Two important questions about the media and the Democratic party

[mmonk]

from an article by Paul Craig Roberts:

"The lack of an opposition party makes the media vulnerable to intimidation by a dictatorial-minded administration."

-snip-

"With the U.S. media now highly concentrated in a few corporate hands, has the Democratic Party reached the conclusion that opposition is no longer possible?"

-snip-


Legitimate questions?

http://www.antiwar.com/roberts/?articleid=8411

[BlueManDude]

1. put another way - is the GOP now completely free from accountability?

look at the record of complete incompetence, failure, disdain for "the midle class", and corruption compiled by the Bush Admin and the GOP congress and ask yourself - Have they ever paid the consequences at the ballot box? Do you really think they will in 06? I don't.

It's all about the media. Here in MA we are well on our way toward electing yet another GOP Governor in large part because the likely Dem nominee gets pounded viciously 24 hours a day on talk radio.

[bryant69]

4. Well they successfully changed the subject in 2004

and in 2002 they were still in the 9/11 halo. We'll have to see if similar conditions persist this year; but I don't think it's a lock that they will. If the Democrats run smart campaigns there is a possiblity of us doing quite well.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[BlueManDude]

6. don't you understand - they always change the subject

and the media always helps them.

[leveymg]

2. No and no.

The two are not comparable cases that call for an identical strategy.

If we tune out the MSM, we free ourselves to create our own media and think for ourselves. Anyone is free to continue banging their heads against the wall of the corporate media, if they choose.:banghead:

The same approach will not work with the Democratic Party, however. We can not abandon the struggle for electoral politics. The Dems have a choice here. They can continue to go along and face irrelevance and extinction. Or, they can transform themselves into a genuine opposition Party, and from there into a ruling party.

[KoKo]

3. Here is a Snip from the Article...which makes excellent points:

January 19, 2006
A Challenge That Cannot Be Ignored
by Paul Craig Roberts

Former vice president Al Gore gave what I believe to be the most important political speech in my lifetime, and the New York Times, "the newspaper of record," did not report it. Not even excerpts.

For the New York Times, it was a nonevent that a former vice president and presidential candidate, denied the presidency by one vote of the Supreme Court, challenged the Bush administration for its illegalities, rending of the Constitution and disrespect for the separation of powers.

So much for "the liberal press" that right-wingers rant about. If a "liberal press" exists, the New York Times is certainly no longer a member.

The Washington Post had a short report on Gore's address at Constitution Hall, but the newspaper, if that is what it is, managed to dilute with sneers the seriousness and urgency of the message that Gore brought to the country.

Gore's address is the first sign of leadership from the Democratic Party in six years. This alone makes it a major news event. But not even his own party took notice. According to reports, only one Democratic senator, Dianne Feinstein (Calif.) was in the audience. One would have thought the entire Democratic congressional delegation would have turned out in support of Gore's challenge to Bush's extraordinary claims of power.

The lack of an opposition party makes the media vulnerable to intimidation by a dictatorial-minded administration.

[mmonk]

5. Yep

The question is in my mind as to whether it might be best to become vocal about the speech and call the media on its lack of coverage of the real questions it asks. My conclusion is it would be best for dems to do so. Then the other questions about leadership, the media, giving up, etc. can be addressed.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

7. To get on the news, you have to make news.

Tepid statements from the Democratic Party "leaders" don't make headlines because they can't compete with "happy" news.

The media is out to make a buck selling toothpaste or SUVs. They put on the stuff that the public will watch.

Having stuffed shirt politicians talking the usual "not as bad as the Republican's" drivel isn't going to attract any attention because it's drivel. Murtha and Gore made news because they had something substantial to say.

[DeepModem Mom]

8. And Reid made news when he shut down the Senate. nt

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

9. Exactly.