Progressive Ponderings: Editing by Omission
by Joe Mayer
Both candidates have done well in national polling on issues of concern with the U. S. public – Iraq, military spending, health care, civil rights, foreign policy, etc. Both candidates when allowed into the television debates have won or placed high in voter preferences regarding debate issues. Still the major media intentionally downplays or negates their viability.
This same media monopoly pontificates perpetually on "free markets." Yet, in a market owned by only five or six major corporate conglomerates we find that the "free market" answers only to financial interests and to maintaining the status quo than prompting a "market of ideas." Both major political parties, tied to the corporate oligarchy, benefit from this monopoly. The Green, Libertarian, and Independent parties that frequently form around ideas to change the status quo are denied access to the public stage.
Ron Paul had the audacity to mention fascism. He kindly called it "soft fascism" but then went on to describe it, "A loss of civil liberties, corporations running the show, big government in bed with big business, military-industrial complex, medical-industrial complex, financial industry, communications industry – that's where control is. Soft on fascism is dangerous." How will we awaken to this danger if our media doesn't allow it?
Dennis Kucinich, with no ties to the "fascist controllers," stated, "I'm the Democrats' Democrat. I'm the kind of Democrat that resonates with the New Frontier, The Great Society, the New Deal." He then called on the media to divest all other interests. "Media ought to just be media" which is doable. The airways are public and the licensees must follow federal guidelines to obtain and retain their licenses. Under fascism the licensees would have co-opted the licenser. Sound familiar?
In this national presidential campaign some political parties are omitted, some candidates are omitted, new ideas are omitted that would inform the choice of voters. Iraq, military spending, single payer health care insurance, militaristic foreign policy, civil and Constitutional rights, economic inequality, fascism – "How can you have a debate (or democracy) if you don't have a voice that challenges the others?"
"How can you have a debate if you don't have a voice that challenges the others?"The above was spoken by Dennis Kucinich on the Bill Moyers Journal (Jan. 4) as he and Ron Paul were interviewed separately. They have much in common. They are close in their positions of the occupation in Iraq and our foreign policy, among other issues. But the greatest similarity is that the major media players in America don't want them and their alternate positions on issues on the national agenda. Both candidates have been kept from debates and will be excluded again this weekend.
Both candidates have done well in national polling on issues of concern with the U. S. public – Iraq, military spending, health care, civil rights, foreign policy, etc. Both candidates when allowed into the television debates have won or placed high in voter preferences regarding debate issues. Still the major media intentionally downplays or negates their viability.
This same media monopoly pontificates perpetually on "free markets." Yet, in a market owned by only five or six major corporate conglomerates we find that the "free market" answers only to financial interests and to maintaining the status quo than prompting a "market of ideas." Both major political parties, tied to the corporate oligarchy, benefit from this monopoly. The Green, Libertarian, and Independent parties that frequently form around ideas to change the status quo are denied access to the public stage.
Ron Paul had the audacity to mention fascism. He kindly called it "soft fascism" but then went on to describe it, "A loss of civil liberties, corporations running the show, big government in bed with big business, military-industrial complex, medical-industrial complex, financial industry, communications industry – that's where control is. Soft on fascism is dangerous." How will we awaken to this danger if our media doesn't allow it?
Dennis Kucinich, with no ties to the "fascist controllers," stated, "I'm the Democrats' Democrat. I'm the kind of Democrat that resonates with the New Frontier, The Great Society, the New Deal." He then called on the media to divest all other interests. "Media ought to just be media" which is doable. The airways are public and the licensees must follow federal guidelines to obtain and retain their licenses. Under fascism the licensees would have co-opted the licenser. Sound familiar?
In this national presidential campaign some political parties are omitted, some candidates are omitted, new ideas are omitted that would inform the choice of voters. Iraq, military spending, single payer health care insurance, militaristic foreign policy, civil and Constitutional rights, economic inequality, fascism – "How can you have a debate (or democracy) if you don't have a voice that challenges the others?"
Powered by Blogger
1 Comments:
Joe,
You have put MSM in your crosshairs, but don’t the political parties hierarchy deserve some responsibilities ?
Do the parties really want “debate” or “conformity and acceptance” ?
Political power depends upon consent. Ordinary people band together to permit action by their own inaction (hence we allow torture because our President tells us that we don’t torture and photos are not shown). Ergo, the only threat to democracy is people resorting to participation. And “we” will never do anything unless “our” freedom is affected … politicians will only react when a certain public outcry is reached – to date that has not happened.
Political parties do not want to be challenged. They want the status quo. They have their own cliques that may via for attention … take the Republican Party with its Big Tent of Theo-cons, Neo-cons, Big Business Fiscal Conservatives, Log Cabin, etc … and Ron Paul threatens them, so FOX, Rush, and the rest of Party’s mouthpieces must attack Paul.
This November the two political parties could be challenged with a Paul-Kucinich ticket … they would not win, but as in 2000, cause havoc in a few states … and just enough to send John McCain to the Oval Office.
The Kucinich and Paul exclusion is not new or exclusive … wasn’t Mike Gravel also excluded? Gravel responded to why he wasn’t invited to a debate focusing on gay rights “I think the real reason why HRC didn't invite me is that I'm too vocal in my advocacy of gay rights. None of the top tier candidates would have been comfortable facing an opponent who consistently points out their refusal to embrace true equality for gays and lesbians. HRC simply bowed to the star factor. Didn’t Ralph Nader try to “crash” one of the debates after he was excluded. Yet, there is no doubt that although Nader and Pat Buchanan were not included in the Presidential debates, both had a signficant impact on the 2000 election.
Converesely, do you want debates that have so many participants that “major” players do not get the time as “minor” players yack away ? Kucinich had participated in a number of debates and polls indicated that other candidates were perferred. Paul, on the other hand, still draws money and votes. The early debates with the large groups did serve a purpose as Mike Huckabee would not be where he is without the debates.
Lastly, were these debates watched by the viewers ? Paul was excluded from the FOX “love-fest” and the FabFive seemed to get along a lot better than the previous night when he was there … or it could be that the moderator and audience was different.
Sadly, until voters become knowledgeable and engaged, we are stuck with the two-party system. I cried when I saw the New Hampshire results … when someone’s momentary emotional release can cause people to vote for a crying Hillary without asking the question, “Did her tears change her Iran policy?” But in America, some may want to make sure that a photo ID is presented to vote, the real question is should voters be required to have a basic GED on ths issues?
Post a Comment
<< Home