From: Erik Lavesson (email suppressed)
Date: Thu Aug 06 2009 - 13:21:09 PDT
I just want to throw in this quick link in this context - however distant it
may seem to your discussion.. A quite astonishing book review by our old
friend Glenn Beck.
On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 9:43 PM, Chuck Kleinhans
> Perhaps it would be useful here to distinguish tactical and strategic
> analysis and plans.
> In a strategic (more global, long range) sense, there are a wide range of
> institutions that perpetuate a system that produces "public opinion" (in
> liberal terms) or "ideology" (in Marxist terms).
> In tactical (short range, immediate, specifically targeted) terms, Fox News
> is a significant right wing institution promoting certain extreme right
> From a traditional left view it is important to have the strategic view in
> mind so you make sure your goals and overall analysis is comprehensive, but
> it is only possible to effectively organize around tactical matters. Thus,
> sometimes "politics makes strange bedfellows" on the tactical front. Or
> another saying from practical political organizing: the organizer should be
> one step ahead of the folks she is organizing, but only one step.
> Therefore, yes, Fox News is one enemy, but only one enemy (in the US right
> wing radio would be another, similar one). But it is well worth the effort
> to fight back against Fox for numerous reasons.
> If you watch The Daily Show you can often see them mocking a standard Fox
> behavior. All the Fox commentators utter exactly the same talking points in
> the same catch phrases every news cycle. (During the GW Bush admin these
> seemed to come directly from Karl Rove inside the WHite House.) The story
> of Bill Clinton bringing back the two journalists from N. Korea was an
> example. The Daily Show did a quick montage of various Fox figures saying
> exactly the same thing (all indicating this was a terrible thing to have
> taken place). Of course it was humorous (mechanical repetition by humans is
> easily comic) but it also amplified the point that Fox is more concerned
> with trying to score political points than actually facing human reality
> (and managing to try to change a good thing into a menacing, corrupt,
> dangerous thing). But, it also taught a further lesson: that the Fox on air
> folks really are little puppets and don't think for themselves but just
> parrot a talking point generated elsewhere.
> It's also worth pointing out that there is a considerable difference
> between the left and right in terms of these news commentaries. (I speak
> from recent research done while driving from Chicago to Oregon with my old
> buddy John Hess who I forced to listen to Limbaugh et al). The right is
> really simplistic, dogmatic, and unimaginative. Most of the time they just
> say the same thing over and over again. For Limbaugh (radio) he just chews
> on the same talking point of the day all during the hours he is on air. For
> Fox News, different faces succeed each other, but to the same end in one
> news cycle.
> In contrast, the MSNBC (cable TV) or Pacifica (radio) folks try to offer
> some kind of larger analysis and thus appeal to reason, not just passion or
> sloganeering, to make their points. This is probably built into liberals:
> they really think that they can teach people, persuade them with appeals to
> reason, provide information so people can learn and grow. I think that
> old-fashioned conservatives (I'm thinking of Goldwater) also thought they
> could lay things out clearly and reasonably and win people to their views.
> Today, the right is much more cynical (think Rove) and opportunistic than
> principled. How this works out strategically is clear: the Republican Party
> is now ever shrinking, and beholden to its fringe right elements: tea
> baggers and birthers at the moment.
> CHUCK KLEINHANS
> For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.
For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.