Bill Moyers Hosts Critics of Cloistered Political Press

Bill Moyers recently interviewed two progressive journalists, Glenn Greenwald and Jay Rosen, who are counting Obama’s first days in D.C. with a sharp eye on the political opinion makers who drive so much of the story we all consume. Listen to the full show.

Greenwald suggested that the media’s treatment of the Daschle nomination provides an example of how complicitly it perpetuates business-as-usual conduct in Washington D.C.. The media missed the real story. While it focused on Daschle’s tax problems, it said nothing of how the retired Congressman has capitalized on his former office by providing legislative consulting to wealthy individuals and large corporations, including those in the health care industry.

“Most people consider that to be corruption. That’s what Barack Obama called it when he ran,” said Greenwald. “Yet, to members of the media, who have spent their lives in Washington, who are friends and colleagues of the people who are engorging themselves on this corrupt system, that is just the way of life. It’s like breathing air or drinking water.”

Rosen said that the Washington media players are part of a broken system intent upon keeping themselves relevant in order to maintain a career. “I think there’s a tendency for Washington journalists to see everything converging towards the political game that they are themselves masters of…The reason you won’t see an Amy Goodman of “Democracy Now!” on “Meet the Press” is that it would discredit the narrative that’s been building up for a long time.”

Rosen conjectures that Obama was probably a little surprised at the strength of the symbiotic relationship between political opinion makers and the political elite. “He is naturally a compromiser. And I think he’s going to be pulled between playing a savvy inside game and trying to mobilize anger from outside of Washington. He’s going to seesaw between these two things. “

“To members of the media, who have spent their lives in Washington, who are friends and colleagues of the people who are engorging themselves on this corrupt system, that is just the way of life. It’s like breathing air or drinking water. “

Both journalists optimistically agree that if Obama can hold fast to his early promises, the press corps will eventually adjust its narrative to embrace a more progressive story. However, Obama will not be able to do that without outside force. Citizen journalism and other internet social networks can shame the press corps into changing.

Here’s the complete transcript.

Glenn Greenwald is a constitutional lawyer turned journalist. His blog on Salon.com is one of the most influential on the internet. He’s written two best sellers: “How Would a Patriot Act?” about President Bush and executive power, and “A Tragic Legacy.” His most recent book is “Great American Hypocrites.”

Jay Rosen is a founder of the citizen journalism movement and is a professor of journalism at New York University, as well as a widely published writer and media critic. He created the popular blog called PressThink, subtitled “Ghost of Democracy in the Media Machine.”

West Virginia Gubernatorial Debate 2 0f 4 Held in Bedroom Community – Protesters Greet Candidates

This debate was the second of four gubernatorial debates held in West Virginia last week between incumbent Governor Joe Manchin, Senator Russ Weeks, and Mountain Party candidate for Governor Jesse Johnson.

Blocked out of the first and only statewide network televised gubernatorial debate, the balloted third party candidate Jesse Johnson shakes a few leaves off that two-party tree in this one hour debate held in Hedgesville, West Virginia. This debate was hosted by WEPM, a news/sports/talk radio station in West Virginia.

As the only candidate opposing Mountain Top Removal (MTR), Johnson provided relief to the protesting environmentalists in the crowd, many of whom had come to voice their objections to “The Path”, a high-voltage power line that would carve a 10,000 acre line through private properties in order to accelerate delivery of coal-powered energy to the East Coast states. While “the Path” is a federally mandated program, many see the current Governor as complicit in the sacrifice of West Virginia for the use of energy corporations.

There are a couple of interesting points to observe in the radio station’s reporting of the debate on its website, the most important of which is the exclusion of the discussion of MTR. A recent poll indicated that most West Virginians are against MTR, as well they should be given the level of contaminants dumped into the headwaters by profit-driven coal companies and the ensuing air pollution created by the burning of the coal. Instead, the station reported that the retention of teachers was the major topic discussed, which, while provocative, was not the heated point of opposition during the debate.

Hedgesburg is about a 5 hour drive from the state capitol Charleston and it sits in the upper east panhandle. It was once a sleepy rural area but has become a booming bedroom community for Washington D.C. commuters, who are transient in their commitment to West Virginia and unaware of the rest of the state’s history. The state’s history with coal mining has effected its politics for generations. It was a state made up of company towns in which a culture of obedience and isolation made it difficult for people to organize. This foundation of corporate control still permeates and aggravates the already dire conditions in which many live in the mid and Southern sections of the state.

One might wonder why the debate was not held in a more populated area so that the theater that held four hundred might at least be a quarter filled. Then again, it might be all too evident.

Open the Debates: Clever Response from Nader Campaign on VP Debates

Here’s an achingly funny romp through the CPD‘s Vice-Presidential Debate juxstaposed to responses from Ralph Nader’s Independent running mate candidate, Matt Gonzalez.

3rd Party Bookends: McKinney and Barr Share Georgia Roots

What these two Presidential candidates share in common, aside from a desire to reform Washington D.C. is a history of Georgia politics. Opposite on social issues, their coincidental time in office says a lot about the districts and times they represented. Now, they carry these differences into the Presidential arena.

At a recent press conference called by Libertarian-leaning Republican Ron Paul, McKinney appeared along with Independent candidate Ralph Nader and Constitutionalist Party Chuck Baldwin. Bob Barr chose to not share the stage despite agreement on the four principles agreed upon by the third party candidates. According the Atlantic Constitution, Barr’s campaign spokesperson Andrew Davis said “Bob had a press conference right after that one,” and “He didn’t want to dilute his message by being on the same stage as people like Cynthia McKinney, who is completely opposite of what a Libertarian is.”

Yet, Ron Paul and the other three candidates understood the need for a unity of the smaller parties in order to break the stranglehold of the two major parties on the substantive content of the political debates, without which voters do not have an opportunity to critically evaluate platforms outside of the corporate influenced parties.

Here’s the link to the CSPAN recorded Press Conference:http://www.c-spanarchives.org/library/index.php?main_page=product_video_info&products_id=281024-1

read more | digg story

W.Va. Debates Privatize to keep Green Candidate Out

This article demonstrates the stranglehold that coal industry has on the political and broadcast scene in West Virginia, where the coal industry is king. Not wanting to allow Green Party candidate Johnson an opportunity to enter the most widely watched debate in the gubernatorial election, the debate was “privatized”.

read more | digg story

Zogby Poll Shows that More than Half of Independents Want Nader and Barr in the Debates

This Zogby on-line poll concludes that 55% of likely voters want Barr included in Presidential Debates. It also states that 46 per cent of independents want Nader in the debates.

read more | digg story

Nader Announces Open the Presidential Denver Super Rally

Currently shut out of the Presidential debates by the requirement thresholds set by the non-profit “Non-Partisan” corporation Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD), veteran Presidential campaigner Ralph Nader has called for a Super Rally to be held on the Eve of presumptive candidate Barack Obama’s big night in Denver, Wednesday 27,2008.

The CPD requires that candidates poll at least 15% nationally, as measured by the average of five corporate media polls. In contrast, the League of Women Voters (LWV), who sponsored the debates of three Presidential cycles (1976, 1980, 1984) employed a 5% rule as measured by independent polls.

The LWV ceased to sponsor the debates in 1988, after the George Bush and Michael Dukakis campaigns drafted the first secret debate contract, a “Memorandum of Understanding” that dictated who got to participate and who would ask the questions. On October 3, The LWV 14 trustees voted unanimously to drop out of the debates, and issued the following press release:

The League of Women Voters is withdrawing sponsorship of the presidential debates … because the demands of the two campaign organizations would perpetrate a fraud on the American voter. It has become clear to us that the candidates’ organizations aim to add debates to their list of campaign-trail charades devoid of substance, spontaneity and answers to tough questions. The League has no intention of becoming an accessory to the hoodwinking of the American public.

The organization Open Debates has criticized the CPD for awarding control of the debates to Democratic and Republican campaigns. It notes that the CPD’s Executive Directors are gaming lobbyist Frank Fahrenkopf and pharmaceutical lobbyist Paul Kirk. The debates are sponsored by multi-national corporations and their presence is quite visible during the televised debates.

Strict control of the poll threshold, particularly in conjunction with ballot access regulations, also instituted by the two major parties, assures that the Democrats and Republicans need not fear the invasion of dissident voices on the debate stage. However, disident voices do resonate with the public when provided the opportunity. Consider Governor Jesse Ventura who explains his surprising win thusly, “I was allowed to debate. I proved that you could go from 10 percent to 37 percent and win if you’re allowed to debate. Rest assured these two parties don’t want to ever see that happen again.”

Earlier this year, an organization called Science Debate 2008 had tried to convene a debate between then Democratic contenders Clinton and Obama and Republican McCain. No takers. Science Debate orgnizers then hoped that they might get to host an event in the fall. Obama has agreed to just three debates as controlled by the CPD. Perhaps the Science Debate 2008, Google and Open debates could get together and present a debate which allows for the 5 per cent threshold candidates. If Obama and McCain choose not to come, they must have their reasons, but at least we’d hear from the likes of Ralph Nader, Cynthia McKinney, Bob Barr and Chuck Baldwin – maybe we can have some spontaneous dialogue that way. A novel approach to debate, spontaneity.

If you are interested in opening up the debates, you can e-sign this petition. If not for this election, than for the next.

League Of Women Voters Wikipedia Page
Open Debates
Science Debate 2008

Thanks for your continued subscription. If you have an insight or piece of news that seems to fit our blog, please feel free to contact us.

Nader Announces Open the Presidential Denver Super Rally

Currently shut out of the Presidential debates by the requirement thresholds set by the non-profit “Non-Partisan” corporation Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD), veteran Presidential campaigner Ralph Nader has called for a Super Rally to be held on the Eve of presumptive candidate Barack Obama’s big night in Denver, Wednesday 27,2008.

The CPD requires that candidates poll at least 15% nationally, as measured by the average of five corporate media polls. In contrast, the League of Women Voters (LWV), who sponsored the debates of three Presidential cycles (1976, 1980, 1984) employed a 5% rule as measured by independent polls.

The LWV ceased to sponsor the debates in 1988, after the George Bush and Michael Dukakis campaigns drafted the first secret debate contract, a “Memorandum of Understanding” that dictated who got to participate and who would ask the questions. On October 3, The LWV 14 trustees voted unanimously to drop out of the debates, and issued the following press release:

The League of Women Voters is withdrawing sponsorship of the presidential debates … because the demands of the two campaign organizations would perpetrate a fraud on the American voter. It has become clear to us that the candidates’ organizations aim to add debates to their list of campaign-trail charades devoid of substance, spontaneity and answers to tough questions. The League has no intention of becoming an accessory to the hoodwinking of the American public.

The organization Open Debates has criticized the CPD for awarding control of the debates to Democratic and Republican campaigns. It notes that the CPD’s Executive Directors are gaming lobbyist Frank Fahrenkopf and pharmaceutical lobbyist Paul Kirk. The debates are sponsored by multi-national corporations and their presence is quite visible during the televised debates.

Strict control of the poll threshold, particularly in conjunction with ballot access regulations, also instituted by the two major parties, assures that the Democrats and Republicans need not fear the invasion of dissident voices on the debate stage. However, disident voices do resonate with the public when provided the opportunity. Consider Governor Jesse Ventura who explains his surprising win thusly, “I was allowed to debate. I proved that you could go from 10 percent to 37 percent and win if you’re allowed to debate. Rest assured these two parties don’t want to ever see that happen again.”

Earlier this year, an organization called Science Debate 2008 had tried to convene a debate between then Democratic contenders Clinton and Obama and Republican McCain. No takers. Science Debate orgnizers then hoped that they might get to host an event in the fall. Obama has agreed to just three debates as controlled by the CPD. Perhaps the Science Debate 2008, Google and Open debates could get together and present a debate which allows for the 5 per cent threshold candidates. If Obama and McCain choose not to come, they must have their reasons, but at least we’d hear from the likes of Ralph Nader, Cynthia McKinney, Bob Barr and Chuck Baldwin – maybe we can have some spontaneous dialogue that way. A novel approach to debate, spontaneity.

If you are interested in opening up the debates, you can e-sign this petition. If not for this election, than for the next.

League Of Women Voters Wikipedia Page
Open Debates
Science Debate 2008

Nader Announces Open the Presidential Denver Super Rally

Currently shut out of the Presidential debates by the requirement thresholds set by the non-profit “Non-Partisan” corporation Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD), veteran Presidential campaigner Ralph Nader has called for a Super Rally to be held on the Eve of presumptive candidate Barack Obama’s big night in Denver, Wednesday 27,2008.

The CPD requires that candidates poll at least 15% nationally, as measured by the average of five corporate media polls. In contrast, the League of Women Voters (LWV), who sponsored the debates of three Presidential cycles (1976, 1980, 1984) employed a 5% rule as measured by independent polls.

The LWV ceased to sponsor the debates in 1988, after the George Bush and Michael Dukakis campaigns drafted the first secret debate contract, a “Memorandum of Understanding” that dictated who got to participate and who would ask the questions. On October 3, The LWV 14 trustees voted unanimously to drop out of the debates, and issued the following press release:

The League of Women Voters is withdrawing sponsorship of the presidential debates … because the demands of the two campaign organizations would perpetrate a fraud on the American voter. It has become clear to us that the candidates’ organizations aim to add debates to their list of campaign-trail charades devoid of substance, spontaneity and answers to tough questions. The League has no intention of becoming an accessory to the hoodwinking of the American public.

The organization Open Debates has criticized the CPD for awarding control of the debates to Democratic and Republican campaigns. It notes that the CPD’s Executive Directors are gaming lobbyist Frank Fahrenkopf and pharmaceutical lobbyist Paul Kirk. The debates are sponsored by multi-national corporations and their presence is quite visible during the televised debates.

Strict control of the poll threshold, particularly in conjunction with ballot access regulations, also instituted by the two major parties, assures that the Democrats and Republicans need not fear the invasion of dissident voices on the debate stage. However, disident voices do resonate with the public when provided the opportunity. Consider Governor Jesse Ventura who explains his surprising win thusly, “I was allowed to debate. I proved that you could go from 10 percent to 37 percent and win if you’re allowed to debate. Rest assured these two parties don’t want to ever see that happen again.”

Earlier this year, an organization called Science Debate 2008 had tried to convene a debate between then Democratic contenders Clinton and Obama and Republican McCain. No takers. Science Debate orgnizers then hoped that they might get to host an event in the fall. Obama has agreed to just three debates as controlled by the CPD. Perhaps the Science Debate 2008, Google and Open debates could get together and present a debate which allows for the 5 per cent threshold candidates. If Obama and McCain choose not to come, they must have their reasons, but at least we’d hear from the likes of Ralph Nader, Cynthia McKinney, Bob Barr and Chuck Baldwin – maybe we can have some spontaneous dialogue that way. A novel approach to debate, spontaneity.

If you are interested in opening up the debates, you can e-sign this petition. If not for this election, than for the next.

League Of Women Voters Wikipedia Page
Open Debates
Science Debate 2008

Eco-Savvy Storytellers watching the greening of politics.