A: Blogs--the new media. It doesn't even matter if some blogs are corporate controlled. The power of the big corporations comes from trapping its audience into a relationship where there are no other viable choices. But on the 'tubes we have a free market, coz there are alternatives and if blog authors lack credibility or can't write then people will go elsewhere. Hype and slickness might keep a lame talk show on the air, but it won't save a worthless blog.

These people no longer had any respect for the press, or confidence in it," commented Jon Stokes, watching the scene. "The press had finally overreached itself."

This is how most of the people I know seem to feel. Even the Republicans around here now understand they are being lied to , and are not happy about it.

The 27%, of course, are still clueless as ever.

“It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent that survives. It is the one that is the most adaptable to change.”

Charles Darwin

"These people no longer had any respect for the press, or confidence in it," commented Jon Stokes, watching the scene. "The press had finally overreached itself."

We are starting to see the effects of GOP overreaching -- through arrogance, cronyism, corruption, disregard for the law, incompetence -- being not only self-serving but out of touch with the country at large. "It doesn't take a weatherman to know which way the wind blows." People are not only getting fed up with the war, Katrina, domestic spying sans warrants, and the erosion of democracy, but they are also feeling the pinch in the pocket book, and Bush's continued touting of the economy is starting to sound like his father's gaffe in the supermarket, when he didn't know what milk cost. Pretty soon, it's going to again be, "It's the economic stupid"

There is an ancient Sanskrit proverb: Satyam eva vijayate, which might rendered colloquially as, "Truth rules." A big indicaton of this is Ron Paul's surprising success on the GOP side as an opposition figure. The Big Lie isn't working so well any more. They've even lost pundits like Tom Friedman.

...(via Americablog) includes this gem:

Fully 63% of Americans who count Fox as their main news source say news stories are often inaccurate – a view held by fewer than half of those who cite CNN (46%) or network news (41%) as their main source.

(Those are pretty cynical numbers for CNN and network news, too.)

Confidence in the media has been on a 20 year slide.

This excerpt is from Schlesinger's The Age of Roosevelt: The Politics of Upheaval. The whole trilogy, I think, should be read by all serious liberals and progressives. The New Deal set the stage for modern liberalism, and conservatives understand very well what was done (and hate it) while liberals appear clueless.

It seems to me that we need to be discussing the implications of this in light of contemporary circumstances. This thread is more oriented toward the effect of the traditional (read "corporatist") media, however, so I will just suggest it rather than go deeply into it here.

In politics, economics rules. The crux of the problem, it seems to me, is that the closest thing to voters' hearts is their pocketbook.

Following upon the Black Tuesday and the ensuing Great Depression, FDR was able to implement a "liberal" program successfully, which was opposed by the Right then, and which they have have been vehemently opposing ever since. This opposition for first brought to the fore in presidential politics by Goldwater, but it only coalesced with Reagan and became dominant at the time of the Gingrich "revolution."

Unfortunately, conservatives are savvy while liberals are only smart. The Right was managed to frame the debate to the disadvantage of the liberals, and liberals have not been successful in countering the challenge owing to their inveterate wonkiness, which leaves the public confused and cold.

To sum it up, there are fundamentally three possible economic solutions -- the extremes of capitalism and socialism and a "third way" combining them. The Right has cornered "free market capitalism" for itself and tarred the Left with being "socialistic." First Carter, then Clinto tried to counter this by moving to the center, away from New Deal liberalism, which the Right had successfully characterized in the public eye in terms of "welfare," riff with "waste, fraud, and abuse," and which transferred wealth from the middle class to the "lazy" (read " predominantly Black") underclass. The slogan of the Right -- low taxes, small government, family values and strong military -- captured the public mindset, and the GOP used it to create wedge issues to win middle class votes for a policy that would dismantle the underpinnings of the middle class.

Now the middle class is waking up, but the Dems have not yet presented a coordiated new vision for this time that they can all get behind. Either the old guard harkens back to New Deal liberalism, like Ted Kennedy, or the "New Dems" attempt to triangulate by moving to the center like Bill, Hillary, the DNC and the Dem Establishment. There are voices out there trying to create a new vision and new coalition of voters now that the unions have been gutted and formerly conservative Dems, particularly conservatively religious ones, have left the party. The liberalism of FDR died with the LBJ, and since that time the Dems have been reacting to the gains of conservativism rather than leading with a fresh vision for America.

In effect, there is no progressive Left in the US at this time with a voice at the table. Hillary is the front runner and she is a "centrist Dem." However, the Overton window has moved so far to the right that she is actually a moderate Republican by yesterday's standards. Where is today's Democratic visionary leader and what should he or she be standing for and running on? Here I especially mean an economic policy that meets the needs of the country better than supposedly "free market capitalism" that is really socialism for the wealthy, designed to transfer wealth to the top. What is the slogan that counters, "low taxes, small government, family values and strong military," for instance? Perhaps some of those more savvy in economics among us could diary these issues to give us a better understanding of the intricacies and suggest directions for a fresh economic policy.

I haven't read the history of Roosevelt's era nor am I old enough to remember. I think there were differences that may have favored Roosevelt's being able to relate to the people better than a Democrat could today.

The economy was much worse so any meme that "good times are just around the corner" fell very flat, especially if you just lost your farm and were on the road with your family or were selling pencils on a street corner on the lower east side. There are still many people who have jobs and though they may be losing their health coverage, in Roosevelt's era there was no coverage to lose. The situation was so dire that I believe that Roosevelt was as worried about the left being a threat as the right. Something in the area of one third of the nation was Socialist or Communist and were much more outspoken and aggressive than any left factions today, including the blogs.

But Roosevelt was aggressive in his approach to the needs of the nation. When the "Supreme Court" stopped him on many of his measures he tried to stack the court with friendlies. He was prevented from doing that but it shows how he didn't wait out situations. He acted. (Though he did wait out entering WWII, something the right was opposed to.) Roosevelt also had his "fireside chats," speaking directly to the people through what was then a relatively new medium. Talk to the people. Talk to them about their concerns and let them know you know what's happening. And more than that, let them know what you're doing to help them. So it wasn't just lip service.

Look at Bush and how he uses the bully pulpit of the presidency. In Bush's case "bully" is a mild term. For rivals, political or otherwise, Bush walks loudly and carries a big stick and clubs anything that looks sidewise at him. He did that even with Social Security, touring the country and pushing his goals. But by that time he had passed his zenith of 9-11 based strutting. His road show had lost its luster and was hated, much less ignored. No phony backdrop or "Mission Accomplished" banner could prop up the hollow man. Still, Bush didn't and doesn't hesitate to plaster his image before the American people.

What Democrat in recent memory has shown that level of aggressive approach to politics? Sure the press and media probably wouldn't allow that. They'd certainly squeal, but at this point the people are sick of the press and would relish their squealing. Look at the reaction Bill Clinton got for telling off Chris Wallace when Wallace tried to sand bag him in an interview.

But Clinton, when it counted, never pushed a democratic agenda, even when they were critical aspects of his rise to power. Clinton never went to the people over his health care plan the way Bush did with Social Security. Clinton wouldn't risk the political capital, even just after he was elected by the people on the basis of his health care proposals. Instead he left his wife to take the onslaught.

Another platform that helped elect Clinton was equal rights for gays in the military. Clinton rolled on that almost immediately. "Colon" Powell used a speech that was an almost duplicate of the sentiments used against allowing full integration of African-Americans in the military to challenge Clinton's proposal for integration of gays. Could you imagine any general openly challenging Bush? Even now it's only after they've run for cover and can only distantly be threatened that generals challenge the Bush agenda. That, more to protect their own skins than voice dissent, they having been integral parts of the Iraq war fiasco. General Shinseki was given the shaft almost immediately after suggesting there were problems with the Bush approach to the impending Iraq war. "Stormin' Norman," larger than life hero of the Gulf war ran when challenged after he questioned the logic of the impending Iraq war. He knew when he was out gunned.

I think more significant than the press and maybe even television (the radio of Roosevelt's era), is the current equivalent of fire side chats - talk radio and conservative political commentary. These elements of "conservative" dialog dominate the public's exposure to political matters. Rush Limbaugh and his clones aren't simply the dominant commentary allowed to speak to the troops, he and other "conservative" demagogues are the "common folk" voice of "average" Americans speaking to the real average Americans. They help spread the misdirection of hate onto groups and issues that are incidental to the problems America faces. Whether it's "values," abortion, immigration, etc., the intent is to inflame and redirect any sense of injustice and exploitation away from the true sources and real problems of the nation.

The Internet and blogs do look to be an avenue of truth in the grid lock of obfuscation and misinformation that is the public dialog. But the Internet as a source of news, analysis, honest commentary and insight is still in its infancy and not a major factor in the lives of average Americans. Maybe, when everyone's phone is also a stereo, television, word processor, camera and paper white reader that can download the day's news with a five second wireless connection, to be read, watched or listened to while on the way to work.

We don't have Democrats that speak with emotion and vigor about those problems. To me the closest is John Edwards and he's been marginalized since the haircut story line. He's been left to using his wife as his best voice. Maybe it's because the Democrats also don't really relate to the common concerns, just as the Republicans don't.

I think there is a bias in european newpapers as well. A good example is the misquoting of the President of Iran. I read actual translations of some of his speechs and they are not as incendiary towards the jews as reported in the press. They press make subtle changes to his comments so that seem harsher than they really are.
It is next to impossible to get a clear idea of what is going on in the US and the world if you rely on conventional media. I think this has alway been true though. The thing that disturbs me the most is the concentration of media outlets in the hands of a few. The internet has been a blessing in that if you seek you can find lots of information that will help to develop a view closer to what is really happening.