Media: Friends and Foes of Populists

[Cosmic Kitten]

We are getting a lot of great articles linked here.
Some are favorable to the Populist movement,
and some are unquestionably opposed to Populists.

For the purposes of separating wheat from chaff
it's essential to identify the communicators,
the messages, and the agenda within the message.

As we can identify the authors and recognize their bias,
we will be less susceptible to their propaganda.
It's easier to counter the media manipulations
once the agenda is identified and exposed.

Maybe it would serve us well to start a roster of writers
and publishers with proven support for Populist concerns.
A contrasting list of antagonistic media will be equally useful.

Any thought or suggestions would be appreciated.

[Scuba]

1. This needs to become a "protected" group where the hosts lock disruptive threads.

Let the Third Wayers spout their bullshit in GD, not here.

[Cosmic Kitten]

3. ??? what?

[Scuba]

4. Threads opposing a populist reform of the Democratic Party should not be allowed here.

[Cosmic Kitten]

6. Agreed

What thread do you have in mind?

[Scuba]

7. The ones you described as "unquestionably opposed to Populists."

[Cosmic Kitten]

8. Ok, you are talking about Group "housekeeping"?

The tread is intended to address media literacy.
We need to start identifying and countering
the 3rd-Way and right-wing media agenda.

Of course we need to remain vigilant to
keep our own Group/House in order.
That is a team effort, and thank you :~)

The the 3rd-Way and right-wing media agenda
is in conflict with our Human needs for survival
and is preventing our communities from thriving.

In order to change that status quo, we need to
amplify the critical thinking and improve our BS detectors.
Sorting out "who's who" in the media is a step in that direction.

[sabrina 1]

10. I think, correct me if I'm wrong, the reference was to an article linked in a thread to demonstrate

how Eliziabeth Warren is being attacked. In my thread eg, someone posted such an article as an example of what she is going to be up against. In which she was referred to as 'shrill' and of course, 'wrong'.

But definitely I agree, we don't need any derailing of threads and the usual distraction tactics in this group.

[rhett o rick]

21. As a host here it's my opinion that all disruptive posts here need to be locked or hidden.

If one is missed, plez bring it to the attention of the hosts. I don't speak for the other hosts, especially those that outrank me, but I don't mind opposing ideas if they are presented in a decent manner. Having said that, that qualification rules out most Third Way or Conservative Democrats posts.

[Scuba]

23. How does one know who is host of a particular group?

[rhett o rick]

24. Click on the group. Then go to "about this group". Let me know if that

didn't work out.

[Scuba]

25. Thanks! My vast universe of ignorance is now a tiny bit smaller.

[djean111]

2. "the way the Left routinely mocks Christianity" - someone with only five posts dropped this gem

in a thread about Hebdo on Sunday. Another angle to attack or denigrate or marginalize Progressives, methinks.

[Cosmic Kitten]

5. Ok, what do you think needs to happen?

There are at least two issues implied here.
First, DU members who attack, denigrate, and marginalize the group.
Second, the Media doing the same thing in the wider context.

So how should Populist respond?
Banning or locking threads only goes so far.
The disruptors will move and seek favorable forums.
But the disparagement will continue.

So how should Populists approach this problem?
We can't ban journalists, or the MSM.
There needs to be a competition for the narrative.
Acquiescence is submission.
So do we re-frame the issues or seek
to suppress the opposition or something else?

[djean111]

9. I (and someone else) called the poster on it.

No answer as yet, and has not posted anything since Sunday. Seems aggressive, but then I am aggressive, too, I suppose.

I will always call someone out on stuff like that, here. I am not very active outside of DU, except to read.
We can't suppress the opposition, I believe, we need to get more pro-Progressive stuff out there, and I do think being Progressive or populist or liberal is starting to become more of a narrative, since Bernie and Elizabeth are getting more press these days, and looks like maybe more politicians are jumping on the bandwagon. Even though they may only be jumping because of polls, and not personal principles.
Perhaps we can be as quick to jump on ridiculous Populist attacks outside of DU as quickly as we answer those attacks here at DU.

[Cosmic Kitten]

11. ...liberal activists got the mainstream media to cover a “war” they made up.

In a 2013 article at Slate, David Weigel a reporter
for Bloomberg Politics, posits that "A clutch of progressives—or,
if you prefer, economic populists" dragged the "media"
into a fake war between democratic centrists and the left-wing.

His premise is that with a working internet connection
activists can force issues to the forefront of the MSM's attention.

Here's how he thinks it's done

Short version: Two honchos at the center-left think tank Third Way wrote a Wall Street Journal op-ed warning that a proposal to expand Social Security was foolishness and “economic populism is a dead end for Democrats.” A clutch of progressives—or, if you prefer, economic populists—demanded that elected Democrats distance themselves from the op-ed. The senior senator from Massachusetts issued an open letter to bankers, asking them to disclose their donations to think tanks, and then told the Huffington Post that Third Way was “flatly wrong.” All of this, according to the New York Times, was “a sign of the left’s new aggressiveness.”

It was. For bonus points, it was a lesson in how easy it can be to draw the media, bankers, pundits, and activists into a “war,” as long as you’ve a got a working Internet connection and a strong hook.

Weigel goes on to describe the 3rd-Way as "exiles" who
lost the ideological center to republicans and then
set out to build an "idea tank" to recapture the "center".
Notice the use of "idea tank" rather than "think tank".

In his narrative, he describes populists as "aggressive",
a "clutch of progressives", and waging a "fake war".
While legitimizing the 3rd-Way as sensible and reasonable.
In the following passage he uses an unnamed source to
smear Elizabeth Warren as using "McCarthy like" tactics.

In the context of Warren's concern about political donations
influencing political legislation she is described as thus...

So did Warren’s open letter to five banks asking them to disclose their donations to Washington think tanks. Politico gave anonymity to a “senior D.C. Republican,” who argued that the “normally savvy” senator had blown it, and that her “ ‘give me the names’ edict sounds uncomfortably like the kind of demand that Joe McCarthy would have made in the 1950s.”

Regardless of what follows, Weigel has made the connection that
calls for transparency through disclosure of political donations
is analogous to anti-communist fear mongering. "He's" not saying that...
he just quotes an unnamed source who does.

Weigle, concludes his piece by giving the 3rd-Way the last word.
He began this article suggesting that "economic populists"
are waging a "fake war" and has duped the MSM into complicity.
HE ends by presenting a 3rd-Way mishmash of what Populism
represents by commingling a right-wing vs Democratic visions.

Third Way understands the game. When I asked Bennett whether his think tank was opposed to “economic populism,” he wondered whether that term was de facto positive. “It depends on how you view economic populism,” he said. “We didn’t view the president’s speech last week as populist, for example. He was talking about poverty—and that’s a Democratic point of view, what he said. We view populism the way we view right-wing populism. It’s a way to avoid making choices. Right-wing populists say that if we cut government down, everything will be better. The idea on the left is that if we can just expand entitlements, everything will be better and we don’t have to make choices. And we just don’t agree.”

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2013/12/progressive_change_campaign_committee_third_way_and_elizabeth_warren_how.single.html

So from positing that with a working internet connection
activists can force issues to the forefront of the MSM's attention,
he concludes that Populism is a muddy concept and centrism is
a ideologically more rational political platform.

In the end, Weigle does a poor job of representing
the Economic Populism characterized by Elizabeth Warren.
He does a greater service of legitimizing the 3rd-Way's arguments.
What exactly is the reader to conclude from his article?

These are the messages Populists will continue to face
as the next election cycle draws near.
We need to "understand the game".

[sabrina 1]

12. I really like this idea. There is the US Corporate MSM which includes TV and the Print Media.

Off the top of my head I can't think of anyone on the Corporate Media who not friendly to Wall St.

Occasionally they may allow one or two guests to appear who are not totally Corporate friendly, but generally they will be out numbered by Corporate friendly guests.

Only 'news' that make the Wars and Wall St look good is published. More like propaganda.

Eg, we never see the faces of the victims of our drones and bombs in the Corporate media.

I remember, eg, when Ashley Banfield was an embedded journalist in Afghanistan. She was filmed in her protective gear, sending out reports from the perspective of the US Military.

She was good at her job.

But when she came home, she was speaking to a relatively small group and she told them that it was frustrating to report as an embedded journalist because she only got to tell OUR side of the story.


She was not allowed to show what happened AFTER the bombs were dropped. At that time she had not yet realized that we do not DO journalism, only propaganda when it comes to our foreign wars.

She was a 'rising star' on TV until she made those relatively innocuous statements. Under contract they could not fire her, so she was assigned to a back room and removed from any kind of prominent on air position.

People noticed her absence but it wasn't until years later we found out that she had been SILENCED.

So I don't believe we have anyone on the air who does not understand what their role is.

Maybe a good thing to do would be to take articles and/or news reports and treat them like a teacher treats homework.

Put them online and then go through them and correct the wrong, or deceptive information.

There is an article that was linked here, eg, more or less 'mocking' the Left and people like Elizabeth Warren.

What if we posted it here, corrected all the wrong information, critiqued it for talking points etc, then spread it around the internet through Twitter and FB with the name of the author and a warning to 'watch out for this guy's stuff'.

After a while 'watch out for this author's stuff' with a link to the info here or wherever could become something people are looking for.

Just a thought. It would take a while and a whole lot of people doing it, before it caught on. AND we could have a prize at the end of a month, year whatever for the 'most deceptive author of the month'.

Lol, just wandering but we don't have the money they do to gain access to large media. We do have Social Media however.

[Cosmic Kitten]

13. Exactly!

What if we posted it here, corrected all the wrong information, critiqued it for talking points etc, then spread it around the internet through Twitter and FB with the name of the author and a warning to 'watch out for this guy's stuff'.

Re-frame and insert the new narrative into the critiques.

We could use a short list of the worst "journalist" offenders.
Specifically, those attacking Populists, Progressives and our candidates.

Cant tell the players without a program ;~)

[sabrina 1]

14. I would start with 'centrist' authors who claim to be 'progressive' because they

imo, are the most threat to those who want to have a government that opposes Corporate corruption, money in politics etc.

THEY can influence the Left voters which, added to those they already have on the Right, guarantees victory for Wall St and the War Machine.

Exposing THEM at least slows down the march towards the end of Democratic policies.

[Cosmic Kitten]

15. How does that happen?

Is it a matter of researching articles?
Or is it better to pick them off as they pop-up?
Play whack-a-mole with the media?

[sabrina 1]

16. They're going to be popping up a lot over the next two years so I think whack them when they pop up.

Here's one that popped up recently:

The Left's Unpopular Populism

The Left's Unpopular Populism

Elizabeth Warren and her Democratic allies should not fool themselves into thinking that Americans who are angry at elites and corporations also favor wealth redistribution.

Author: AMITAI ETZIONI

[Cosmic Kitten]

18. Nice!

One by one ;~)

[Cosmic Kitten]

20. Wealth redistribution is a right-wing narrative

They frame the issue as taking from "us" and giving to "them".
Who exactly is "us" and who is "them"?
It smacks of bigotry and class resentments.

Even after they understand the bill, a large majority of Americans continue to disapprove of being forced to carry insurance or pay fines in order to finance coverage for the poor, whom the public views as including mainly minorities

"the Public views"... Wha wha what? what "public"?
Aren't the poor and minorities part of the "public"?

That is article is one craptastic piece of "journalistic" hackery

[Cosmic Kitten]

17. Another wack at Populist policies by media

In a recent write up, favoring "centrist economics",
minority leader Nancy Pelosi is pushing an “action plan”
that does little to improve the middle-class and less
for the working-class.

The so called "Action Plan" is more of the same "tweaking" of the
broken system we have... IOW, rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.

The so called "action plan" calls for a massive transfer of wealth from
the super-rich and Wall Street traders to the heart of the middle class.
Pelosi is being presented as waging class warfare, which fits the right-wing
narrative that democrats are tax and spenders and wealth re-distributors.
Democrats are bringing this on the party themselves.

The rationale Pelosi is running with is that Populist values FAILED in the 2014 election!

The plan marks a rejection of the more cautious approach to economic policy taken last year by President Obama and Democratic leaders. That strategy — which emphasized raising the minimum wage, achieving pay equity for women and easing the burden of college debt — tanked with voters. Democrats lost 13 seats in the House and nine in the Senate, ceding control of that chamber to Republicans.

Individually, the policies polled well, but they were too narrow to inspire voters who were less interested in social justice than in broad economic advancement.

So the Washington Post's Lori Montgomery and Paul Kane are pushing that
Democrats lost because voters are uninspired by "raising the minimum wage,
achieving pay equity for women and easing the burden of college debt"?
Does anyone remember the Democratic Party campaigning on those issues?
Was that the Democratic Parties platform?

Raising the minimum wage is "social justice"
rather than "broad economic advancement"!?!
Easing "college debt", which is hurting the entire economy
is simply social justice, and not "broad economic advancement"
But somehow tweaking the tax credit for child care IS "broad economic advancement"???
EFFFFFFFF that!

Polls show that the majority of Americans support those very issues?
So why is Pelosi pushing an "action plan" that tweaks the tax code?

The centerpiece of the proposal, set to be unveiled Monday by Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), is a “paycheck bonus credit” that would shave $2,000 a year off the tax bills of couples earning less than $200,000. Other provisions would nearly triple the tax credit for child care and reward people who save at least $500 a year.

Is this a winning platform?
Or is this the Washington Post cheer leading a meaningless
rearrangement of deckchairs and polishing brass on a sinking ship?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/democrats-in-a-stark-shift-in-messaging-to-make-big-tax-break-pitch-for-middle-class/2015/01/11/d4438468-9999-11e4-a7ee-526210d665b4_story.html

[sabrina 1]

19. Wow! You should turn that into an OP here, and we can take it apart piece by piece, including the

REAL reasons Democrats lost, not in one mid term AFTER which they said the same thing, but in two.

I meant to add: #OhPLease! lol ...

[rhett o rick]

22. I like what both of you are talking about. I want to point out a problem we have

with the media. Often articles are written in rhetoric. I had quite an exchange over a Politico story that implied that Sen Sanders attended an event that included lobbyists. I've seen Politico do this in other articles. This article said Politico was given a guest list and they published the guest list. The list included Sen Sanders name. The list could have been produced by anyone. And because Sen Sander's name was on the list, Politico wrote the article assuming he attended. I have no idea if he attended or not but Politico produced no evidence he did. But as you can see from the exchange I had with another poster, some will read want they want.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6327835