Words of wisdom

Atrios feels somewhat vindicated by Olbermann's success:

Of course, stupid people like me have long suggested that the way to counterprogram a right wing news network was not to put on slightly less right wing programming, and that a left-of-center block of programming on MSNBC in prime time would spike their ratings, but no one listens to stupid people like me.

There's a general lesson there. The way to oppose right-wing media dominance is not to set up a slightly less wingnutty version of the Fox News. The way to oppose a Republican takeover of congress, the executive branch, and the supreme court is not to ape the right-wing agenda with slightly less fanaticism. And the way to fight the all-pervasive excesses of religion in our culture is not to support Christians who make nice promises.

Tags

More like this

I confess that I am a political news junkie. In the 2004 election my main source of information were blogs (DailyKos, MyDD and Eschaton were my mainstays, with lots of others being hit on a regular basis). I still read them (I've added OpenLeft, AmericaBlog and ThinkProgress to the must read list,…
Under the fold, due to length. Like the previous couple of roundups, take your time - bookmark, read, and use later. Fisking a debunking: Clever Wife regularly participates in a forum for craftspeople who make soap. Lately the forum has included some long digressions into politics. She is usually…
Radley Balko links to, and rightly lampoons, this silly article by Fortune writer Marc Gunther. Gunther claims that we have too many choices now, with 300 TV channels focused on particular niches. It's reduced the power of the 3 networks to present the news to a bulk of the population, it's reduced…
 by PotomacFeverish  What is on the agenda for science during the last 2 years of this Administration?  Many believe that with the change in Congress, now we can relax regarding the abuse of science that we have seen in recent years.  The scientific community needs to be aware that much of the…

And the way to fight the all-pervasive excesses of religion in our culture is not to support Christians who make nice promises.

Indeed. Just yesterday I happened to drive past a holy-roller church near where I live. The message on its wayside pulpit: "Reason is the enemy of faith."

They know what the real issue is and- to their credit- they don't pussyfoot about it. What possible excuse can we, the rational, have for being naive about what we're up against?

By Steve LaBonne (not verified) on 23 Oct 2006 #permalink

Nice promises don't bother me so much. It's just all the stupid stuff is what gets me. Duh!

What's striking to me is that Olbermann is so very obviously speaking for the majority. He's directly opposite O'Reilly -- and there are a hell of a lot more Olbermann viral videos on YouTube than anything done by that Fox bully.

As for taking on the right-wing head-on -- yeah, I'm firmly convinced of the necessity. As Steve pointed out, their gloves are off. Ours should be as well.

I'm pretty sure the best way to hammer the fanatics into the ground is to mock them relentlessly and mercilessly. Expose them for the fools and bigots that they are, and if possible do it with humor. Not only do we gain the intellectual upper hand, but we get others laughing at them.

(Laughter is probably the least tolerable thing to a fanatic. They appear entirely bereft of humor.)

Olbermann hasn't spoken for me since he left SportsCenter. Stewart and Colbert I think are both insightful and funny, but Olbermann I can't stand.

I like Olbermann, at least he asks questions that I think are relevant; that he answers them in a way that reflects my worldview may alter my opinion of him, I am perfectly willing to accept.

But why should people hold back when they see or hear something that is just plain wrong. It will attract an audience. No one wants to hear milquetoast objections to stupid stuff like Sean Hannity; they want someone to take them on and call shenanigans on the conservative mouthpieces.

Bear in mind, TV and politics aren't quite the same game. For a TV personality, snaring 40% of the viewing public is a spectacular triumph; for a US political candidate, it usually means four years of unemployment. That means that on the face of it, the winning TV strategy is to sit in the middle of an untapped niche, but the winning political strategy is to be just a little more moderate than the other party's candidate.

I suspect this is not quite as overwhelming a consideration as many politicians seem to think - having the balls to believe in something can still be a vote-winner - but it goes some way to explain why things are so bland, especially in two-party races.

By Geoffrey Brent (not verified) on 23 Oct 2006 #permalink