The Pardu

The Pardu
Watchful eyes and ears feed the brain, thus nourishing the brain cells.
Showing posts with label Eric Bohlert. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Eric Bohlert. Show all posts

Monday, April 14, 2014

Libertarianism...Be Careful A Launch Point For Plutocracy

I from time to time, hear people (always a white male) self-identify as " libertarian."  They use the word and ideology with a great deal of affinity while expressing disdain and contempt for the GOP.  Some  even express they are not conservative.

Of course, you and I both know libertarians are as far from the original construct. I believe I took a liberty there that my friends who claim libertarianism might find not to their liking: the original construct. While, early theorist may have coined the phrase around an ideology with a core nucleus of freedom to do as one wishes, modern day libertarianism is nothing more than a metastasized conservative movement with denizens who are predominantly younger white males. 

The movement has also attracted segments of the population that are far from tolerant of others, and segments who have taken individual freedom to the level of elitist individualism. Moreover, the movement has two uber wealthy plutocrats (Charles and David Koch) who have openly espoused selfish-degraded levels of anti-federal government views, while advancing state's rights as a core principle.  

Is there any wonder Clive Bundy, the Nevada farmer, has been reported to have received support from the Koch's Americans for Prosperity? Chris Hayes, MSNBC ALL In and Eric Boehlert, Media Matters, discuss the classic example of libertarian state's rights. It is truly unfortunate the movement also attracts an element of white supremacy and white nationalists. Let's be honest, Ron Paul, noted celebrity Libertarian,  not only placed his name on his 1990's (racist) newsletters, he has been captured in close cohort with the Ku Klux Klan, and other supremacist groups. In that context, the following definition of Libertarian does not seem to apply to all Americans.

What is Libertarian?

The libertarian or "classical liberal" perspective is that individual well-being, prosperity, and social harmony are fostered by "as much liberty as possible" and "as little government as necessary."

These ideas lead to new questions: What's possible? What's necessary? What are the practical implications and the unsolved problems?

Below are a number of different takes on the libertarian political perspective from which you can deepen your understanding; also be sure to check out the videos in the sidebar.

According to The Machinery of Freedom by David Friedman, Open Court Publishing Company, 1973.
The central idea of libertarianism is that people should be permitted to run their own lives as they wish. 
According to Libertarianism: A Primer by David Boaz, Free Press, 1997. 
Libertarianism is the view that each person has the right to live his life in any way he chooses so long as he respects the equal rights of others. Libertarians defend each person's right to life, liberty, and property-rights that people have naturally, before governments are created. In the libertarian view, all human relationships should be voluntary; the only actions that should be forbidden by law are those that involve the initiation of force against those who have not themselves used force-actions like murder, rape, robbery, kidnapping, and fraud.
According to Funk and Wagnall's Dictionary
lib-er-tar-i-an, n. 1. a person who advocates liberty, esp. with regard to thought or conduct.... advocating liberty or conforming to principles of liberty.
According to American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition, 2000.
NOUN: 1. One who advocates maximizing individual rights and minimizing the role of the state.
The Challenge of Democracy (6th edition), by Kenneth Janda, Jeffrey Berry, and Jerry Goldman
Liberals favor government action to promote equality, whereas conservatives favor government action to promote order. Libertarians favor freedom and oppose government action to promote either equality or order.

I have referred to the following study in the past. I will re-post key components of the study and link the full report (via pdf and via Scribed) for you perusal. The Public Religions Research Institute shows the movement is outside the realm of a main-stream society and has not developed with inclusivity for all as a underlying reality. 

Public Religions Research Institute The 2013 American Values Survey: In Search of Libertarianism in America 

Libertarians By the Numbers: A Demographic, Religious and Political Profile

By:  | 
110613.Libertarians1 320x207 Libertarians By the Numbers: A Demographic, Religious and Political Profile
Larger Version

The recently released American Values Survey found that consistent libertarians make up seven percent of the American public, while an additional 15 percent have libertarian leanings. The Graphic of the Week explores the unique profile of this increasingly important political constituency. 
Compared to Americans overall, libertarians are composed of a much larger portion of men than women. More than two-thirds (68 percent) of libertarians are men, while 32 percent are women. They are also racially homogeneous, with nearly all (94 percent) libertarians identifying as non-Hispanic whites. They also skew significantly younger. More than 6-in-10 (62 percent) libertarians are under the age of 50, including one-quarter (25 percent) who are under the age of 30. 
Libertarians have a distinct religious profile as well. A majority of libertarians identify as white mainline Protestants (27 percent) or religiously unaffiliated (27 percent). Roughly one-quarter (23 percent) of libertarians identify as white evangelical Protestant, while only about 1-in-10 (11 percent) identify as Catholic.
Although libertarian political beliefs—supportive of marijuana legalization while opposed to minimum wage hikes—make them somewhat unique, their political behavior closely resembles that of other conservative constituencies. In the 2012 presidential election, fully 8-in-10 (80 percent) libertarian voters say they supported Mitt Romney, while only 5 percent say they supported Barack Obama. Notably, however, 14 percent of libertarian voters report that they supported a third-party candidate. Close to half (45 percent) of libertarians identify as Republican, compared to only five percent who identify as Democrat.
Taken together, the demographic, religious and political characteristics make libertarians unique in American politics today. To learn more about this constituency and for other findings from the 2013 American Values Survey: In Search of Libertarians in America, please check out the full report (pdf.).
Or you can view the report via Scrid (below)

Report graphic highlights

Awesome Screenshot Capture and Annotate report pages. We will comment below in compliance with Public Religions Research Institute guidelines and policy.

Read More after the break below


Sunday, November 17, 2013

Media Matters Digs Deep and 60 Minutes Looks Suspicious!

There is something going-on at 60 Minutes.  Media Matters recently published a list of flaws in the CBS new magazine's Benghazi story; the list is an utter "Wow."  During times when most people get what little news they seek from television, 60 Minutes as a premier investigate new source is a much viewed broadcast.  When CBS allows its flagship show to join the likes of Fox News and Breitbart News Dot Com, the American experience suffers.  I can personally recall never missing a Sunday broadcast of 60 Minutes, after the Benghazi story I refuse to tune-in again. 

For those who do not subscribe to Media Matters updates, we have posted the naked list below with strong encouragement to visit the Media Matters link.

Media Matters

On October 27, CBS' 60 Minutes aired a segment anchored by correspondent Lara Logan and featuring the results of her year-long investigation into the September 11, 2012, attacks on U.S. diplomatic facilities in Benghazi, Libya. Right-wing media outlets and conservative politicians promptly seized on the story, claiming it validated their extensive effort to turn the attacks into a political scandal for President Obama and Hillary Clinton.

12 days later, the network pulled the report and apologized to viewers, with the network acknowledging that it had committed its biggest failure since the 2004 controversy surrounding a 60 Minutes story on President Bush's Air National Guard service.

After facing withering criticism for issuing an apology on 60 Minutes that failed to detail what the network had done wrong or any investigation CBS would undertake to explain how its blunder had occurred, CBS announced on November 14 that it had begun an ongoing "journalistic review" of the segment. But the network declined to detail who is performing that review or whether its results will be made public.
Much of the criticism has revolved around the network's handling of its interview with the former British security contractor Dylan Davies, identified by CBS as a "witness" to the attacks. But numerous flaws in the report have been identified since the segment aired. 

1.  The Fraudulent Benghazi "Witness"

2.  The Ethical Conflict With The "Witness'" Book

3.  The Long-Answered "Lingering Question"

4.  The CIA's "Orders To Wait"

5. Al Qaeda's Role In The Attack

6. Al Qaeda At The Hospital

7. The Suspected Attackers

Read More linked above

Earlier in the day (November 15th) Eric Bohlert, Sr. Fellow Media Matters, wrote an even more piece revealing piece about the unraveling of the once industry leading news magazine. 

Is There A Bigger Problem At CBS News?

Debunked Obamacare, Disability and Benghazi Reports Raise Doubts

Blog ››› ››› ERIC BOEHLERT
Addressing the falling standards at CBS News and its hallmark Sunday night news magazine program, Los Angeles Times columnist Michael Hilzik recently lamented how 60 Minutes "used to stand for rigorous, honest reporting. What's happened to it?" Hiltzik accused 60 Minutes of practicing a "ghastly" brand of journalism. 
Hiltzik has hardly been alone been expressing his amazement at CBS's dubious performance. What's key about his observation was that it came in early October, three weeks before CBS became enmeshed in the humiliating Benghazi controversy, in which the network was forced to retract a badly flawed report that featured a bogus "eyewitness." 
So why in early October, prior to the Benghazi fiasco, was Hiltzik bemoaning the appalling journalism sponsored by 60 Minutes? The columnist took aim at an October 6, scare report the CBS program aired, alleging widespread fraud within the Social Security disability program. ("A secret welfare system.") Told from the perspective of a crusading Republican lawmaker, Media Matters noted at the time the CBS report relied almost entirely on anecdotal evidence to dishonestly portray the social welfare program as wasteful, despite the fact that award rates fell during the recession and that fraud is less than one percent of the program. 
After watching the report, Hiltzik denounced CBS correspondent Steve Kroft's "rank ignorance about the disability program: how it works, who the beneficiaries are, why it has grown." The columnist was hardly alone in expressing his amazement at CBS's deficiencies. Kroft's one-sided, badly flawed report sparked widespread criticism. 
But the disability and Benghazi debacles have hardly been isolated incidents. 
Read more 

Revenue via sponsors when coupled with political paradigms from people who run network news shows, may lead to broadcast comparable to a homegrown terrorist. The operative word in the last sentence is "people." While all news is developed and broadcast via supposed new professionals, we are seeing more and more efforts by people (news professionals) to sway or manipulate people  (viewers) into schools of thought that are damaging to the greater good of the nation. We may have stepped into a zone where money from uber wealthy plutocrats contributes to media that leads to delivery of a former great nation to their web of neo-libertarian capitalism.

If CBS News is not influenced by people who wish to 'buy the nation', the network is guilty of pandering for viewers via the appearance of competing with Fox News.

In either case, the network must clean-up its 60 Minutes or high information people are going to give the show no (viewing) minutes.

Friday, November 8, 2013

60 Minutes Fires Continue.....

....and "fires" is what happens when the nation and its media moves to the Right.  

When media moves Right it is without exception in pursuit of revenue yielding ratings that have prove lucrative. Two classic examples are Premiere Network's and Limbaugh's daily racist, sexist homophobic and anti-progressive "derangement" and Fox New's early morning and evening anti-Obama insanity. Both work to return sponsor dollars to Premiere and Fox while feeding lies and misinformation to their ravenous viewers and listeners.

During 2013, we have observed other tepid toe-in-the-water exhibits of misinformation broadcasts from ABC and NBC, along with the astronomically 'cheap' and unprofessional 60 Minutes Benghazi episode. 

Media Matters has followed the 60 Minutes debacle since its first broadcast. David Brock, Media Matters, sat for a discussion of 60 minutes and the mindset that leads to such journalistic miscarriages.

Earlier today Media Matter's Eric Bohlert blogged about, "How CBS Could Have Avoided The 60 Minutes Benghazi Fiasco."  

Bohlert's piece is 'point-on' regarding an avoidable fiasco precipitated by violating the former standards of network and 60 Minutes executives. 

About the time David Brock was speaking with Al Sharpton on MSNBC's Politics Nation, Media Matters's Joe Strupp published a piece that completes the cycle on 60 Minutes (management, producers and host Lara Logan) foray into the unfathomable.  The network 'played' to ratings and pandered to Benghazi derangement that continues to serve as "the anti-Obama, anti-Hillary, issue of the decade.  The Right is, as you and I know, politicking towards 2016. The media follows Graham, McCain, Issa, Ayotte and others like subservient ducklings nipping-up ratings tidbits of like ducklings nipping morsels from pavement.
Mary Mapes
Former 60 Minutes producer Mary Mapes, who was fired for her role in a controversial 2004 story about President Bush's service in the Air National Guard, accused CBS News of pandering to a right-wing audience with her former program's recent Benghazi report, for which the network has been criticized and forced to retract.
"My concern is that the story was done very pointedly to appeal to a more conservative audience's beliefs about what happened at Benghazi," Mapes said by telephone from her Texas home. "They appear to have done that story to appeal specifically to a politically conservative audience that is obsessed with Benghazi and believes that Benghazi was much more than a tragedy."

The problem with 60 Minutes is in the capable hands of the media monitoring organization: Media Matters. It doesn't take an imagination to know that the Benghazi broadcast was to be a ratings boom. A boom at the expense of truth and credibility for the once storied news magazine. But, those issues pale in comparison to the real danger: Media callousness in seeking ratings and false communication to the viewing public.

As evidence in the Politics Nation piece above, Republican "Banghazi firebrands" and Fox News are continuing to use the story as fodder for low information people who obviously relish Obama Derangement. As stated by Al Sharpton, Fox News has not addressed the two week fizzle of the Dylan Davies story beyond their references to its original broadcast on 60 Minutes. What we ask, what is that other than a form of Fox News propaganda?