It always makes me chuckle

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Do you consider Moveon.org part of the media?-spence

What the media chooses to report is a major "part" of the media. When it uncritically provides a platform for Moveon.org to present its point of view, that message becomes "part" of the media-- especially when that platform is so often provided to what most consider a fringe organisation and not so often given to other fringe organisations that have opposing views.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

What the media chooses to report is a major "part" of the media. When it uncritically provides a platform for Moveon.org to present its point of view, that message becomes "part" of the media-- especially when that platform is so often provided to what most consider a fringe organisation and not so often given to other fringe organisations that have opposing views.

I guess I'm missing something. When again has the "media" provided an uncritical platform for Moveon.org?

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

I guess I'm missing something. When again has the "media" provided an uncritical platform for Moveon.org?

-spence

Reporting (to which I was referring when I said "What the media chooses to report") as opposed to editorializing, is supposed to be unbiased, non-critical. (Often, admittedly, it is tainted by the reporter's attitude, tone of voice, facial expression on TV, which questions are asked and which are not, etc.)

So, the uncritical platform was provided every time the "media" reported a Moveon.org rally, protest. And whenever in those reports the "media" stuck a microphone in one of their faces.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Reporting (to which I was referring when I said "What the media chooses to report") as opposed to editorializing, is supposed to be unbiased, non-critical. (Often, admittedly, it is tainted by the reporter's attitude, tone of voice, facial expression on TV, which questions are asked and which are not, etc.)

So, the uncritical platform was provided every time the "media" reported a Moveon.org rally, protest. And whenever in those reports the "media" stuck a microphone in one of their faces.

Not sure that answers my question.

I watch a lot of news, and about the only time I can even think of Move.on even being mentioned in regular news was during some controversy like the General Betrayus ad, which didn't exactly receive a glowing endorsement. Some of the more liberal MSNBC personalities might mention them here or there.

You appear to be working under the assumption that it must be true as to you they're two peas...

Any anecdotes, examples or references?

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Not sure that answers my question.

I watch a lot of news, and about the only time I can even think of Move.on even being mentioned in regular news was during some controversy like the General Betrayus ad, which didn't exactly receive a glowing endorsement. Some of the more liberal MSNBC personalities might mention them here or there.

You appear to be working under the assumption that it must be true as to you they're two peas...

Any anecdotes, examples or references?

-spence

I have to admit to a late-night brain fog re Move.on. I was thinking of Code Pink and all the coverage it got whenever it protested. My bad there. But, in a way, as you say, to me they are sort of two peas in a pod and easy for my right wing conspiratorial mind to meld them.

But, then, ads ARE not only a part of the media, but it's life blood (not just for Limbaugh). And Move.on has made it's bones on the many TV ads and newspaper ads that it has sponsored. It has successfully urged its members to write thousands of letters to the editor to newspapers across the country. It has even used film media to produce a documentary against Fox News and a movie about itself--Moveon: the movie.

So, yeah, it has bought it's way into being a part of the media. The Constitution protects the "press" (media) for the specific purpose of protecting our right to free speech, and Move.on uses that right, through the media, quite well.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

I have to admit to a late-night brain fog re Move.on. I was thinking of Code Pink and all the coverage it got whenever it protested. My bad there. But, in a way, as you say, to me they are sort of two peas in a pod and easy for my right wing conspiratorial mind to meld them.

But, then, ads ARE not only a part of the media, but it's life blood (not just for Limbaugh). And Move.on has made it's bones on the many TV ads and newspaper ads that it has sponsored. It has successfully urged its members to write thousands of letters to the editor to newspapers across the country. It has even used film media to produce a documentary against Fox News and a movie about itself--Moveon: the movie.

So, yeah, it has bought it's way into being a part of the media. The Constitution protects the "press" (media) for the specific purpose of protecting our right to free speech, and Move.on uses that right, through the media, quite well.

I'd wager that most people really don't know much about Moveon.org or Codepink.

I'd even be willing to double down that wager to say that if it weren't for right wing pundits using them as punching bags, the level of exposure would be nearly zero outside of some localized areas.

But there are plenty of right-wing action groups out there as well. Do these not cancel out the liberal ones?

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

I'd wager that most people really don't know much about Moveon.org or Codepink.

I'd even be willing to double down that wager to say that if it weren't for right wing pundits using them as punching bags, the level of exposure would be nearly zero outside of some localized areas.

But there are plenty of right-wing action groups out there as well. Do these not cancel out the liberal ones?

-spence

I would half or part way agree that right wing commentary (I prefer commentary to "using them as punching bags") on Code Pink's and Moveon.org's views and tactics helps to put a spotlight on them. But, for the most part, without the media's introduction, there would be no spot on which right winger's could shine. Right wing commentary is a reaction to what has been introduced, sometimes highlighted, by the media. Without, first, the media attention most people, as you say, would not know about Code Pink. As for Moveon, it has paid many thousands of dollars, maybe millions by now, for attention. Their message has been nationalized without the help of right wingers.

I don't think right wing groups, simply by existing, can cancel progressive ones. Either side must persuade through the media that it is right and the other wrong. That's why it matters that the media fulfill its supposed function as a watchdog rather than being a dog in the hunt. But objectivity is not so easy when you passionately believe in one side against the other. That is why right wingers so love Limbaugh, Fox, et al. They have felt for so long that the "mainstream" media was slanted against their view, but now have that all important means to deliver their message. This, of course, has raised the level of discord as will happen when there are two sides two an argument.