SFBG Radio: Who's afraid of the right-wing nuts?

|
(30)

In today's episode, Johnny and Tim talk about news fabrication -- and why anybody still respects Andrew Brietbart. You can listen after the jump.

sfbgradio7/23/2010 by johnnywangel

Comments

when back during the Clinton administration the NY Times ran an article telling its readers that Rush Limbaugh was reporting a rumor that [insert bogus scandal here, I can't remember which one it was]. At that point, it was obvious that the famous motto had changed to "all the news that fits, we print."

It is now clear that whenever the right-wing noise machine starts raving about another scandal, the default for any thinking person should be that they're making it up.

On the ZOMG Ground Zero Mosque WTFBBQ, a blogger friend found a couple of *real* conservatives telling the demagogues where to stick it. If you'll pardon the plug, check it here: http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2010/07/rational_conservatives_on_the...

Posted by Pieter B on Jul. 23, 2010 @ 8:12 pm

Let's be honest, we're living in a Media-cracy. The average American "red stater" is a low information voter who's knowledge of the world goes as far as Fox News or Pat Robertson or talk radio or a chain email will tell her or him. Yet once in a blue moon, you get what I call a spark of truth, something that clears the haze and triggers that one thing that the religious fundamentalists and the plutocrats and their whores (the GOP) fear the most, a moment where you question what you're told. One or two things happens, that person who gets that spark actually gets the gumption to find out more, or they say "eh fuck it" and dive back into that pool of intellectual amnesia.

Sadly it isn't just these folks, but a whole swath of Americans who are either too busy or lazy to seek out things beyond the main stream media. The special interests, mainly the plutocrats know this. Thus they've corrupted the main stream news and media, sure you may have a few journalists out there that actually do a job that Edward R. Murrow would be proud of, but mainly what you get is infotainment posing as news. It's why news about Lindsey Lohan or updates on a news show have a segment about Dancing with the Stars (I kid you not on this). And when an important issue does come up, you aren't given the meat and potatoes of it, just the television version of Cliff Notes but so long as the main question isn't brought up...Is the laissez fair get off our corporate backs capitalist system not working?

And when the economy does produce a shockwave that pushes the average person out of their McDonalds-induced soma, the corporate elites quickly bring up something to distract you. Ask yourself this, recently we started talking about jobs and the lack of money going to small businesses and the foreclosure rate rising...then BAM all of a sudden this Sharrod story happens. Yes, what happened to her is a travesty, but as far as I'm concerned Andrew "Goebbels" Breitbart was told to put that up. The man's a whore...no I take that back, I know some who are actually good people, no the man is a sack of anal leakage whose in the same league of being a puppet along with Neil Cavuto and other shills for the plutocracy. It's all to distract you away from the real issues whether it's what is considered "main stream" news or other media.

Remember, the power structure of this country (and other nations) have essentially updated the Romans' old bread & circuses scheme. Anything to get you to forget you're being paid just enough to survive else you (heaven forbid!) ask for a wage where you don't need to get into debt just to pay for groceries, or that you have a safety net or commons that is either being stripped away from you or privatized/outsourced. From our Texas Republican-dominated text books to media conglomerates dominating the airwaves, it's all to induce you to shut up and take what they give you. It's how you can get Fox News, Andrew "Birth of a Nation" Breitbart, Glenn Beck, the 700 Club, Alex Jones, think tanks like the Heritage Foundation and the sweeping of history of topics like labor and made all legitimate.

The internet looks to be one of the few safe havens, but one has to ask for how long? Without net neutrality, even this website where I'm posting on, there is no guarantee that others will hear future versions of these podcasts or articles. Always remember, that you buy internet access from the very same people that are allied with the beast I've mentioned above.

So long as Americans just go to the net for articles/audio or turn on the clicker to watch their cable news networks or tune into terrestrial radio, the threat of the conglomerates will be there to give them what the interests want. Bread & circuses will continue on. You need to break up the media oligopoly, you need net neutrality, you need to establish regulations to allow more local content and such. So long as they can control the message or even have that ability, the truth and ultimately democracy will always be in danger.

Posted by Johnny Venom on Jul. 24, 2010 @ 2:58 pm

Most people are too dumb to know whats going on, for example, people who think a grand jury report is bad because of one certain person being on it. Even if the grand jury report from the previous year says the same the thing, the second one is still tainted because the unions say so.

Also pseudo science and hysterics doesn't get enough play in the media, we don't hear enough about; cell phone cancer or anti-bee hate crimes.

What we as Americans need is a media that forces people to agree with progressives.

Posted by matlock on Jul. 24, 2010 @ 10:47 pm

True, but if I may my good man, I wouldn't say dumb just either misinformed and/or lazy or just want to live in their own fantasy. Bottom line, thinking in this country, for the lack of a better word, is corrupted. One need only look at the word "liberal" and note the reaction one gets from many, ranging from suspicious to mild disdain to outright fear and hostility.

You right about pseudo science, when all the evidence points for example to global climate change (or "warming"), all it takes is one person to say no for the whole thing to be thrown out. Now I wouldn't say that we Americans are a scientific bunch, but we at one time were willing to except the word of a validated Nobel scientist over a pundit. Yet you have many, who for years had already had their thinking corrupted, that (like the word 'liberal') have linked the terms "environmental" or "green" with a negative connotation. Even individuals who aren't conservative but say center-right, who have been corrupted into matching images or thoughts of say authoritarian regimes of an official leftist bent (i.e. the Soviets) or hippies or some sort of boogie man to those warning about the Earth.

This is where the pseudo science comes in, reports from the REAL dubious posts versus the legitimate ones. But there's another form of intellectual fraudulence of a social science nature, pseudo economics, which I would dare say is more pervasive than pseudo science. If you have the stomach for it, turn on Glenn Beck and you will see what I mean, or look at an email from a gold bullion distributor or the garbage coming from conservative economic think tanks.

I do have one issue though with what you said, and that is with regards to the media and forcing folks to think our way. That puts us in the same camp as the right-wingers. We shouldn't force anything, but instead report the truth and expose the people to what's really happening and present our argument for reform. Sadly, there is that corruption of thought again, that when faced with an official progressive source for news or information is met with skepticism. I was once a conservative, a long long time ago, and for me news of from a conservative perspective was the "real truth" versus CNN which was thought of as the Communist (or Clinton) News Network. I will say this though, I've been very surprised at how many conservatives have begun to tune into AND continue listening to progressive talk radio. Initially probably to get a taste of the enemy, but like other cons who stay on, a spark goes off in their head ("hey wait a minute, yeah he's right about that! I wonder what else he's spot on about?"). I've seen this time and time again.

You're going to think I'm crazy, but I'll tell you how we get a "progressive media" that has enough backbone to take on the conservative/monied interests media conglomerates, it's through public broadcasting. Yeah, MSNBC does a decent job, but at the end of the day they answer to GE. PBS has a similar problem, one need only look at the whole Archer-Daniels-Midland affair. But PBS must also answer to those viewers/tax payers who watch and send in funds.

What's needed is a complete reorganization of public broadcasting (from radio to television to the internet) along the same lines as the BBC and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. One people-owned media company with assets that can take on the likes of Fox News or talk radio. It already has what we need, the problem is that the whole thing is fragmented. We have one "corporation" that provides much of the funding for television and radio , we have another separate organization for operating public television, several competing public radio companies, and a hodgepodge network of independent local-public owned radio stations. It's no wonder easily how the Republicans and "Conservadems" had been able to eviscerate public broadcasting, it's been divide and conquer from the get go!

Now I understand that local nature of public radio and TV, but it's still too confederated with the main funding arm. You can mix local with a central broadcast. Not every media market has to be the same, but they can work together. A late friend of mine once worked for WTTW which was housed at my old university (NEIU), he used to go on about how there was this "hidden war" for funding between the various public systems. Why does this have to be? Why not do what other countries do and place a small tax on televisions or maybe cable service or something to properly fund a peoples broadcasting system for education and information. We need to gear public broadcasting away from corporate sponsors, that is for sure. Public broadcasting should be considered some sort of common good.

You pair that up with the plethora of growing progressive radio networks (and I guess MSNBC) and you have the start of something. But unfortunately that doesn't finish the job in providing the antidote against the corruption. The Right has an armada of think tanks and such organizations day in and day out send their minions to distribute what their puppet masters want. For every single think tank or public advocacy group or such that we have, the plutocrats have 10. Whether its about cell phone related cancer to solar power to tax cuts to school text books, their map extends out both the vertical and horizontal levels of society. We have either have nothing like this or missing major gaps to cover where they may make their assault.

Posted by Johnny Venom on Jul. 25, 2010 @ 5:14 pm

For Christs' sake Tim - where did you buy your copy of the Constitution? I suppose you must have misspoke or the tape was edited by Fox News, but I played that section of the show over a few times just to make sure i heard you right. Yes, there is no doubt about it. You said - "There's something in the Constitution that says you cannot establish a religion". Wow man. And you guys are blasting conservatives for their ignorance?

Posted by Nonhey Nevom on Jul. 24, 2010 @ 5:57 pm

He just thinks the word 'respecting ' in the phase "make no law respecting the establishment of religion" is suppose to mean respecting as in honoring as opposed to its more neutral definition as in 'referring to something'.

Regarding the mosque, perhaps Ground Zero could be a religious hub with all the world's religions represented.

It is hard to understand how progressives could rally behind a religion that treats women as slaves, whether by original design or not.

Posted by Interplanetary Guest on Jul. 24, 2010 @ 6:59 pm

This show is certainly not any kind of responsible journalism. It's ignorant, obscene and narrow-minded, though it pretends to be urban, cool and informed. Typical extremist SF tripe. Pathetic.

Posted by Terrestrial Guest on Jul. 24, 2010 @ 10:46 pm

"Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion".

How hard is that to understand? There is no official religion in America.

And the next part of 1A? "Or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"; Thereof meaning religion and free exercise being the right to practice/worship however one wants.

The Cordoba House owns a piece of property that it wishes to use how it pleases and if that contains a Muslim house of worship, who are you to tell them what they can or can't have there, I was under the impression that the right to do with one's property as one pleases as long as it doesn't infringe on anyone else (since when does praying to Allah do anything other than piss off Islamophobes?) is distinctly American. A mosque doesn't dump gallons or pounds of poison into a stream or the ocean and yet I see now hue and cry over what coal companies or BP does with the same vituperation that so-called "conservatives" spew out.

There are already 9 mosques on the island of Manhattan. There was a prayer center even closer to Ground Zero since abandoned. Unless you can prove direct correlation between the presence of the mosques and the attack itself (and of course there isn't one), on what grounds can the presence of the center be denied?

There isn't a single legitimate argument against the construction of the project. The most ludicrous one being that if there are no churches in Mecca (a religious city like the Vatican), there shouldn't be a mosque in New York (not a religious city).

Your objections to the webcast's content are based solely in your own prejudices and not reason. If they were based in the latter, there would be reasoned arguments against the cast and its subject. So far, none.

You lose.

Posted by Guest Johnny Wendell on Jul. 25, 2010 @ 11:41 am

used to hold as a basic principle that property owners had the right to do with their property as they wished, provided reasonable local regulations were followed. I did not know that said right applied only to Christians. The local zoning commission approved the plan 29-1; outsiders should STFU.

It's not Islam that people are rallying behind, it's the free-exercise clause of the First Amendment.

Posted by Pieter B on Jul. 25, 2010 @ 12:03 pm

I just got done listening to this show online. It's hilarious! Johnny said it right: Two guys on the internet radio just truth-told better than thousands of journalists in the main-stream media ever could. Keep up the great work! And if that means pissing off a bunch of right-wingers, then so be it. It's about time we had some voices on the air waves unrestrained by right-wing talking points, political correctness, or fear of Fox News. We've got a media--and a president, for that matter--who are more worried about offending the sensibility of Christian zealots, gun-nuts, xenophobes, homophobes, etc than telling it the way it is. And until that changes, this is where I'll be plugging into for unabashed truth-telling.

Fly the flag high!

Max Taves

Posted by Max Taves on Jul. 25, 2010 @ 12:43 pm

wherever you stand, this is great listening & much needed, thanks to all involved & please keep it coming!

Posted by Guest joeradio on Jul. 25, 2010 @ 6:44 pm

I think what I said is pretty clear, and backed up by the Consitution: The government (I said, "you," but that was in a generic context, referring to the state itself) can't establish a national religion. The folks who wrote that document were wary of state religions (the Church of England being just one example) and wanted not only freedom to worship, but freedom NOT to follow the state guidelines about what religion is supposed to be.

Posted by tim on Jul. 25, 2010 @ 7:22 pm

You said what is clearly on the tape and that shows a complete lack of understanding at the time that you said it of the meaning of the founders in the Bill of Rights.

As for the radio show itself, it is a not a piece of journalism and only represents the most radical fringe of progressive thought. It is vile and full of invective - obviously not meant to persuade but only to whip up the like minded who enjoy such disreputable nonsense. A new low in broadcast journalism - if you want to call it that.

Abd since when have progressives been strict constitutionalists? Why not build a memorial to nuclear technological.know-how at ground zero in Hiroshima? Because that would be disrespectful to those that died there. Those involved in 911 were not just 21 disgruntled guys. It was an act of war perpetrated by jihadists. The only point on which I agree with anything said was that they do not represent the majority of Moslems. Too bad more don't speak out against violence. They are probably too afraid of retaliation.

Posted by Terrestrial Guest on Jul. 26, 2010 @ 4:06 pm

There's a nuclear power plant in that same area!

Posted by Johnny Venom on Jul. 28, 2010 @ 7:43 am

Progressive intolerance as represented by the radio show illustrates that the movement has lost its cool. And the dogma and doctrinaire attitudes expressed are really becoming a bore. You guys need a complete makeover. The Che look is post chic.

The far left is disgusted with Obama because he isn't radical enough. The rest of the country is disgusted with him because he's too radical. His own party is abandoning him. His policies are vastly unpopular. Unless unemployment drops and the economy improves his numbers will drop with it. But he would have to change course and even if he does so soon which seems unlikely, any changes at this juncture would be too late for November.

About the mosque, freedom of religion doesn't equate into building a religious institution or any other enterprise where ever one feels like. There are all sorts of mitigating circumstances. This is not like throwing up another corner store. The Japanese own plenty of land in Hawaii, but they would not put a memorial to the victories of the Imperial Navy in Pearl Harbor.

911 was an attack of one civilization upon another rooted in state sponsored terrorism and religious fanaticism. Putting a mosque at the site where thousands perished exacerbates the damage done. Islam fundamentalists including Cordoba wants Shar'ia law. We already have a constitution. Perhaps they should also have public stonings of adulterers at ground zero.

Posted by Sleepwaking Mainstreamer on Jul. 27, 2010 @ 7:25 am

According to the alleged mastermind of 9/11's attacks, they were undertaken because American troops were on holy soil, ie, Saudi Arabia.. That would be rooted in standard issue nationalism. There is also no evidence that American Muslims want nor is there any ability whatsoever for them to impose Shar'ia lawanywhere in the US--Dearborn MI, where the Muslim population is most significant, is there any Shar'ia there at all?

No. You're a bleedin' idiot.

Obama's approval rating is higher than Reagan's, Clinton's or Nixon's at the same place in their respective first term.

The Cordoba House owns the land and the city voted 29-1 to allow the center to be built.

You're a tired rightist troll. Get a clue.

Posted by Guest Johnny Wendell on Jul. 27, 2010 @ 10:46 am

Johnny, I'm sure you know the difference between nationalism and religion.Except Saudi Arabia and some other fundamentalist countries where there is no difference. That is not what we in the West refer to as standard issue nationalism. The only thing communists hate more than religious societies are capitalistic ones.

You would not be such a tough guy in person.

Posted by Humor me on Jul. 27, 2010 @ 1:28 pm

Did I challenge you to anything?

Or threaten you?

I think not. I called you an idiot. After being called vile and narrow minded for no reason, I think that's an appropriate response.

So what's your point, assuming you have one.

Posted by Guest Johnny Wendell on Jul. 27, 2010 @ 2:20 pm

Progressives have fallen into a lazy habit of blaming all oppositional thought on lesser intellects. This has a strange hypocrisy to it given that progressives tout themselves as the protectors of the less fortunate and the less educated. It goes from the surreal to the sublime when they then suppose that anyone worthy of protecting from the evils of capitalism must adopt their thinking, mores, and generally uncouth attitudes and demeanor. Me thinks they are protecting themselves from themselves.

Regarding ground zero, until its designation as a landmark is resolved its disposition should not be finalized.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 27, 2010 @ 2:32 pm

The mosque isn't at Ground Zero, therefore, not an issue.

Logging out as "Matlock" and then logging in as "Guest" isn't either--but did need to be brought up.

Posted by Guest Johnny Wendell on Jul. 27, 2010 @ 2:46 pm

1. You don't have to "log out" to change names

2. I would never use "It goes from the surreal to the sublime" I hate that fucking hippie bong ska band.

3. He's right, progressives "win" by calling others stupid or racist.

4. He's right, the progressives are self appointed. The people in these classes that progressives claim to speak for could careless for your sense of entitlement. Progressives speak for the average Joe as much as other self appointed do, such as the Jerry Fallwell's and Lyndon Larouchites.

Posted by matlock on Jul. 27, 2010 @ 3:14 pm

To what position and title?

"Broadcaster" and "editor" aren't appointed titles, they're descriptions of my job and Tim's. Nor do we claim at any point to speak for anyone but ourselves.

The endless bad-mouthing of "progressives" by you indicates a pathological loathing of people that you don't even know how to accurately categorize.

And Sid Vicious had more panache.

Posted by Guest Johnny Wendell on Jul. 27, 2010 @ 3:18 pm

What makes you think that anyone who might find your show to be vile and idiotic are necessarily the same person? There are those that listen to your show for perverse entertainment value. The invective of the left seems more self-loathing than anything else. Some people enjoy that sort of spectacle. The more context to any quote therein - the funnier it is. I hope tou are clear that your version of radio journalism isn't going to win over an converts to your causes. It is just a forum for piling on.
.

Posted by Guest Johnny Denwell on Jul. 27, 2010 @ 3:44 pm

Not only that, but these shows make the former local shock jock Michael Savage seems positively mild-mannered. Everybody's an idiot except you, Johnny, and anyone that agrees with you. When the rubber meets the road, you are the case in point as to what freedom of speech is all about

Posted by Guest on Jul. 27, 2010 @ 6:36 pm

One wonders what a progressive thinks when someone claims to speak for them as a whole? Do they get upset and think "Howard Zinn does all my thinking for me."

Do religious progressives mind that all the right wing Christians claim to speak for Christianity? I can't see why they would.

Posted by matlock on Jul. 27, 2010 @ 9:54 pm

Johnny Wendell,

Who's afraid of right wing nuts?

Why would you be? According to your own pronouncements they are idiots.

How easy it is for you to look down upon those with different views than your own -

those idiots whom you consider enemies of progressive thought.

Never underestimate those you consider your enemies.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 27, 2010 @ 10:46 pm

"Who's afraid of right-wing nuts" - uh, didn't you imbeciles give us the fifth worst president in history? Destroy the economy of California, give us two completely unnecessary wars, add five trillion dollars to the debt, give us the worst recession since the 1930s, successfully impede any response to global warming, by far the worst problem the human race has ever faced? The world you're destroying with your unimaginable willful stupidity is the one the rest of us have to live in, consummately evil piece of filth.

Posted by Lucy Lucknow on Jul. 31, 2010 @ 12:16 pm

Neither Tim nor I ever said we spoke for anyone but ourselves and it morphs (in the mind of the lunatic) into "claims to speak for progressives".

And where is there evidence of fear of "right wing nuts"?

None of that either.

Posted by Guest Johnny Wendell on Jul. 28, 2010 @ 7:32 am

Johnny.

You are familiar with the term advocacy journalism I assume?

Posted by matlock on Jul. 28, 2010 @ 10:23 am

Who did your radio show, a double?

Posted by Guest on Jul. 28, 2010 @ 10:09 am