Monday, February 20, 2006

Eric Alterman tees one up-Part 2

***Continuation from last post***

3) "When spokespeople for the shows were contacted to explain the disparity, they claimed that they go where the action is, and today the action is Republican/conservative......But of course, were that true, then the Clinton years would have been just as tilted in favor of Democrats/progressives as the Bush years have been toward Republicans/conservatives."

This should be true during the first 2 years of the Clinton administration when the Democrats controlled the House, Senate, and Presidency. But after Republicans gain control of the House + Senate for the first time in 40 years (during Clinton's last 6 years in office), why would the action be in the Democrats corner?? It would seem to be in both corners, which, suprisingly (actually not), is what the study reflected 52%-48%.

4) "deeply right-wing George Will, and the "neutral" (though personally conservative) Fareed Zakaria, with no balance whatsoever."

Perhaps you want to edit this comment after yesterday's This Week. Katrina Vanden Heuvel was in full liberal attack mode and was a panelist along with Cokie Roberts, and George Will. Yes, no balance whatsoever. I'm sure she will never be invited back on after her disgraceful performance (how many times do someone need to say lied and WMD in the same sentence 3 years after the fact??), but for that show it was balanced. Also, George Will might be "deeply right-wing" compared to you and Katrina, but he is not compared to most American people (i.e. people outside of NY & LA).

5) "...Mrs. Alan Greenspan, Andrea Mitchell--were classified as "neutral." (Remember how quick Mitchell was during the 2004 debates to accuse Kerry of "demagoguery" for daring to criticize her husband?) "

Seriously, how many examples do you need that Andrea Mitchell is not conservative (which you are claiming). I'm not trying to prove that she is liberal (despite many liberal episodes), but she is by no means a "conservative".

example 1) From Hardball 2/6/2006:

Mitchell: "Well, I think they’re trying to demonize her. I think they are trying to take advantage of the fact that she can sometimes sound shrill, as she did in front of that audience in Harlem on Martin Luther King Day and try to make her seem more extreme than I think she really is, because I think, look at what she’s just done recently, she took some PAC money from her own political action committee and gave it to Bob Casey in Pennsylvania who is an anti-choice nominee in the Democratic race there."

What conservative uses the term "anti-choice" instead of "pro-life"

example 2) Feb 8, 2006 NBC Nightly News

Mitchell: "It was an in-your-face rebuke rare for any President, especially one who doesn't often surround himself with critics...After five years in office, deep cuts in social programs, and searing criticism of the response to Hurricane Katrina, George W. Bush is still struggling to explain himself to African-Americans....critics, often Democrats, remember that he has not attended an NAACP convention since taking office."

First, there have not been deep cuts or any cuts in social programs since George W Bush took office. Anti-poverty programs have increased 39% from $285 billion to $396 billion from 2001 to 2005. Second, the reason he hasn't attended an NAACP convention is because they put a disgusting ad about him up during the 2000 election, and the Chairman Julian Bond has said the following things about Bush/Republicans "idea of equal rights is the American flag and the Confederate swastika flying side-by-side" and "Republicans draw their most rabid supporters from the Taliban wing of American politics." Granted, I don't think Mitchell is advocating the critics positions that he has not attended a convention, but she doesn't mention any reasons why he hasn't (which are obvious). **** the next 2 sentences were not in the original email, but were added to post to make the preceeding paragraph clearer Here she shows that is willing to use false and misleading Democratic arguments in a position where she is supposed to be neutral. Is that what a Conservative usually does?

6) Tune in to every show every week for a year, and you are unlikely to see Frank Rich, Paul Krugman, Rick Hertzberg, Harold Meyerson or anyone associated with The Nation, The American Prospect, The Washington Monthly, The New York Review of Books, Salon, In These Times, Mother Jones or even the liberal remnant inside The New Republic.

Katrina Vanden Heuvel was on This Week yesterday so there is someone from The Nation. Krugman was on MTP once in 2005, Maureen Dowd was on twice in 2005 and once in 2006, Frank Rich was on once in 2005. As for the other guys, no one has ever heard of them, that's why they aren't invited on. Also, Frank Rich isn't even a political columnist, he's an art & culture columnist. Why should he be on political talk shows frequently or at all?

***name ommitted in post****

P.S. Do you support the requirement of address/phone # for letter to the editor publication?


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home