PBS ombud Michael Getler, inspired at least in part by this post on FAIR Blog, addressed Dick Armey’s recent appearance on the PBS NewsHour in his September 17 column. Getler wrote that the Armey segment, which was paired with a later interview with Arianna Huffington, “didn’t work,”since the guests seemed to havevery different agendas. The pairing wound up as a “big public relations win for Armey as mostly a platform for his views, while Huffington’s main point was that ‘the solutions are beyond left and right’ and spent as much or more time bashing the Obama administration, aside from noting that the problems grew from ‘obviously a failure of the Bush years.'”
Getler goes on to make excellent points about the larger context:
One is that Huffington may be labeled as “a liberal Democrat,” but she and her widely viewed website strike me, as a reader, as an equal-opportunity critic. Armey is not. There are plenty of sharp, critical assessments of the Democratic Party and administration on her site. For me, this fits into a purely anecdotal sense that I have that much of mainstream television coverage for some time now is more from a center-right starting point than left-center-right, where far more talking heads and pundits that are described as liberal or left-of-center, actually are closer to the center and just as likely to criticize the left as the right. That is usually not the case, at least as it seems to me, with conservative or right-of-center guests and pundits.
Another point goes to something I posted back in May in the aftermath of the shutting down of two major PBS public affairs programs–Bill Moyers Journal and Now on PBS. I said: “Both provided an outlet for people and subjects that are not in the safe, comfortable center of what passes for most public affairs programming on television. Rather, they often presented guests and topics that rarely get an airing, although what they have to say is of interest to many people who live and think outside that safe comfort-zone.”Both Armey and Huffington, even though controversial, are in what I’d consider that comfortable, or familiar face, zone. Both have many friendly TV and web platforms where their views and books can be, and are, promoted.
Liberal TV pundits are often actually just centrists? PBS should do more to feature views of those outside the Beltway and media elite? FAIR couldn’t agree more.
Getler gets the boot in three, two…
I fear Steve S. is right, or maybe they just ignore him.
PBS should give Democracy Now 15 minutes air time during News Hour.
The PBS Newshour has appeared more supportive of the Republican views than Democrats since John Malone bought a controlling interest in the production. For months now Republicans were given the first chance to attack legislation while the Democrats were left to defend. Often it appeared as though the defenders were selected because they come across as weak.
Did I say this before? If I did…well…that’s still not enough.
PBS’s “investigative” journalism has become little more than punditry — just like its cable news competitors. Why? The “shocking” truth is that major corporate funding insured Dick Armey’s appearance on PBS NewsHour would be little more than Judy Woodruff lobbing whiffle ball questions at the former GOP House Majority Leader.
Armey bashed Social Security continuing to cut checks for the so-called “double-dipping” seniors who can pay their own way in their golden years without government help. Yet Armey himself is on no less than three pension plans. Also, his Congressional connection and years of service there insures Armey free health care for life.
In summary: Armey gets a check from the University of Texas pension fund from his teaching days in the UT system, a check from the Federal government for his years in Congress, plus a regular social security check to go with his free health care.
This from a man who refers to Social Security as a glorified Ponzi scheme. A “pay as you go” retirement fund like SocSec would be a Ponzi scheme — if it was actually illegal or was done with criminal intent. But that’s not the way the system was set up.
What IS a Ponzi scheme is to privatize Social Security. Investing the trust funds in higher yield (but higher risk) securities makes promises to Social Security recipients which private institutions know they can’t –or won’t — keep. The people who’ll hold IPOs and preferred stock generated by the trust funds will get paid off first. And as long as they’re happy, the average schmuck gets paid only when surpluses are actually re-invested in the trust funds and not used by the Federal Reserve to increase the money supply (via quantitative easing).
And Judy just sat there questioning absolutely nothing about what Armey had to say about all this. It was as if she was a PR rep for the Teabaggers and not a responsible journalist.
Oh…
I almost forgot a couple of items about Dick Armey that merit consideration.
His “retirement” income also includes payoffs from many of the giants in BigPharma. Bristol-Meyers/Squibb — in particular — has been quite generous compensating our Dick for his service as one of their chief lobbyists.
And while privatizing Social Security won’t directly allow the Federal government to print more money via quantitative easing, it will allow the Feds to do so indirectly. Buying Treasuries at near zero interest rates and then loaning that money out at higher rates is — well — just like printing more money. Only they’ll do it with your money.
Mr. Ponzi will be spinning in his grave even more than usual.
PBS is no longer Public – It is just another corporate outlet!
Does anyone know when PBS took a turn for the worse? I agree that PBS has become more right-wing than ever. Not Fox, yet, to be sure, but it has tilted right for quite a while.
Can anyone give the “real” story about Bill Moyers’ Journal and NOW dropping off the face of the earth?
Can we bloggers at FAIR all stop using the term CORPORATE as some type of negative thing -unless you have some different definition for it than what now stands of course.A corporation is the most common form of business orginization.To say CORPORATE as a curse indicates the exact anti business slam that conservatives have hung on the lefts forehead with a big old barn nail..And that OBAMA has constantly denied by the way.
FAIR, what about NPR? Should fair coverage go beyond just political coverage? NPR will not talk about the art and media revolution, or any progressive arts, media, art advocacy groups, or the new musicians, writers, painters, filmmakers, etc. NPR’s coverage of progressive arts is virtually non existent and it threatens any art coverage credibility. They are quickly becoming THE main promoters of music and publishing through their website and all their radio outlets. Yet what they cover is mainstream arts only. Most all NPR music and book reviews are puff praise and mainstream promotion. Where is talk about post-bands music, zines and blogs in literature, post modern art, Stuckism, ULA, youtube filmmakers, indie media, etc. etc. Where is talk about those who oppose revenue sharing?
Re: We “bloggers” (we’re posters, not bloggers) must stop using the word “Corporate” in a negative way.
Answer: No, we will not. The word “Corporate” will continue to be used as a pejorative, since it makes eminent sense to do so. Not all corporations are bad (notice how I didn’t capitalize the word–very important, contextually speaking), but many are, and many of the people who run them are simply criminals. Unfortunate, but true. It’s up to the reader to make informed decisions based upon contextual clues when the word “Corporate” is used. (See, again? I capitalized the first letter–not all of it–very important.)
This message is a public service announcement, meant to clear up confusion on the part of a very confused and frightened individual. The poster doing business as “TimN” is no way affiliated with “FAIR Blog” and received no compensation for this statement of clarification. That is all.
Tim it is just so broad a term to point to as a boogeyman. Corporations(the term come from latin and means a body of people)Are the most common form of business in this country.From big to small- it is not too much to say that everything you own…eat….use…..see and ever have in the course of your life,is the product of a corporate entity.Every inch of your government as well.Past present and future.Every inch of every thing.It is us.WHAT WOULD YOU HAVE AS A ALTERNATIVE?A sing along group?No grouping of more than 5 people for the reason of working together.Or oh i know….UNIONS!!!HA HA HA i got it now.Even thats wrong because unions work hand in hand with and for corporations.It is their life blood.
Think up a new- less broad term that does not in effect encompass every person in this country and beyond.Or do you mean ‘corporations” as run by folks who vote right at times— instead of always left?In this country it is a meaningless term that simply creates a hate factor for class warfare.Like the Germans hanging everything on “Jews” during the war years.Actually for a time the term corporate was synonomous with” Jew owned” in Germany.Some things never change.Get under the bed Tim the CORPORATION is coming.And pray tell what is the contexual clue we should try to divine in your bizarro world of who should be allowed to conduct business and who should not.?
Tim if you have not picked up on it I have painted you with an anti business brush.Your BAM has twisted and turned and squirmed to avoid that.Are you goning to play that game or are you “coming out”.If you think that is not a good characterization of you,feel free to tell me where Im wrong.
Hi michael , How do you feel about corporations that prefer outsourcing to “making it in America”?
I like corporations in general, but some spend an awful lot of money lobbying for tax breaks that I don’t like. For example:
Steve Liesman, Senior Economics Reporter for CNBC. â┚¬Ã…“Turns out there really are provisions in the tax code that seem to encourage sending jobs offshoreâ┚¬Ã‚¦ One of the most important is through the ability to defer and often never pay taxes on foreign-earned profits. The result: foreign profits of U.S. companies end up taxed at a lower rate than their U.S. income, creating an incentive to invest overseas in factories. The jobs are where the factories are.â┚¬Ã‚ [â┚¬Ã…“U.S. Tax Code Provisions Encourage Offshore Jobs,â┚¬Ã‚ Wall Street Journal, 3/12/04]
Martha I think the problem is as complex as open boarders of trade could ever of conceived.How to compete with lower wages overseas is only one problem.How to adjust tax rates for American firms working overseas to compete in areas where corporate taxes are far lower is another. Rememeber the statement regarding NAFTA?”That giant sucking sound you hear is jobs going overseas”.But in the end there was no stopping it. Competition was bound to come.So how do we compete.?It is as simple as” incentive”.How to incentivize American companies to do some of their work here.We can not live in a duel world of demonizing business.Demonizing success , and wealth while instilling the seeds of class warfare for short political gains, and believe our companies will stay in such a petrie dish . Having among the highest corporate tax rates helps little to compete with China.In most ways China regards business in a more capitalist sense than we now do.We can never put the genie back in the bottle.We can make it a 100% better. First We must not believe a global economy needs a global government(this is a new thing Im hearing in lib circles).Remember Other countries have little interest in our best interest.We should take stock of the fact that this country is blessed and well positioned for the coming days.We must embrace the exceptionalism here and remove the hinderances of this government upon our competitive spirit. We will either recreate wealth with all it’s distasteful excess or we can get ready to be a bannana republic.Sorry but that is the long and short of it.
Can people help?Hell yes.Little things go a long way.Wouldnt it be great to see Obama in a commercial asking Americans to buy American..Chinese would flip out.I still believe in buying American.Business will go where supply is needed.So lets do it.As we speak China is building a huge nuclear sub fleet.(Wanna guess what that is for)It is a win win.Buy here .Create jobs.Stop funding the hangemans rope.
And All this talk of corporations paying more in taxes is complete rubbish. Corporations never get a tax hike.Never!They simply pass it on to the consumer who goes…………………..elsewhere if it gets too pricy(hello chinese).Our own sweet little circle of poverty.And Unions must learn to compete or die.It is the law of the jungle.I do believe cutting taxes explodes the economy- and raising them is like swimming with lead weights on.Simple answers but impossible with an administration the likes of which we are now afflicted with.Im droning……
Right you are, Martha. Nothing like some good old facts to brighten the day in our blessed and beloved Corporatacracy.
That’s with a capital “C”.
“The Individual has been supplanted in the political process nearly entirely by corporate money, legislative influence, campaign contributions, even free speech rights. “- Barry Ritholtz
David Cay Johnston | Sep. 24, 2010
The 2008 income tax data are now in, so we can assess the fulfillment of the Republican promise that tax cuts would produce widespread prosperity by looking at all the years of the George W. Bush presidency.
So how did the tax cuts work out? My analysis of the new data [ with all figures in 2008 dollars]:
Total income was $2.74 trillion less during the eight Bush years than if incomes had stayed at 2000 levels.
In only two years was total income up, but even when those years are combined they exceed the declines in only one of the other six years.
Even if we limit the analysis by starting in 2003, when the dividend and capital gains tax cuts began, through the peak year of 2007, the result is still less income than at the 2000 level. Total income was down $951 billion during those four years.
Average incomes fell. Average taxpayer income was down $3,512, or 5.7 percent, in 2008 compared with 2000, President Bush’s own benchmark year for his promises of prosperity through tax cuts.
In only two of the eight Bush years, 2006 and 2007, were average incomes higher than in 2000, but the gains were highly concentrated at the top. Of the total increase in income in 2007 over that in 2005, nearly 30 percent went to taxpayers who made $1 million or more.
much more, if you can stand it
http://www.tax.com/taxcom/taxblog.nsf/Permalink/CHAS-89LPZ9?OpenDocument
including this:
The number of people reporting incomes of $200,000 or more but legally paying no federal income taxes skyrocketed in the second Bush term. A decade ago it was fewer than 1,500 taxpayers; in 2000 it was about 2,300. This high-income, tax-free group jumped to more than 11,000 in 2007 and then doubled in 2008 to more than 22,000.
In 2008 nearly 1 in every 200 high-income taxpayers paid no federal income tax, up from about 1 in 1,500 in 1998.
There was an effort made by republicans during Clinton or Bush’s term to take over the more moderate PBS and NPR and they have done just that. Republicans are the people who will ruthlessly work to take all the power over to control all that people hear and see. They have been doing that for years with their right wing push for churches and their right wing push from Fox. It is all about more and more takeover of what is in their way to having all the power. We have often discussed this in my family because republicans are the power hungry greedy corrupt who do want everything.
Woodward and Bernstien……You always throw strange data that is not tied to any opinion.I think you are trying to say….. you believe raising taxes is a boon to the country and cutting taxes is a disaster.And I suppose the higher the better?You are trying to say the Bush years were horrible economically and Obama is just making this economy sing such a happy tune..You are saying tax the rich until that class is sucked dry and then throw a party.For the love of god WHAT IS YOUR OPINION?I could copy and past the 2000 pages of the healthcare bill and write BITE ME on the last page.That is at least a thought outside copy and paste world.What are you trying to say?Vicky is delusional and you are trying to prove something though what it is i am not sure.Your not actually saying anything positive about the Obama presidency are you?I mean tell me your not.It is fine to attack Bush.For eight years he wiped the floor with you.Now that he is out you attack?Who really gives a shit?Dude he’s fishing at his ranch.Attack Obama.He is the president
michael, i was reacting to this comment from you “I do believe cutting taxes explodes the economy”…
bush cut taxes, economy imploded… nuff said