Last night before bed, I caught these headlines on Yahoo! Note particularly the last one:
Seems the AP is eager to tie the GOP to the Solyndra scandal, even though its reporter found no evidence that the aide in question Gary Andres, staff director of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, had ever “worked on behalf of Solyndra” nor that he was “aware until recently that Dutko [the lobbying firm where he had once worked] had represented Solyndra in 2008.”
Seems the AP is trying to create the impression that the GOP too was involved in the short-sighted (and likely politically-motivated) administration decision to offer a half-billion dollar (and then some) loan guarantee to the “green energy” firm with ties to Obama administration officials and Democratic donors.
In attempting to tie a Republican to the Solyndra scandal, the AP (and the other news services which repost the article) are attempting to distract us from the real story, crony capitalism of the Obama White House where the cronies donate heavily to Democratic candidates, causes and campaign committees in exchange for federal largesse.
Just as “green energy” is at the heart of the administration’s corrupt crony capitalism, so is environmental zealotry perhaps the biggest source of burdensome federal regulations crafted during the Obama years. Blogging about such regulations, the Obama Environmental Protection Agency’s decree that “America’s fleet of passenger cars and light trucks will have to meet an average of 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025, a doubling of today’s average of about 27 mpg“, Jeffrey H. Anderson gets at the heart of the record of Obama record:
This represents nearly everything that’s bad about the Obama administration: a disdain for the normal legislative process and the rule of law; a disregard for consumer choice; a commitment to intrusive government regulations that sap Americans’ liberty and empty their wallets; and a general arrogance that this administration, not the American people, knows best. House Republicans would do well to respond to this with high-profile legislation to restore the rule of law and a sense of sanity.
Read the whole thing. It would be nice if our friends in the mainstream media would devote more time to stories about the actual record of the incumbent administration rather than dwell on tenuous connections between a Republican staff member and a bankrupt company with real ties to Democratic donors and the Obama White House.
There was a long period in this country when newspapers were openly and decidedly one sided and a rare few claimed to be “independent.”
When the FCC came into being, radio stations and TV stations were to be “neutral” and to serve some public function in accordance with FCC rules. Print media and Hollywood were not under the FCC umbrella, although Hollywood did feel the hot breath of government censorship and formed its own Hayes Code to avoid official censorship.
Finally, the “Fairness Doctrine” imposed by the FCC on radio was ended and the era of talk radio began where one person could attempt to attract a wide audience and make a fortune for himself and his broadcast partners as well as the local affiliates carrying the programing. In the free marketplace of ideas where winning is measured by profits and listenership, liberalism has been thoroughly and utterly trounced save in small segregated markets.
Print journalism has drifted back to the old partisan pattern with liberalism having a stranglehold on the authorship and readership rapidly running away.
Liberal television is having enormous problems with losing viewership to the open wild west of the internet.
Which brings me to quote about the mainstream media above. These people can not recognize that they are the problem. To do so would be to admit that they have it all wrong.
Chris Matthews graciously permitted that he finds this about Mitt Romney as a candidate:
Which leans a little to the left? It is to laugh. But, sadly, Chris speaks clearly from the Alinsky play book. The job of his media is to smash Romney.
So do you fight television media fire with fire or do you rise above it? Can you reach the mainstream media audience or do you carve our your own audience from the mainstream aggregation and build your own audience? And, will that newly formed audience be better informed or will it be a partisan choir?
We are so divided that even the truth is a partisan battle. Frankly, if the media feeds the bread and circus crowd, I do not foresee any ready solution to overcoming the base instincts of so many voters who are beholden to plantation welfare.
The media have a similar slant in Australia, with the interesting exception of the Murdoch press – with 30% of the ownership it has 70% of the sales, and the government of the day is currently holding an “inquiry” with terms of reference including whether this market share is TOO dominant, and whether said newspapers are “systematically hostile” towards the government or too dedicated to “regime change”.
Yes, that’s the phrase our Lefty politicians used for unfavourable editorials advocating an election followed by their unseating. Regime change. And the terms of reference may be widened to include private blogs.
And licensing of the press. Yes, you read that right.
Right wing talk radio is popular because it appeals to the lowest common denominator. The format is almost uniform – somebody just ranting and raving, talking in slogans and catch phrases, offering nothing but platitudes and sucking up to their audience.
I don’t know why you guys trot around right wing domination of talk radio like it’s some glorious accomplishment. Sure, you’re winning in profits and audience, but what about accuracy and relevance? Try listening to NPR for a week and tell me you don’t learn something new and interesting every day. What are you going to get from Rush Limbaugh? The same thing you get from Sean Hannity, which is the same thing you get from Bill O’Reilly, etc. It’s all sensationalistic drivel intended to appeal to people on emotional (not intelligent) levels. Of course that’s going to make the most money and have the biggest audience. That doesn’t speak at all to the quality of the product that’s being produced. Enough people watch Jersey Shore and the Kardashian sisters that that shit is renewed every season. Popularity isn’t everything.
Maybe liberals have something better to do than glue themselves to their TV seats and watch a blowhard pander and mug for 45 minutes?
Levi. I have known many people in my 90 years and I have known many which would be in what you call the lowest common denominator.There was and are one thing about these common people – they are almost all Democrats. Would you say that it is Democrats that listen to Rush Limbaugh and has made him the most listened to talk radio performer?
Levi. I have known many people in my 90 years and I have known many which would be in what you call the lowest common denominator.There was and are one thing about these common people – they are almost all Democrats. Would you say that it is Democrats that listen to Rush Limbaugh and has made him the most listened to talk radio performer?