On The Media

Bob, your interview with Mr. Brandon was a fine piece of ... stenography.

The assertion that left-wing Saul Alinsky advocated similar tactics and, since what's good for the goose is good for the gander, the Democrats are simply tasting their own medicine is patently absurd. Saul Alinksy was no Democrat. Suppose Democrats showed up on horses at Republicans' houses in the middle of the night and kidnapped senators and congressmen, strung them up and burnt them alive, and then claimed that since the KKK used such tactics the Republicans were simply tasting their own medicine. Wouldn't the Republicans (perhaps rightfully) claim that they should not be painted with the same broad brush used to characterize the KKK? When have Democrats ever disrupted 'Town Halls' held by Republican representatives? Bob: I know it's tough to think on your feet, but please try to challenge the more ridiculous assertions made by the people you choose to interview. It's a sad day when the players are quite so riduclous as this foolAdam Brandon.

Bob Garfield's interview with Adam Brandon of Freedom Works infuriated me. I listened to it twice and both times I felt that Garfield was missing a crucial element of Freedom Works' strategy which has played out in so many Democrats' (and a few Republicans') recent Health Care town halls. That is, that Freedom Works and other industry-supported, right-wing supported "mobs" have been pushed to shut down these forums. The strategy that Mr. Garfield didn't touch on in his interview is meant to stall any kind of citizen forums to get questions answered, by shouting and insults and intimidation. The strategy seems to be to make it impossible for any issues to be clarified and to ultimately stop health care reform dead in its tracks, come the Fall. Mr. Garfield was way to accomodating to Mr. Brandon and left the impression that there is nothing at all wrong with these horrendous tactics.

To compare the undemocratic and implicitly violent tactics of the agents of the powerful to similar tactics employed by the disempowered or disenfranchised as if they are morally and politically equivalent is to make a fundamental and egregious mistake. Questions about political tactics are ridiculous abstractions if divorced from considerations about power, wealth, and privilege. Those who would find right-wing disruptions of democratic dialogue equivalent to lunch-counter sit-ins and other disruptions of 'business as usual' are usually capable of seeing this when it serves their own rhetorical and propagandistic purposes--for example, in seeming to justify the Taliban or the anti-Castro forces the U.S. paid to blow up civilians in attacking the USSR and Cuba on behalf of "democracy." To blithely ignore the disanalogy here is to side not with Alinsky, but with Lenin, and all those who have historically used disruptive, illegal, and violent tactics in turning the tide against oppression, but who then refused to recognize that, regardless of how power is gained, violence and illegality on the part of the powerful is tyranny.

This society is infuriating. I don't want to be part of it anymore. I don't even want it to exist.

Unfortunately for Mike from NYC, his description of despicable racist terrorism describes an implicitly Democratic organization. To what party does a current serving Senator and previous member of the KKK belong? One hint, not the Republican Party.

The corporations that fund these organizations benefit financially if they can stop change, and they're not just harnessing the anger of people who don't want change. These organizations are lying to people in order to make them angry. The goal is to distract the media from covering the actual problems with health insurance and health care financing, and the proposed solutions to those problems. Instead, the news is about the controversy. This story is an example of that strategy working.

What's happened to NPR?! It's like they've been replaced by zombie GOP shills. Today I was listening to On The Media, and they start blaming Democrats for the town hall health care disruptions and violence. Then you "interviewed" one of the guys in the organization who's actually behind those disruptions. They basically gave him unfettered time to spread his astroturfing, hate and lies, and generally just agreed with him on everything.

Shame on Bob Garfield. He did a very one sided interview. No one from the other side had a chance to rebut anything from Freedom works. But that's OK. Now that the folks that they have "mobilized" have started comparing this to the Nazis and Fascist regimes they've lost. I don't care what argument comes about, once one party starts this comparison, they have sunk so low that they are no longer relevant.

Big Business supports all of this. They are the funding behind these groups, and want nothing more than no change to the current system so as to keep reaping the benefits.

Oh, and Bob, your poke at Rachel Maddow was really kind of silly. Perhaps you should take a poke at the folks like Rush and Beck about their racist statements. You've lost one listener.

I too was genuinely stunned and outraged at the one-sided take on the town hall meeting disruptions. Calling these attempts to shut down debate orchestrated by big money interests equivalent to war and civil rights protests is truly dishonest.

Following that segment, the head of Freedom Works is allowed time to simply defend the tactics, no real questions asked.

I am getting more and more disgusted with NPR. What can be done about their constant bowing to corporate interests?

Bob,your shilling for the marketeers has finally jumped the shark. First for corporate , then political, now both at once. And no mention of the ridiculous lies they are promoting, or the violence and threats of violence. Count me out. Check your ratings and Podcast downloads next week.

Mike (post #2) - You should learn history before you make statements like that. To further amplify Matt W's comment, the South, and thus most members of the KKK back then (although places like Indiana have always had a number of members also), was solidly Democratic until the 1960's or so. That is because Lincoln was a Republican, and it wasn't until the ultra-liberal policies of the Democrats starting with Roosevelt that the South started to convert. The tipping point, so to speak, was the passing of civil rights legislation under Johnson. Now were Southern Democrats from those days more like Republicans these days? Except for the racism, yes. But you should learn some history so your points have more credibility.

BTW, I support people's right to protest and be against the government taking over even more of our lives, but I agree that the tactics being used and the misinformation being puked out doesn't help. There is plenty being proposed that is truly awful, so mischaracterizing it shouldn't be needed. We need reform, but are you liberals really happy with how much we are taxed and regulated compared to even 50 years ago? What ever happened to self-sufficiency?

Where's the tort reform? Ask your doctor about his malpractice premiums. Who funds Obama and the Democrats? Get the picture. Obama's shilling for corrupt unions and fat cat ambulance chasers.

Agreed, Jack. I know this next comment will seem off topic, but it goes to pattern. It also goes to how, because all politicians cater to special interests, govt. controls on anything lead to bizarre and inefficient results.

The Supreme Court recently ruled that just because one company (Company A) does business with another (Company B) and B turns out to be corrupt, you cannot drag A into court as part of a conspiracy and try to saddle them with paying part or all of the damages without proof they knew about and/or were actively participating in the scheme to defraud. The tort bar went nuts and has convinced Arlen Specter to slip into other bills a provision that would make this OK. Does that make sense to anyone? You can already try and prove A was involved through the discovery process. This just allows A to be named without any basis in good faith and be extorted to settle rather than pay huge legal fees to defend themselves. These are the kind of people we want in charge of our health care? Liberals won't see the connection, but it is all very connected. Unfortunately this forum is not set up to explain it adequately.

Suffice it to say that if you think the insurance companies making these decisions based on competition is bad, wait until you see how our government rations things out. As was pointed out in today's WSJ, everything is rationed: food, gasoline, cigarettes. It is just that these items are rationed by price. Food is critical for health and survival. Why aren't the liberals crying for the government to take that over too, top to bottom? Oh wait, that was tried. I think it was called the Soviet Union.

I am done with NPR after listening to this shameful piece. NPR has become just another mouthpiece for the lunatic rightwing bigots who want nothing more than to stifle this country and drag it back into the dark ages. Never have I been so ashamed to have given money to NPR. I hope you're happy NPR, you've really alienated a lot of people, and a whole lot of core listeners.

nice cut and paste, done