Why do left wing spokespeople on tv never bring up

[Skidmore]

corporate entitlements when the rw pundits start the "entitlement reform" whine?

[loyalkydem]

1. First to rec

a very good question Skidmore

[Cal Carpenter]

2. Because they aren't actually 'left wing'

not in any meaningful sense, anyway - only as a relative term in contrast with the hard right wing.

So-called 'leftists' here in the US (at least the ones who get invited on TV) would be considered moderate or even center-right by most universal definitions of economic theory.

There is no economic left-wing in popular US political discourse. Leftists challenge capitalism at its foundation. Here, the best you get is half-assed suggestions of 'reform'. That is not leftist, it is liberal.

[Scuba]

3. +1

[truebluegreen]

7. Yup. nt

[Heidi]

9. ^^^ This. ^^^

[Solly Mack]

17. True.

[leftstreet]

21. +1

[Ian62]

22. I would say it is much worse than that

The media is 90% owned by 6 large Corporations.

The views expressed in the mainstream media are the views of these 6 large Corporations.

In turn these 6 large Corporations depend on the advertising revenue of other large Corporations - so you won't find many views expressed against them either.

I wonder how many people know that when they tune into MSNBC they are actually watching General Electric's TV channel.

How the American public was turned into willing victims of Corporate greed.
http://ian56.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/journalists-are-easy-to-con.html

[LWolf]

26. +1

[leveymg]

4. What "left wing spokespeople'? eom

[Maraya1969]

8. Lawrence O'Donnel, Rachell Maddow, Rev. Al Sharpton

[leveymg]

13. Exactly. Their job is to mobilize constituent group audiences, not to rabble-rouse the "mob."

Regardless of their personal philosophies and ideologies, each of these figures has a pre-determined role to play mobilizing distinct audiences and issues. None of them steps very far outside that framework very often.

[Romulox]

14. That's a pretty sorry list, imo. Rachel is good, though. nt

[rhett o rick]

19. That's three. And I know that Rachell and Lawrence have spoken at length about corporate welfare. nm

[Cal Carpenter]

31. Just came across this article,

thought it was sorta odd that it mentions all three of your examples.

Obama Meets With Rachel Maddow, Al Sharpton, 'Influential Progressives'

WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama met with Rachel Maddow, Al Sharpton and other "influential progressives" on Tuesday as part of his campaign to sell the public on the need to extend the Bush middle-class tax cuts.

White House deputy press secretary Josh Earnest confirmed the meeting took place. It wasn't listed on Obama's schedule.

"This afternoon at the White House, the President met with influential progressives to talk about the importance of preventing a tax increase on middle class families, strengthening our economy and adopting a balanced approach to deficit reduction," Earnest said in a statement Tuesday.

Earnest wouldn't give details on who was in the meeting or how long it lasted, but HuffPost spotted several attendees on their way in just after 3 p.m., including MSNBC's Maddow, Sharpton and Lawrence O'Donnell. Ed Schultz, also from MSNBC, tweeted a photo just outside of the West Wing. Arianna Huffington, president and editor-in-chief of The Huffington Post Media Group, was also in the meeting.


more...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/04/obama-rachel-maddow-al-sharpton_n_2240011.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000009

[Telly Savalas]

5. Because Political Reality TV is an asinine waste of time

Don't watch the shit.

[Bluenorthwest]

6. Who are these people and who made them 'spokespeople'?

I don't see any such people on TV. Not one.

[Honeycombe8]

10. Yeah, why IS that? And why don't they more often speak up about SS NOT being part of the budget?nt

[datasuspect]

11. because they are on the payroll

and it is best to NOT bite the hand that feeds you.

[dkf]

12. Because that is in reforming the tax code and its the Dems who don't seem to want to go there.

[wildbilln864]

15. because those corporations....

will unseat that politico next time?

[Doctor_J]

16. "Left Wing" spokespeople aren't allowed on TV, ever

When is the last time Amy Goodman was on TV? Michael Parenti? Mike Malloy? THom Hartmann? Even Hartmann's radio program is overrun with right wingers while lefties are absent.

[ThoughtCriminal]

18. Corporate welfare - not to be confused with entitlements

which are earned benefits that people work for.

[rhett o rick]

20. Interesting that you use the insinuation via question. I suggest you state your point outright.

Why dont you name the left wing spokespeople that you are accusing of "never" bringing us corporate entitlements. Are you referring to politicians? If so, I am sure Sen Sanders and Rep Alan Greyson would love to talk about it IF GIVEN A CHANCE.
Maybe you are referring to TV hosts like Ms. Maddow and Mr. O'Donnell? I have heard both of them "bring it up".
Or are you referring to those interviewed on TV. If so, that rarely, if ever, happens.

Please give us an example or 8.

[Skidmore]

25. Pols, pundits, and hosts are all guilty of failing to speak of either corporate or 1% entitlements

when the opportunity presents itself. Once in a while I hear the mention of something about the oil industry, but that is the designated safe one. I'd like to see a whole evening long program devoted to nothing but what loopholes are available to industries and citizens of means. Bringing it up is not addressing in the context of the big ole nasty entitlements of the lower class.

[rhett o rick]

30. Thank you for that. I cant say I disagree. But I cant see a corp-media allowing such.

Maybe Democracy Now.

[arthritisR_US]

23. Oh that there really were some left wing spokespeople

[Festivito]

24. Too complicated.

What he said on MTP stays clear.

[Jim Lane]

27. "Corporate welfare" is a better term, or maybe "corporate handouts".

"Entitlements" has a specific meaning. It refers to ongoing programs for which spending doesn't depend on the year-to-year Congressional appropriations process.

The corporate welfare includes many subsidies that are appropriated each year.

One drawback to the terms "corporate entitlements" and "corporate welfare" is that it implicitly adopts and thereby contributes to the right-wing stigmatization of the terms "entitlements" and "welfare". That's why I suggest "corporate handouts" as an alternative.

[Skidmore]

28. Entitlements or handouts...I don't care.

These allotments clearly and quickly make the lie of the "free market" stand in stark relief when they are brought up. So many industries and businesses, including the defense industry, do not compete or have to take risks because of subsidization. For the business community to come out and paint the private citizen as the sole source of economic problems should get some pushback.

[BlueStreak]

29. 3 reasons

1) They would never, ever be invited back on those networks that are owned by the SAME CORPORATIONS that are getting all that welfare

2) They wouldn't get a penny of campaign funds from those same CORPORATE INTERESTS that essentially fund their campaigns now.

3) That would ruin their plans for a nice, well-paying CORPORATE LOBBYIST gig after they leave office

Other than that, I can't imagine any reason.

[indepat]

32. Corporate welfare is a given in a corporatist RW society and therefore is

neither discussed in polite company nor negotiable.

[Cha]

33. Maybe Tweeters using Social Networking could ask

them to?