One of the most consistent rules in corporate media’s political coverage: If you’re talking about Democrats, you should point out that those who drift too far to the left could find themselves in trouble (Extra!, 7/06).
With Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren out promoting a new book, you can expect to hear this line. “The left is looking for a fighter and a fiery populist,” ABC‘s Jeff Zeleny explained on This Week (4/27/14).
He went on:
Some moderate Democrats fear her economic populism is a dead end for the party. But to her admirers, she is a political celebrity. And even if her name is not on the ballot, her ideas may still drive the race.
All right–so some people think she’d lead the party into a dead end, but people who like her say she’s a celebrity.
It’s worth asking: What exactly are the policies that Warren is proposing that could be so dangerous? If it’s banking regulation and consumer protection, it’s hard to imagine issues that could be more popular with the public.
If Zeleny’s critics are really saying that Warren’s criticism of Wall Street would hurt the party with industry donors, then perhaps there’s something to it. A graphic ABC flashes on the screen is from a Wall Street Journal op-ed by two professional Democratic centrists, who think the smart move is to start talking about the funding crisis in Social Security and Medicare.
But here’s a bigger question: Do you ever hear reporters arguing that these center-right Democrats are a “dead end” for the party’s electoral chances? There’s a good case to be made that Democrats who don’t take forceful populist positions are more likely to pose serious risks to the Democrats’ success. But a reporter who made that case would be attacked for being “biased”; when you say it about the party’s left wing, though, it’s just media conventional wisdom.
I don’t think it is a rule, so much as a desperate attempt to make sure that no debate is viable, by spinning the news so hard, even the journalist get dizzy watching it.
If you can’t come up with an adequate rebuttal (as in the Uber-Alles wing of the out-of-touch right) then buffalo your way around by making asinine statement couched as ‘thinly veiled Threats”, or blow it off it completely, as in deny that it is even happening (e.g. Global Warming, non-renewable fuel sources lasting for 300 years, etc.)
“. . . but people who like her say she’s a celebrity.” What is that supposed to mean?
Why did he even bother to write this article? It has nothing in it that matters! We dems love E. Warren, who cares what the media spews!
I’m a Centrist Dem and I never think Sen Warren is too far to the Left because of her stance on Wall Street/Banks. She’s Right!!!!!!
Yes, we Democrats need to be careful of moving too far to the left. That’s where most of the voters are, and we might be hurt in the crush of people. We need to move to the right, where there’s nobody but a few Republicans, and they move so slowly they’re easy to avoid.
Checking the record is always useful. When Dems move to the right, they lose. For example, Gore/Bush. Dems don’t then vote Republican – they vote third party or withhold their votes. When media marketed to the left promotes, for example, H. Clinton (powerful lobbyist for NAFTA, anti-poor record), they lose viewers/readers. Decades of rt wing govt has deeply damaged the US (overall quality of life: rated at #1 among all modern nations when Reagan elected, down to #34 by the time Obama was elected). Screw ideology — people care about having a chance to get by and provide for their children.
I strongly suspect that “Democratic populism” means one thing to the well-off, and something altogether different to the poor (working class, or worse off). Traditionally, the “masses” referred to the “98%” of non-rich, but this scenario has changed dramatically. Today, we see the rich doing to the middle class what the middle class already did to the poor (often using the same “:justifications, ironically enough). The left itself is deeply divided by those waving thew Middle Class Only bandwagon, and those who are deeply concerned about growing poverty, and the suffering of the poor in a country that shipped out so many working class jobs, then wiped out welfare aid.
Just another example that proves that most of the media in the U.S. is not LIBERAL despite what the right-wing says. It is also another example of the corporate media trying desperately to reflect the actual political beliefs of the American people and once again failing miserably at trying to do so. The U.S. corporate media propaganda machine simply tries to act like they know what the American people think when they actually don’t have a clue but do try to portray the American electorate to be more right-wing than they actually are. The media is also trying to influence voters into thinking that the U.S. is more conservative than it actually is. This serves the media’s actual intent to protect corporate interests rather than provide the American people with the actual news which is what the news media is supposed to be doing. Most of the corporate media is nothing more than a propaganda machine that works hand in hand with the U.S. Government and long ago forgot to be the fourth estate that is mentioned in the U.S. Constitution!
When Dems move to the right as Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas did, cozying up to Big Agribusiness-they LOSE, but corporations lose even more eventually.
Just more evidence that the oligarchy controls both the conservative and so-called liberal media.
It’s a shame that her position on foreign policy weren’t so thoroughly conventional. Even lefties are happy to throw Palestinians (and many others) under the bus for a few crumbs of economic justice here at home. It’s a terrible, terrible shame. I can never support a politician with a foreign policy as retrograde as Warrens, and if that means a lifetime of supporting candidates like Nader or Stein, that’s a lifetime well spent.
I’ve been saying for years that Dems & progressives don’t know how to fight back in the media, in Congress, or anywhere. We’re in truth dealing with bullies; ignoring them, not having powerful, consistent voices for fighting back or making our case and continuallyt allowing the message to be subverted is the media’s fault, yes. But let’s take responsibility here for letting it happen over and over again. Ignorance is winning. And it doesn’t matter what the American people want….or vote for!
“” Ignorance is winning. And it doesn’t matter what the American people want….or vote for!””
I must Agree, and Disagree. I agree that ignorance is winning, and with Fux Snooze, and the rest of the Corpse-press Media following the money – not in finding out who is doing what, but simply trailing behind and scooping up the BS of the Corpse-of-nations CEO’s – they are sure to make sure that nothing like debate actually take place.
I must disagree that it doesn’t matter what or who we vote for, simply based on the fact they – the media, the corporations, and the Politicians – wouldn’t fight so hard to keep the lies, the deceptions and the outright Orwellian View points in our face if it didn’t.
” “The new aristocracy was made up for the most part of bureaucrats, scientists, technicians, trade-union organizers, publicity experts, sociologists, teachers, journalists, and professional politicians. These people, whose origins lay in the salaried middle class and the upper grades of the working class, had been shaped and brought together by the barren world of monopoly industry and centralized government.”
….
“All the beliefs, habits, tastes, emotions, mental attitudes that characterize our time are really designed to sustain the mystique of the Party and prevent the true nature of present-day society from being perceived. Physical rebellion, or any preliminary move towards rebellion, is at present not possible. From the proletarians nothing is to be feared. Left to themselves, they will continue from generation to generation and from century to century, working, breeding, and dying, not only without any impulse to rebel, but without the power of grasping that the world could be other than it is. They could only become dangerous if the advance of industrial technique made it necessary to educate them more highly; but, since military and commercial rivalry are no longer important, the level of popular education is actually declining. What opinions the masses hold, or do not hold, is looked on as a matter of indifference. They can be granted intellectual liberty because they have no intellect. In a Party member, on the other hand, not even the smallest deviation of opinion on the most unimportant subject can be tolerated. ”
A Party member lives from birth to death under the eye of the Thought Police. Even when he is alone he can never be sure that he is alone. Wherever he may be, asleep or awake, working or resting, in his bath or in bed, he can be inspected without warning and without knowing that he is being inspected. Nothing that he does is indifferent. His friendships, his relaxations, his behaviour towards his wife and children, the expression of his face when he is alone, the words he mutters in sleep, even the characteristic movements of his body, are all jealously scrutinized. Not only any actual misdemeanour, but any eccentricity, however small, any change of habits, any nervous mannerism that could possibly be the symptom of an inner struggle, is certain to be detected. He has no freedom of choice in any direction whatever. On the other hand his actions are not regulated by law or by any clearly formulated code of behaviour. In Oceania there is no law. Thoughts and actions which, when detected, mean certain death are not formally forbidden, and the endless purges, arrests, tortures, imprisonments, and vaporizations are not inflicted as punishment for crimes which have actually been committed, but are merely the wiping-out of persons who might perhaps commit a crime at some time in the future. A Party member is required to have not only the right opinions, but the right instincts.” “
She is another Harvard wonk like Obama.She agrees with him down the line.He is a complete disaster.Case closed.Moving on
Similar to the treatment Ralph Nader received from the Democratic Party when he ran for office. God forbid his ideas and issues ever got out as far as they were concerned.