The "Sanity" Rally. Is Jon Stewart naive?

[Coito ergo sum]

Of course the number of viewers is relevant. Of course the amount of influence is relevant. Does a guy with a Youtube channel and 12 viewers have the same level of cultural influence as Jon Stewart? Of course not! What's the difference? Number of viewers.

The key difference really is that the guy with a youtube channel has a youtube channel and Jon Stewart has a nationally syndicated television show. Now, if you compared Jon Stewart to a guy who also had a 1/2 hour show on television broadcast the same number of hours per week, you'd have a good comparison. Just because one is more popular doesn't mean the other is less biased.

I remember how this all started. I really do. I remember the accusations and theories that Clinton hired assassins, I remember the insanity that percolated through the Right Wing as criticism of Clinton reached an insane fever pitch, with the hysteria reaching levels that are hard to comprehend. Shall I dig up for you "Goodbye to the Black Helicopters?" World Net Daily was relevant then. NewsMax was relevant then.

It didn't start then. It started before then. Did you forget the shit and lies spouted about GHWBush and Ronald Reagan? The left side of the American political scene has been no stranger to demonizing the right for as long as I have been alive, and I'm quite sure long previously.

I don't pretend to know which, if any, side "started it" though. They all do it.

Do we remember the 2000 elections? Bush was a cause celebre for the christian conservatives and the right wing. Most left wing pundits joked about Gore, and the general consensus on the left wing was that Gore was basically a donkey. Criticism of Bush was reasonably mild.

We remember that differently. Gore was generally considered stuffy, but erudite, intelligent and eminently qualified. Bush was portrayed as a babbling buffoon with a silver spoon. The darling of the media in 2000 was Al Gore. He was the far-sighted, ahead-of-his-time environmentalist. He had the high IQ, and bush the below average IQ. Remember that?

Please .... to say that the mainstream press and media hasn't overtly and openly supported every Democrat Presidential candidate (with few exceptions) is to ignore reality. The press and media cheered when Clinton was elected - it was going to be a time of enlightenment and "change" to a better, more fair world where lions would lie down with the lambs, etc. The same shit we heard when Obama was elected. Thrills running up legs - oh, how wonderful he was....

September 11th. Remember that? Everyone rallied behind the president. Approval ratings in the low 90s. Was there a culture of insane criticism? No.

Not then - but if you are going to take the position that George W. Bush was not insanely criticized, lambasted, Hitlerized, etc. Do you really need me to list the litany of anti-Bush items?

Was there a culture of attacking the right wing? No.

Yes - there has been since I was a kid.

At one point the polls hit 92/6/1 in approve/don't know/disapprove. 92/6/1. Look at those numbers for a second. ONE PERCENT of the American Populace disapproved of George Bush.

ONE PERCENT

For a short period of time after the horrific events of 9/11 where the entire country rallied behind whoever was President.

Imagine that. Then the Iraq War. Opposition to the war existed... and got told that they were traitors.

Key question - by whom?

What was the response? A spirited defense of the right to protest. Imagine that. A defense of the right to protest.

Nobody took away their right to protest. And, just because some idiot pundit or talking head calls someone bad names doesn't mean your rights were taken away. Nancy Pelosi called people "unAmerican" for exercising their "right to protest" the flippin' health care bill!

Then WMDs. There were none. We were attacked for not supporting the war and told it had nothing to do with WMDs.

By whom? Don't speak in generalities like that. Who told you the war had nothing to do with WMDs? Of course it had to do with WMDs - - not ONLY WMDs - but it did have to do with WMDs. Just read the text of the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, and the Iraq Liberation Resolution of 2002. Of course the administration thought there were WMDs.

The Left couldn't leave it at the fact that the administration and many other intelligence services were wrong - your side has to claim the President PURPOSEFULLY lied to Congress and the American people in order to trick us into a war that was not for its ostensible purpose but for some illegal scheme cooked up by the Bush family for their own personal gain! And, you have the nerve to be concerned about people getting called "traitors?" That is about the worst accusation of treason one could come up with! The only ones worse are the 9/11 Truthers, except those folks are equally far right as they are far left - a mixed back of jackalopes there.

Not supporting the troops, want us to fail, etc. etc. We were the Al Qaeda's extra column.

Frankly, some of your side - the far left - really did want the US to fail. Talk to someone like sandinista on this board.

And, it was Harry Reid, Senate Majority Leader, who stood up and said "The War is Lost."

Then Kerry. Kerry was attacked for 'voting against every major military system the military uses.'

He did.

Kerry was attacked for his military service.

He was attacked by his own fellow soldiers, and we all know why. Those fellow soldiers hated his sorry guts for is testimony (some of it, at least, lies) about their murderous rampages in Vietnam and being reminiscent of "Genghis Khan." His fellow soldiers hated his guts, and believed he lied about them.

Kerry was attacked as a coward.

So was George W. Bush - he was falsely accused of going "AWOL" when he didn't. He was accused of avoiding service, when he did not.

Again - I'm not the one here suggesting these kinds of things don't happen from right to left. THE ONLY THING I'M ARGUING IS THAT YOUR SIDE DISHES IT OUT QUITE WELL. And, they do. Believe me, they do.

This wasn't a bunch of wankers with Youtube videos, this was things that George Bush was saying on national TV and in campaign ads.

That's not true. George W. Bush did not say that. If you believe that he did, then please, by all means show me the quote.

Kerry got crucified. For what? Well, mostly lies. Not his, other people's. There was no rational debate in 2004.

I remember the debates about the Swift Boaters. Nobody in Kerry's camp claimed that the specific statements of the Swift Boaters were "not true." They claimed that his military service should be immune from attack. But, the actual statements published by the Swift Boaters were never debunked.

Moreover, the Swift Boaters were not necessarily Republicans or "right wingers." They were fellow soldiers of Kerry who hated his guts. They weren't a media outlet and it wasn't Fox News or George Bush. The Swift Boaters are more like "Moveon.org" - and believe me - those folks do just as much damage as any Swift Boat troop....

You talk about comparing apples to airplanes and then that's exactly what you do. Look - Swift Boater type organizations are like Moveon.org - not like Fox News or MSNBC. Both sides have those groups. Don't pretend that the left doesn't have them.

Is it any wonder that most of the people looked at this, and said "fuck the Republicans, and fuck this political debate system?" Oh no. So one side wanted to have a rational conversation, and the other one flung poo,

I've been following politics since I was a kid, and the left in the US - the liberals - are no more interested in "rational conversation" than the right.

and then we say that the rational ones either left the room or shrugged their shoulders and started flinging poo back? Even today you're reduced to comparing the flagship conservative news station to what? MSNBC? It's like the size of CNN. Together the two of them almost have someone in America who cares.

CNN leans left also and is certainly pro-Obama.

CNN reporter arguing against tea party protesters ---

CNN showing who they think was of better stature to be President -

ABC News -- looking to draw out an angry response toward George Bush --


ABC News refused to run advertisements against the administration's health care bill

And, ABC News actively coordinated with the White House to champion the health care bill, broadcasting, for the first time ever, from the White House. And, you don't think there's anything left-biased?

This ain't political anymore, both sides are equal? Oh no. I know who the fuck to blame. I know who the fuck started this. I know who fucked the political process. I know what the fuck happened. Don't piss on my head and tell me it's raining.

That's a tad naive. These kind of political attacks have been going on for 234 years.

When John Adams was running against Thomas Jefferson, Jefferson's camp accused President Adams of having a "hideous hermaphroditical character, which has neither the force and firmness of a man, nor the gentleness and sensibility of a woman." Adams' men called Vice President Jefferson "a mean-spirited, low-lived fellow, the son of a half-breed Indian squaw, sired by a Virginia mulatto father." Adams was labeled a fool, a hypocrite, a criminal, and a tyrant, while Jefferson was branded a weakling, an atheist, a libertine, and a coward. Martha Washington told a clergyman that Jefferson was "one of the most detestable of mankind." efferson hired a hatchet man named James Callendar to do his smearing for him, in the press. Callendar proved incredibly effective, convincing many Americans that Adams desperately wanted to attack France. Although the claim was completely apparently untrue, voters believed it. Adams was accused of being a monarchist who wanted to move the country to a monarchy under Britain and France. Jefferson was accused, in very rough terms, of being a misogynist and of having affairs (including but not limited to with Sally Hemings).

You think this just started in the Clinton years?

Don't you remember the "Daisy Girl" advertisement that the Johnson administration used against Barry Goldwater? Holy shit, dude! They said that if Goldwater was elected, Goldwater would kill all of our children with Hydrogen bombs!

Both sides are not equal.

More than equal.

One side needs to admit they made the mistakes, admit that history is history, and work together to clean up the mess that everyone is now in.

Complete naivete' to think that only one side made the mistakes. You think the Democrats - who controlled Congress for most of the last 80 years with the exception of about 12 years, had nothing to do with the state of the country? Please....

Because I am not fucking interested in hearing about how 'oh no both sides are so horrible,' when there is one side that is horrible and one side that is rational.

You're blinded by partisanship. How rational are YOU when you totally absolve the Democrats from having anything to do with the state of the United States, when they've had just as much control of the government as the Republicans. You act like the Democrats are just some small, downtrodden protest group struggling for a voice! Jeepers man, they sure have gotten you hook, line and sinker...

Fuck the idea that creationism and evolution are equal.

I agree - fuck that idea.

Fuck the idea that global warming deniers and scientists should have a dialog to determine the truth.

I don't care who has a dialog with whom. I don't think the scientists need to dialog with anyone.

And fuck the people who think that the right wing didn't do jack shit and we all sort of just staggered together into this mess.

I agree. And fuck the people who think that the left wing didn't do jack shit and we all just staggered together into this mess, or that the right wing had everything to do with it. You probably buy the line that during the Bush years the US was a libertarian paradise, right? Deregulation? Is that what you think?

I don't fucking buy it.

I don't either.

The same attitudes and idiocies that created this are just going to put us right back into it if we don't clean house and admit what has happened in the past. And look, the Teabaggers have come along, to 'restore sanity' by nominating creationists.

I don't support the teabaggers.

[sandinista]

Oh, so you admit that CNN, CBS, NBC, and ABC are all centrist then? You are one of the very rare right wingers who refuses to believe the old canard about the media being liberal and left of center?

I didn't admit that. Stop putting words in my mouth. I admitted what I wrote, nothing more.

And, I'm not a fucking right winger. Dude, what's wrong with you? Just because I can be objective enough to acknowledge that there are plenty of left wing assholes doesn't make me a right winger.

CNN is slightly left, but more unbiased than either MSNBC or FoxNews.

ABC is plainly left.

CBS and NBC not so much.

In my opinion.

Holy shit coito...funny, at times I can start to read your posts and think your on target than you go and throw this out there. there is no left wing US mainstream media (same goes for canaduh). Not even close. ABC left wing?...if you really believe that you wouldn't know left wing if it hit you in the face. Unless, of course you are strictly referring to american "left wing" which is still right of center in any sense. If that is the case, please stop using the term "left wing" when referring to US corporate media sources makes me in my mouth. Start using "democrat" media or "republican" media or some other bullshit like that.

[Robert_S]

Glenn Beck. Give me the left's equivalent if that fucker.

Kieth Olbermann.

Seriously? for real? sincerely?

I'd have picked the guy who did Loose Change.

[GreyICE]

Okay, can anyone translate Coito's last post for me? I think he was responding to me, but by the third or fourth little chop, I realized that he was saying things I'd already addressed, or that were completely irrelevant.

I can try to pick out the relevant points I guess, but does anyone else find it pretty much incoherent in that format? Oh well, maybe tonight if I have some time

[Coito ergo sum]

Oh, so you admit that CNN, CBS, NBC, and ABC are all centrist then? You are one of the very rare right wingers who refuses to believe the old canard about the media being liberal and left of center?

I didn't admit that. Stop putting words in my mouth. I admitted what I wrote, nothing more.

And, I'm not a fucking right winger. Dude, what's wrong with you? Just because I can be objective enough to acknowledge that there are plenty of left wing assholes doesn't make me a right winger.

CNN is slightly left, but more unbiased than either MSNBC or FoxNews.

ABC is plainly left.

CBS and NBC not so much.

In my opinion.

Holy shit coito...funny, at times I can start to read your posts and think your on target than you go and throw this out there. there is no left wing US mainstream media (same goes for canaduh). Not even close. ABC left wing?...if you really believe that you wouldn't know left wing if it hit you in the face. Unless, of course you are strictly referring to american "left wing" which is still right of center in any sense. If that is the case, please stop using the term "left wing" when referring to US corporate media sources makes me in my mouth. Start using "democrat" media or "republican" media or some other bullshit like that.

Blah blah blah....left in terms of real life politics -- your extreme left Marxism, or whatever you subscribe to, of course doesn't view hardly anything as left enough.

In the real world - the media in the US is largely "liberal" - which I am including on the "left." Are most liberals "left wing revolutionaries striving for a People's Republic" - no, of course not.

By the way - I don't care what you call them - call them blue side and red side. Both "sides" in American politics are up to these shenanigans. Good?

[Coito ergo sum]

Glenn Beck. Give me the left's equivalent if that fucker.

Kieth Olbermann.

Seriously? for real? sincerely?

I'd have picked the guy who did Loose Change.

The guy who did Loose Change is a bigger tool than Olbermann, but Olbermann is more comparable because he has the same type of show. Olbermann is a biased toolbag.

[Coito ergo sum]

Okay, can anyone translate Coito's last post for me? I think he was responding to me, but by the third or fourth little chop, I realized that he was saying things I'd already addressed, or that were completely irrelevant.

I can try to pick out the relevant points I guess, but does anyone else find it pretty much incoherent in that format? Oh well, maybe tonight if I have some time

I addressed every point you made directly.

It should be coherent to anyone who can speak English. You make an assertion, and I address that assertion. If I put it all in one big long post, you wouldn't know which specific assertion I am addressing.

Let me explain it to you: You read your little point which I quoted - and then right after it, what I type there, is my response to your point. Got it? There...that's not so hard, now is it?

[sandinista]

Oh, so you admit that CNN, CBS, NBC, and ABC are all centrist then? You are one of the very rare right wingers who refuses to believe the old canard about the media being liberal and left of center?

I didn't admit that. Stop putting words in my mouth. I admitted what I wrote, nothing more.

And, I'm not a fucking right winger. Dude, what's wrong with you? Just because I can be objective enough to acknowledge that there are plenty of left wing assholes doesn't make me a right winger.

CNN is slightly left, but more unbiased than either MSNBC or FoxNews.

ABC is plainly left.

CBS and NBC not so much.

In my opinion.

Holy shit coito...funny, at times I can start to read your posts and think your on target than you go and throw this out there. there is no left wing US mainstream media (same goes for canaduh). Not even close. ABC left wing?...if you really believe that you wouldn't know left wing if it hit you in the face. Unless, of course you are strictly referring to american "left wing" which is still right of center in any sense. If that is the case, please stop using the term "left wing" when referring to US corporate media sources makes me in my mouth. Start using "democrat" media or "republican" media or some other bullshit like that.

Blah blah blah....left in terms of real life politics -- your extreme left Marxism, or whatever you subscribe to, of course doesn't view hardly anything as left enough.

In the real world - the media in the US is largely "liberal" - which I am including on the "left." Are most liberals "left wing revolutionaries striving for a People's Republic" - no, of course not.

By the way - I don't care what you call them - call them blue side and red side. Both "sides" in American politics are up to these shenanigans. Good?

left in terms of real life politics is NOT "left" in terms of US republicrat politics. In the "real world" the US mainstream media is corporate owned right wing media, all of it. If your "real world" politics count the democrats in the US as left and the US media as even remotely leftist you need to get out more and see the "real world".

[Coito ergo sum]

Oh, so you admit that CNN, CBS, NBC, and ABC are all centrist then? You are one of the very rare right wingers who refuses to believe the old canard about the media being liberal and left of center?

I didn't admit that. Stop putting words in my mouth. I admitted what I wrote, nothing more.

And, I'm not a fucking right winger. Dude, what's wrong with you? Just because I can be objective enough to acknowledge that there are plenty of left wing assholes doesn't make me a right winger.

CNN is slightly left, but more unbiased than either MSNBC or FoxNews.

ABC is plainly left.

CBS and NBC not so much.

In my opinion.

Holy shit coito...funny, at times I can start to read your posts and think your on target than you go and throw this out there. there is no left wing US mainstream media (same goes for canaduh). Not even close. ABC left wing?...if you really believe that you wouldn't know left wing if it hit you in the face. Unless, of course you are strictly referring to american "left wing" which is still right of center in any sense. If that is the case, please stop using the term "left wing" when referring to US corporate media sources makes me in my mouth. Start using "democrat" media or "republican" media or some other bullshit like that.

Blah blah blah....left in terms of real life politics -- your extreme left Marxism, or whatever you subscribe to, of course doesn't view hardly anything as left enough.

In the real world - the media in the US is largely "liberal" - which I am including on the "left." Are most liberals "left wing revolutionaries striving for a People's Republic" - no, of course not.

By the way - I don't care what you call them - call them blue side and red side. Both "sides" in American politics are up to these shenanigans. Good?

left in terms of real life politics is NOT "left" in terms of US republicrat politics. In the "real world" the US mainstream media is corporate owned right wing media, all of it. If your "real world" politics count the democrats in the US as left and the US media as even remotely leftist you need to get out more and see the "real world".

LOL - you don't consider anything left wing unless it is government controlled.

I'm fully aware of what you consider to be left and right wing - however, the we've been haranguing about is not the never-ceasing, insipid whine about how the US is left is to the right of center. It doesn't matter. As I said - we're talking about the two main "sides" in the US and and how they lob nasty-grams at each other. Both sides do it. They are both hypocritical, and they both turn into the same dodgy politicians once they get elected.

It happens every election - the Democrats run for office on fixing Washington, ending "business as usual," and restoring civility in government, and they get in there and then do nothing to fix Washington, engage in business as usual and are as uncivil as ever. The same goes for the Republicans. They are all about the same.

[sandinista]

precisely, they ARE all the same. There is no left or right. There is corporate party one and corporate party two. The media is controlled by big business, nothing left about that AT ALL. The "nasty grams" are just part of the charade, part of the show. Of course governments don't "do" anything when they get into office. They are controlled by big business. Why would they "do" anything. Unless, of course, it benefits big business.

[Coito ergo sum]

precisely, they ARE all the same. There is no left or right. There is corporate party one and corporate party two. The media is controlled by big business, nothing left about that AT ALL. The "nasty grams" are just part of the charade, part of the show. Of course governments don't "do" anything when they get into office. They are controlled by big business. Why would they "do" anything. Unless, of course, it benefits big business.

They are all about the same in terms of the mud they sling at each other.

However, there are differences between Democrats and Republicans and there is a left and a right. For example, the left in the US wants socialized and nationalize healthcare, the right doesn't. Big difference. The left in the US would like to socialize and nationalize education. The right doesn't. Big difference.

The media is owned by business, yes. However, the reporters and editors and news managers are 80% liberal and Democrat.

I don't so much care that private business owns the media, because compared to the alternative it's worlds better. It can either be owned by private individuals and organizations, or the government. The latter - government owned media - is an abomination.

The government does do stuff when they get into office - are you not following what's actually happening in the United States? It's not that they don't do anything - if they didn't do anything, we'd be better off. It's what they actually do that's the problem.

If they would benefit business, we'd be in better shape. In the real world, people work for businesses. And, when businesses do good, they can expand and employ more people. If the government actually would help business and and industry, that would be a good thing. As it stands now, they are hurting business and industry.

[sandinista]

precisely, they ARE all the same. There is no left or right. There is corporate party one and corporate party two. The media is controlled by big business, nothing left about that AT ALL. The "nasty grams" are just part of the charade, part of the show. Of course governments don't "do" anything when they get into office. They are controlled by big business. Why would they "do" anything. Unless, of course, it benefits big business.

They are all about the same in terms of the mud they sling at each other.

However, there are differences between Democrats and Republicans and there is a left and a right. For example, the left in the US wants socialized and nationalize healthcare, the right doesn't. Big difference. The left in the US would like to socialize and nationalize education. The right doesn't. Big difference.

The media is owned by business, yes. However, the reporters and editors and news managers are 80% liberal and Democrat.

I don't so much care that private business owns the media, because compared to the alternative it's worlds better. It can either be owned by private individuals and organizations, or the government. The latter - government owned media - is an abomination.

The government does do stuff when they get into office - are you not following what's actually happening in the United States? It's not that they don't do anything - if they didn't do anything, we'd be better off. It's what they actually do that's the problem.

If they would benefit business, we'd be in better shape. In the real world, people work for businesses. And, when businesses do good, they can expand and employ more people. If the government actually would help business and and industry, that would be a good thing. As it stands now, they are hurting business and industry.

This is where you start to have problems. In liberal democracies corporations ARE the government. There is no separation. CEO's are politicians, politician are CEO's. They flip back and forth. Business buys the politicians that it wants. The media is government run because the government IS private business. As for the differences between the right and left in the US, as you state them. Either side can "say" what they want forever, it is what actually happens that matters. For example, to switch to canaduh for a second. The NDP (our "left" party) "says" it supports workers and unions. What happens when there are strikes? They legislate workers back to work. The "say" they are for working and poor people, but when in power they actually do nothing for either. In fact, big surprise, they support big business. The same in the US, either party can "say" they want this or that, but it comes down to what they actually "do". There is no difference in action, only words. Meaningless. In regards to the media, and it's "liberal" reporters etc. Makes not a whiff of a difference as long as there is corporate ownership. Besides, like I have pointed out time and again, the reporters, "journalists" etc are still pro business/right wing individuals. There is no leftist mainstream US media, not even close. A corporate media is more of an abomination than a citizen/government media. Like I already pointed out though, doesn't matter in regards to neo-liberal ideological countries, the government/corporations are one and the same.

[Coito ergo sum]

precisely, they ARE all the same. There is no left or right. There is corporate party one and corporate party two. The media is controlled by big business, nothing left about that AT ALL. The "nasty grams" are just part of the charade, part of the show. Of course governments don't "do" anything when they get into office. They are controlled by big business. Why would they "do" anything. Unless, of course, it benefits big business.

They are all about the same in terms of the mud they sling at each other.

However, there are differences between Democrats and Republicans and there is a left and a right. For example, the left in the US wants socialized and nationalize healthcare, the right doesn't. Big difference. The left in the US would like to socialize and nationalize education. The right doesn't. Big difference.

The media is owned by business, yes. However, the reporters and editors and news managers are 80% liberal and Democrat.

I don't so much care that private business owns the media, because compared to the alternative it's worlds better. It can either be owned by private individuals and organizations, or the government. The latter - government owned media - is an abomination.

The government does do stuff when they get into office - are you not following what's actually happening in the United States? It's not that they don't do anything - if they didn't do anything, we'd be better off. It's what they actually do that's the problem.

If they would benefit business, we'd be in better shape. In the real world, people work for businesses. And, when businesses do good, they can expand and employ more people. If the government actually would help business and and industry, that would be a good thing. As it stands now, they are hurting business and industry.

This is where you start to have problems. In liberal democracies corporations ARE the government. There is no separation.

Then stop referring to it as something peculiar to the US, and include Canada, the UK, Australia, and most of Europe.

[

CEO's are politicians, politician are CEO's. They flip back and forth. Business buys the politicians that it wants. The media is government run because the government IS private business. As for the differences between the right and left in the US, as you state them. Either side can "say" what they want forever, it is what actually happens that matters.

Not in terms of their political philosophies. What a party wants is what puts them on the left or the right. The Communist party in the US is far left, despite the fact that hardly anything of what they say they want ever gets passed.

[
For example, to switch to canaduh for a second. The NDP (our "left" party) "says" it supports workers and unions. What happens when there are strikes? They legislate workers back to work.

Not the NDP - the guys that oppose them, who are in the majority, do that.

And, hey - that's what happens when you get government involved. What business is it of the government to "legislate" workers back to work? If the workers want to strike, let them fucking strike, and if the employers want to fire them, then so be it.

[

The "say" they are for working and poor people, but when in power they actually do nothing for either. In fact, big surprise, they support big business. The same in the US, either party can "say" they want this or that, but it comes down to what they actually "do". There is no difference in action, only words. Meaningless. In regards to the media, and it's "liberal" reporters etc. Makes not a whiff of a difference as long as there is corporate ownership.

As opposed to what? Government ownership? Or what?

[

Besides, like I have pointed out time and again, the reporters, "journalists" etc are still pro business/right wing individuals.

Bwhahahahahahahahahahahhahaahhahahaha!!!! Reporters and journalists? Probusiness? LOL You haven't spent much time in the US, have you? And, "right wing?" Not a chance. The folks that become journalists and reporters are by-and-large those who wouldn't know how a business is run, or what would be "pro" business, if it slapped them in the face. They are typically liberal, emotion-driven, folks who lean left on most political issues.

[

There is no leftist mainstream US media, not even close.

Because being "Leftist" is not mainstream. It's radical. Once radical becomes mainstream it's not radical anymore. You'll never have a stable country where most folks are radical revolutionaries.

[

A corporate media is more of an abomination than a citizen/government media.

Government media is NOT "citizen" media. I like how you call it "citizen/government" media, as if that means something. It's "government" media, which means the guys in office control what is said. It's far worse than a "corporate" media because at least the corporate media has to respond to its customers, and at least a private media has some sense of having a job to do: that of reporting the news, some of which is going to be negative to the government.

The government, invariably, classifies "negative" news as "subversive" or a danger to the country, and politicians invariably consider that which negatively reflects on them to be bad for the country in general. The government shuts down negative opinions.

A competitive marketplace for news, while imperfect, is worlds better than a centrally controlled government media.

There is no such thing as a "citizen" media, other than media that is owned and controlled by citizens. We have some of that now, in terms of a freely available blogosphere where anyone can write what they want and the entire world can see it. Citizens can't expect to each own newspapers and television stations because of the cost. Hence the benefit to having many different organizations owning news and media outlets that have to compete for the public's trust and business.

Give it all to the government, and they shut the competition down. You know that.

[

Like I already pointed out though, doesn't matter in regards to neo-liberal ideological countries, the government/corporations are one and the same.

The government and corporations are not one in the same - except where the government controls the corporations.

In the country you seem to envision - where the state owns it all -it would be even worse. You'd have the state controlling everything and as much as you'd want it to be a "citizen" Shangri-la where only what's good for the people gets done - that is a pipe dream. Fantasy disco, man.

[sandinista]

The government and corporations are not one in the same - except where the government controls the corporations.

you mean except where the corporations control the government.

[Coito ergo sum]

The government and corporations are not one in the same - except where the government controls the corporations.

you mean except where the corporations control the government.

Yes, that would be true too. In either instance.

In any case, what we have is corporations having influence in our government and not completely controlling it. If they completely controlled it, we'd not have gotten Obamacare, and the financial reform initiatives like the new financial industry regulation and consumer protection agency would not have passed. Clearly, there is at least some lack of control.

Moreover, the key point with freedom of speech, I think, and perhaps our key difference is that you seem to think that the government can control all the media and somehow it would increase the amount of liberty (of the press, expression, speech). The way I see it, that is impossible, and government control of the media results in a controlled media and ultimately limits liberty.

In my view the best that can occur in the real world is that there would be a large number of separately owned media outlets that are controlled by different groups of people, whether corporations or other types of groups, and even individuals. Knowing that the resources needed to create and run a radio station, television station or newspaper are huge, it's necessarily going to be wealthy individuals or groups of people organized in some way (corporate structure, joint ventures, partnerships, nonprofit organizations, etc) that have these enterprises. But, the key is that any person can formulate the desire to create one of these entities and be at liberty to do what's necessary to get there. People have done it.

Moreover, in our information age, we have the never-before seen luxury of every individual having a low overhead ability to get their views out there on message boards, blogs, social networking sites, even their own websites, which they can create into media outlets. One of the biggest sites on the net was created by an individual - the Drudge Report. Facebook was created by a few individuals at a college campus.

The idea, in my view, is that it should be free, and that those who want to, should be able to do what they want. Those that have the means, and the desire, should be able to create a newspaper, website, radio station/program, webcast, whatever. And, they do.

We have more sources of media now than ever before, from within the US and abroad. Your preferred state of affairs, the way I see it, would actually reduce the number of options people have, by sticking it all under the control of the government. The major news outlets would all answer to one master. The government. It's no answer to say that the citizens will vote on stuff - democracy, we all know, can and does squelch liberty - we see it in the gay marriage debate, where the majority wants to squelch the liberty of some by vote. The tyranny of the majority silences the voice of the individual.