The health care debate and our corporate media

Bill Moyers, via Glenn Greenwald:

And I think the reason for that is -- in the time since I was there, 40 years ago, the Democratic Part has become like the Republican Party, deeply influenced by corporate money.
...
Money has flowed in such a flood into both parties that the Democratic Party gets a lot of its support from the very interests that -- when the Republicans are in power -- financially support the Republicans.

Bill doesn't mention that these same interests also own the mainstream media in our country. Our MSM which has become increasingly concentrated in a small number of hands over the last 40 years.

Here's Joe Klein at Time, regarding the public option:

Meanwhile, I never had much interest in a public option. I think the perils of government-delivered (as opposed to funded) services are obvious and immense. Sarah Lyall had an excellent piece in the Times today about her dealings with the British National Health System, which has some very real strengths, but also some terrifying weaknesses.

As is immediately pointed out by the common taters, Joe K. is being foolish. But he knows the corporate line, and he's going to toe it.

Newsweek's Howard Fineman gives Ben Nelson a tongue bath, and in the process mentions:

If and when the Democrats get to 60, the party's core liberal-progressive interests are likely to demand prompt action on a host of topics. But if every action requires 60—and that's becoming the norm in the Senate—the ironic result will be to empower the party's centrist wing.

Anyone remember when the Republicans had a Senate majority?

Howard Fineman: Silly Democrats, let our President save us from the terror!

Jamison Foser: The media's health care filibuster

This is the role of Howard Finemans and Joe Kleins: to define the left edge of the Overton window. Past here, unserious liberals be. More to the point, unemployable liberals, at least in the corporate media. Stay with the herd, it's safe there!

And that is my point: the tycoon class doesn't just buy our politicians directly (the carrot), they also wield the media that they own (as a stick or as a carrot).

Want a public option? On the right, Rush Limbaugh, FAUX, and the WSJ are all opposed. On the other hand, you have Joe K. and Howard F. Freedom from Choice!

Want to see Bush, Cheney, and company brought to justice for torturing people?


On the right, Rush Limbaugh, FAUX, and the WSJ are all opposed. On the other hand, here's Joe Klein. Freedom from Choice!

Remember our spectacular success in Iraq when we freed the Iraqi people (from food, homes, limbs, and lives)?

Time Magazine's Joe Klein, for instance, last week claimed he has "been opposed to the Iraq war ever since 2002." Readers were expected to forget about his nationally televised declaration in late February 2003 -- the critical days just before the invasion was ordered. "War may well be the right decision at this point," Klein told NBC's Tim Russert. "In fact, I think it probably is."

"We had controversial wars that divided the country. This war united the country and brought the military back."
(Newsweek's Howard Fineman--MSNBC, 5/7/03)

I post at Swampland occasionally. I've seen Joe Klein occasionally respond to comments. I think I'll try to get him to anwer this one:

Remember those dirty fucking hippies who turned out to be completely correct about Iraq, in sharp contrast to yourself? Do you think it might be possible that those same DFHs are correct about a public option for health care insurance and prosecuting Bush Administration officials for torture?



UPDATE:

This has created an imbalance that requires a Fox-like network that is as liberal as Fox is conservative. MSNBC seems to be trying to fill this role, but very half-heartedly for reasons I am unclear about.

That would be Bruce Bartlett, a veteran of the Reagan and H.W. Bush administrations, in an email to Steve Benen.

I think he is missing the point, deliberately or else because his ideological blinders prevent him from seeing it.

NBC doesn't want to be liberal. The fact that FAUX nooze crazies allow them to present their right wing, corporate friendly spin as "liberal" is a perfect circumstance for their parent, GE.

This is what manufacturing consent is all about.

UPDATE II: BEYOND THE PADDLEWHEEL

Twice in the past month, my private communications have been splashed about the internet. That such a thing would happen is unfortunate, and dishonorable, but sadly inevitable, I suppose. I ignored the first case, in which a rather pathetic woman acolyte of Greenwald's published a hyperbolic account of a conversation I had with her at a beach picnic on Cape Cod. Now, Greenwald himself has published private emails of mine that were part of a conversation taking place on a list-serve. In one of those emails, I say that Greenwald "cares not a whit for America's national security."
...
I am not a religious reader of Greenwald--he does go on, and on--and it's possible that I missed extensive posts in which he praises the Armed Forces or makes positive suggestions about how to track possible communications between terrorists abroad and their confederates here. But I sort of doubt that.What I have seen from him, ad nauseum, are intemperate attacks in which he questions the character of--no, it's worse than that: he slimes--anyone who has the temerity to disagree with him.

"...private emails of mine" and "a conversation taking place on a list-serve". OK, Joe. I guess it's like that rule of law thing for the rest of us, but not the important people in the Village.




I didn't realize Glenn Greenwald was training an army of Amazon Warrior Priestesses. But I guess it makes sense.
~