve never seen the same story absolutely beaten into the ground without any new facts surfacing on the DailyKos, when a story keeps going there, that means more is breaking with the story. Watching the blogs and waiting a few days for a story to be dispelled or validated is a more effective news source than watching Fox News 24/7, unless you just want someone to pander to Sen. McCain and be apologists for the Bush administration.

Of course they are saying this could jeopardize his campaign, but media outlets and pollsters don’t know what the American voter does. The truth hurts sometimes. As Juan Williams recently pointed out, these comments are true and actually go to the fear preyed upon by Republicans. I don’t understand how telling the truth about people could ever be such a devastating thing to a campaign. Americans are bitter, we loathe the powerful elites who ask us one-two questions a year: How much are you paying us in taxes? What rights could you live without?

One of the weekend anchors did point out that this is the first time we’ve heard anything actually controversial come out of Barack Obama’s mouth, everything prior was made through a surrogate. it’s nice to know they report some of the truth. Just enough to let you think they are “Fair and Balanced”? Yeah right!

I guess I should temper my expectations with a network that just called Miley Cyrus a singer/songwriter. She did make $18.2 million last year on concerts, merchandising and her TV show, but songwriter? Like that singer/songwriter Britney Spears, what ever happened to her?

McCain’s going to woo the black vote…in South Philly?

The New York Times reported on April 4th that Senator McCain plans to criss-cross the states in order to woo the black vote. He’ll have to do a lot more research if he wants to know exactly where to woo that vote. This man truly doesn’t have any concept of who we are as a nation.

“I know that I’m not going to get a majority of the African-American vote,” Mr. McCain said last week in a radio interview on ‘The Tavis Smiley Show’. “But I’m going to campaign all over this country. I’m going to go to South Philadelphia, I’m going to go to the Black Belt in Alabama, I’m going to go all over America, and I’m going to communicate, I’m going to talk with, I’m going to share the frustrations, the hopes and the dreams that the African-American community has.”

The Philadelphia Daily News busted McCain for this gaffe, making a strong point in an editorial, that McCain is flying under the radar. They go on to make a point I’ve been noticing about Senator McCain throughout this election season, he’s far too confused to hold the toughest job in the land. His confusions over race, the economy and just who we’re fighting in Iraq are just not what America needs to constantly keep perpetuating.

That’s the thing about Senator Obama of Kansan and Kenyan blood, he’s a non-racial candidate. I honestly believe him when he says he has no vested racial interests. You may see him as a black man or simply as an American. There is little doubt, however, that in the White House he would devote himself to all Americans, not just the privileged few embraced by the current administration.

Bill O’Reilly’s pure paranoia and character revelation

The rundown on News Hounds discusses how Bill O’Reilly spins the New York Times editorial on immigration and Sheriff Joe Arpaio into a media election conspiracy. He revealed who he wants to stay in power, and the storyline he wants to set for America.

The New York Times and the far left want to break down the white Christian male power structure.”
-Bill O’Reilly, Talking Points 04/09/08

The New York Times is a news organization. The reason you read so many negative stories about the current administration in there is because the current administration has failed us miserably. To argue they have utter bias and are ‘far left’ is ignorant in a time where the most extreme of right-wingers hold the White House. People wouldn’t have to push back so much if the government truly served the people and upheld the Constitution and not the pocketbooks of cronies.

There’s no doubt that whatever power structure is in control now should be broken down. This nation is a democracy not an oligarchy, Mr. O’Reilly. We’re not all white, we’re not all Christian, yo momma’s not male so stop trying to retain power in one group which itself is contrary to the Constitution and the beliefs upon which this nation was founded. It was founded by Christian men for religious freedom, not for a Christian nation. They believed in freedom of speech and of the press because they knew it would help balance the government, no matter who is at the helm. The founding fathers knew information would help a democracy progress, and that restricting information would be detrimental to our democracy. They’re not the ‘far-left’ Mr. O’Reilly, they’re the good citizens and patriots of America.

The New York Times expose Sheriff Joe to the rest of the US

Despite what J.D. Hayworth says on KFYI and the O’Reilly Factor, Sheriff Joe is more trouble than he’s worth. There are far better ways to rid a community of crime, instead of gorging our prison system with convicts eager to get out of his jails and into a prison. I’m traditionally a hardliner on crime, I just like well-defined limits on what constitutes crime, a fair element to sentencing of violent vs. nonviolent crimes and a cost effective penal system. I’d much rather someone steal my stereo than steal my tax dollars for the next decade.

This New York Times op-ed was a clear account to the rest of America about how business is conducted in Arizona. Numerous accounts of misconduct have flashed across my TV over my years in Arizona, but few as economically sensible as this one. I will say this, I am more cautious because I know about Sheriff Joe and his hardline stance. It is very effective to reasonable people. I know people who drive drunk 200 days a year but have also had no trouble with Sheriff Joe and his posse.

Here’s the original New York Times article.