Sunlight Seeker
Look up national or state donors or check where your Congresspeople are getting their money.
| July 2005 |
| Sun |
Mon |
Tue |
Wed |
Thu |
Fri |
Sat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
2
|
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
|
31
|
Liz Eisen - Sat 11 Oct 2008 10:12 AM CDT
Tojo8817 - Fri 03 Oct 2008 08:35 PM CDT
Marilyn Walker - Fri 03 Oct 2008 12:51 PM CDT
Brent - Mon 29 Sep 2008 02:55 PM CDT
audiored - Sat 27 Sep 2008 10:34 PM CDT
|
Saturday, July 30
Five Minutes with Stephen Colbert of Comedy Central's The Daily Show
by
Linda Thieman
on Sat 30 Jul 2005 11:00 AM CDT
 Five Minutes with Stephen Colbert of Comedy Central's The Daily Show
by Elana Berkowitz and Amy Schiller, CampusProgress.org
As
one of America’s finest voices in fake news reporting, Stephen
Colbert’s straight guy blue suit, arched eyebrows and deadpan
seriousness have become highlights of Comedy Central’s “The Daily
Show,” where he is the senior correspondent. As cable news increasingly
becomes a sad parody of itself, “The Daily Show,” an actual parody
show, remains profoundly funny and totally relevant.
CP:
When you were developing your super straight guy look and sound, which
actual media personalities did you model yourself after?
SC:
... [In] terms of who I channel, my natural inclination was Stone
Phillips, who has the greatest neck in journalism. And he’s got the
most amazingly severe head tilt at the end of tragic statements, like
“there were no…survivors.” He just tilts his head a bit on that
“survivors” as if to say “It’s true. It’s sad. There were none.”
...And then I also used Geraldo Rivera, because he’s got this great
sense of mission. He just thinks he’s gonna change the world with this
report. He’s got that early seventies hip trench coat “busting this
thing wide open” look going on. So those two guys.
CP:
You do “This Week in God.” Which is one of our favorite segments.
You’re from a South Carolinian religious family and you are a
church-goer yourself. Why did you choose to focus so heavily on
religion right now?
SC:
We used to do This Week in God only once a month, but if there was room
on the show we could do it every week! There is so much religion in
public life. It has become acceptable for court decisions to be based
on the Gospel. There’s so much religion in public life, it’s a
religious pandemic. It’s everywhere. It’s not a needle in a haystack.
We throw away stories every week. I know we’re not a secular state like
France which has it in their constitution, but boy I wish our founding
fathers had been at little clearer in that First Amendment.
CP:
How do you keep finding people to interview on “The Daily Show” who
either don’t know the interview is satirical or are willing to play
along?
SC:
Everyone knows what the show is at this point, but they don’t
understand where we’re going with the conversation. I talk to them for
hours and you’re seeing the 3-4 questions that are important to my
segment. They don’t necessarily perceive a 3 minute edit out of a 3
hour conversation. I don’t make a big deal out of being funny, and then
we do our best to bring ‘em back alive in editing.
(Click here to read the complete article.)
Sunday, July 24
Counterpoint Extra: Introducing the "Hyman Index"
by
Trish Nelson
on Sun 24 Jul 2005 04:00 AM CDT
Counterpoint Extra: Introducing the "Hyman Index"
The rational counter to "The Point," "The Counterpoint"
critiques and corrects the daily editorial by Sinclair Broadcasting's corporate
vice president, Mark Hyman, that is broadcast on all Sinclair-owned television
stations across the country.
by Ted Remington
In previous installments of “The Counterpoint,” we’ve seen
examples of how Mark Hyman often uses propaganda techniques to make his
arguments. Given the central role these tactics play in his rhetoric, I thought
it helpful to come up with a way of A) pointing out that nearly every edition
of “The Point” makes use of standard propaganda techniques, and B) comparing
individual “Point” commentaries to each other in terms of how much they rely on
propaganda techniques.
The result is what I’m calling the Hyman Index.
The basic formula is to count up the number of statements in
a given commentary that are examples of propaganda techniques (P) and divide
this number by the length of the commentary in words (W), not counting the
obligatory signoff (i.e., “And that’s The Point.”). The result is then
multiplied by 100 and rounded to the nearest one hundredth (P/W * 100).
This allows us to get a fairly objective read on how much of
the content of a given commentary is devoted to propagandistic appeals.
The major variable is what one counts as propaganda
techniques. There are any number of lists of emotional appeals and examples of
misleading or faulty logic that we could use. I think the best approach,
however, is to keep things simple. In my count, I’m using the list drawn up in
the 1930s by the Institute of Propaganda
Analysis. Their list of different types of
appeals is fairly short, and some might argue that the categories are overly
broad as a result. However, I think using an abbreviated list will make things
easier to understand and will allow us to more easily discriminate between
persuasive appeals and true propaganda (some lists of propaganda techniques are
so vast and detailed that almost any statement more subjective than a
mathematical equation would fall under one of the categories).
The IPA list is as follows:
Word Games
Name-calling
Glittering generalities
Euphemisms
False connections
Transfer
Testimonial
Special Appeals
Plain Folks
Bandwagon
Fear
Logical fallacies
Bad Logic or propaganda?
Unwarranted extrapolation
For our purposes, logical fallacies will include fairly
standard examples of bad logic, such as post hoc reasoning and “slippery slope”
arguments.
So let’s see the Hyman index in action! Here’s the text of a
“Point” commentary from a week ago that I didn’t comment on at the time because
it was taken off of the Newscentral website, then suddenly reappeared. I’ve
placed the names of propaganda appeals in brackets after the relevant statements.
I’ve tried to be as generous as I can with Hyman’s rhetoric; you might feel I’m
being a bit stingy in what I’m labeling propaganda. You might also not agree
with my particular label, given that the IPA categories are broad enough that
there is bound to be some overlap. However, I’ve tried to be as reasonable and
careful as I can in making my calls.
Earlier this month the Portland,
Maine School Committee adopted a policy
that advocates discrimination. [NAME CALLING]
The committee voted 6-3 to direct its lawyer to rewrite the
policy regarding the distribution of fliers to students. Their intention is to
ban Boy Scouts literature. The reason? The Boy Scouts do not allow openly
homosexual Scouts or leaders. The city of Portland has an ordinance banning discrimination based on sexual orientation.
You know those nasty old Boy Scouts. They've been the
scourge of American society for years. [PLAIN FOLKS]
So what's next? Banning evangelical Christian, Catholic and
Muslim students because of their religious views on sexual orientation? Will
servicemen and women family members be banned from attending school functions
because of the military's policies? [UNWARRANTED EXTRAPOLATION]
The city's website proudly displays a colorful boast that
"Portland [is] where diversity
works." But this is code meaning that only a narrow set of views are
accepted. [NAME CALLING] Fail to embrace them and you are banished forever.
[FEAR]
You don't have to agree with the Boy Scouts' policy on the
exclusion of openly homosexual Scouts and leaders to recognize theirs is but
one viewpoint. In other words diversity. [BANDWAGON]
The irony is that tailoring a policy to ban certain groups -
groups such as the Boy Scouts that have accomplished more good than most - is
just an officially sanctioned form of discrimination. [NAME CALLING]
You can share your views with the Portland School Committee
at (207) 874-8100 or at superintendent@portlandschools.org.
Dividing the number of propagandistic appeals Hyman uses (7)
by the number of total words in the commentary, multiplying by 100, and then
rounding to the hundredths place, we get a Hyman Index of 2.98. After doing a
number of test runs on other editions of the commentary, this seems to be about
average (the range being from about 1.5 to 4.5).
I’ll include a Hyman Index, whenever applicable, to future
Counterpoints and comment on them when they reveal something particularly interesting.
(Source)
Sunday, July 17
The Spin Cycle: Countering The Bush Disinformation Machine With The Truth
by
Trish Nelson
on Sun 17 Jul 2005 05:00 AM CDT
 The Spin Cycle: Countering The Bush Disinformation Machine With The Truth
OpEdNews.com
by Anthony Wade
The GOP-bought disinformation spin machine is in hyperdrive
right now over the Valerie Plame Treasongate so it is crucial that we all keep
focused and remember the salient points, lest we get confused with the smoke
and mirrors being brought out to distract and confound. These are the facts.
1) Under section 421 of the Intelligence Identities
Protection Act, the disclosure of “ANY INFORMATION identifying a covert agent”
is illegal.
2) In the released Cooper email, it is quite clear that Karl
Rove stated that Joseph Wilson’s wife was an agent working for the CIA on WMD.
The rest of [what] you are hearing is nothing but
window dressing to distract you from these two facts.
Now to the spin:
Spin-Cycle # 1 – Valerie Plame was not covert.
This is rapidly becoming a favorite of the noise machine.
They have trotted out such proof that Joe Wilson actually went out in public
with his wife. Their evidence also now includes that Valerie Plame commuted to
work. Wow. Let us clarify for the truly dense. The accusation is not that Karl
Rove let a reporter know that Joe Wilson had a wife, but that his wife was an
UNDERCOVER AGENT! The fact of the matter is Valerie Plame most definitely WAS a
covert operative, as detailed here by someone who went to spy school with her.
As Mr. Johnson points out, Ms. Plame was a non-official
cover agent, or a NOC. Anyone who saw the Mission Impossible movie with Tom
Cruise will remember that the “NOC List” was the subject of the plot, where
Cruise was trying to keep this secret information out of the hands of the bad
guys. Too bad Karl Rove apparently missed the movie.
Spin-Cycle # 2 – Karl Rove never leaked her name.
This one is designed to sound so simplistic that people
might walk away in disbelief, not realizing they just got snookered. Referring
back to the law that was violated, her name does not have to be leaked, only
“ANY INFORMATION identifying a covert agent”. I think it is reasonable to say
that Rove certainly identified Ms. Plame, specifically as an agent for the CIA.
The fact is that this should not be a surprise. In 1992, Karl
Rove was dismissed from the re-election campaign of George H. W. Bush because
he was caught leaking information intended to smear a political opponent to a
national columnist. That national columnist was Robert Novak.
(click here to read about spin cycles #3 - #10).
 There will be a meeting with Congressman Jim Leach and members of Iowans for Better Local TV (IBLTV) on Monday, July 18 from 9:00 am to 10:00 am at the Iowa City Public Library, Meeting Room B.
There will be presentations by IBLTV members followed by some remarks by Congresman Leach, and then a brief Q & A period.
The event is open to the public.
Click here to
join Iowans for Better Local
TV (IBLTV)
Saturday, July 16
Supreme Court: Democrats Hope For Not Crazy
by
Trish Nelson
on Sat 16 Jul 2005 01:14 PM CDT
 Supreme Court: Democrats Hope For Not Crazy
MinutemanMedia
by Donald Kaul
You know that liberalism in this country is at low ebb when
liberals go around mourning the loss of Sandra Day O’Connor on the Supreme
Court.
Not that Justice O’Connor was so awful. She was the deciding
vote in cases that upheld a woman’s right to abortion, ruled prayer at high
school graduations unconstitutional, struck down Nebraska’s ban on “partial
birth abortions,” upheld the use of race as a “plus factor” in college
admissions and held that the display of the Ten Commandments on courthouse
walls was unconstitutional. All of these are more or less the liberal position.
But let’s get real. She was a conservative. During her
nearly 24 years on the Court she voted with Chief Justice William Rehnquist
about 70 percent of the time in cases that were not unanimously decided. In
decisions that made conservatives hearts go pitty-pat she was the key vote in
upholding the use of publicly-financed vouchers for religious school tuition,
rejecting a constitutional basis for gay rights, allowing the Boy Scouts of America
to exclude homosexuals, striking down the Gun-Free Schools Zones Act and
refusing to rule that the death penalty was racially discriminatory.
And, most egregiously, she sided with the conservative (and
Republican) majority on the Court in stopping the Florida
recount in 2000, thereby handing the election to George W. Bush. It was one of
the Court’s worst decisions in recent decades, not quite up there with Dred
Scott (the one that, in effect, made the Civil War inevitable) but close.
Moreover, it violated the principles that members of the
conservative Court majority had espoused for years: a strict, narrow reading of
the Constitution and a bias toward federal deference to state authority.
Instead of leaving the Florida recount to be fought out by
the state Supreme Court and legislature, as the federalist principles they held
in such high regard demanded, the Supremes moved in and gave the game to Mr.
Bush.
How bad was the decision? So bad that no one in the majority
had the nerve to sign it. It also contained the proviso that it should not be
considered a precedent for any subsequent case. That bad.
Still and all, it can be said of Ms. O’Connor that she was
truly a remarkable woman. She graduated third in her class at Stanford law
school (not chopped liver) but was unable to get a high profile clerkship or a
job with a prestigious law firm because, well, she was a woman.
So, she got married, raised a family, entered public life
and became the majority leader of the Arizona Senate, the first woman in the nation
to hold such a post. She was appointed to the state appeals court by a
Democrat, then to the Supreme Court by Ronald Reagan as our first woman
Justice.
Her main strength, and one that argues for diversity on the
court, was that she brought to the Court the unique perspective of someone who
had been discriminated against because of her gender, yet one whose eventual
rise owed a great deal to affirmative action. (No Justice before her, all men,
had come to the court carrying such modest judicial credentials.) Both sides of
that seemingly contradictory personal history are reflected in her decisions.
And now liberals are sorry to see her go because they know
her successor will be much, much worse.
The name of Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez has
been put forward as a candidate and already right wing groups are forming
torchlight parades to protest his consideration because he isn’t conservative
enough.
Meanwhile, Democrats are forming ranks for a bloody battle
but the best they can hope for is a nominee who is very conservative but not
crazy. Federal Appeals Court Judge Harvey Wilkinson III would fill that bill,
but don’t hold your breath. The radical right likes crazy.
Fasten your seat belts, folks. It’s going to be a bumpy
ride.
________
Donald Kaul recently retired as Washington
columnist for the “Des Moines Register.” He has covered the foolishness in our
nation’s capital for 29 years, winning a number of modestly coveted awards
along the way. His column can be found weekly at MinutemanMedia.Org.
Join these Iowa Media
Reform groups:
 Click here to receive action alerts from
Rapid Response - Iowa
Click here to
join Iowans for Better Local
TV (IBLTV)
Friday, July 15
The Glass Ceiling and Iowa Politics
by
Linda Thieman
on Fri 15 Jul 2005 02:19 PM CDT
 The Glass Ceiling and Iowa Politics
by Megan Strader, Mason City, Iowa (KIMT)
[Blog for Iowa editorial comments appear in RED.]
Iowa has
a reputation as a political powerhouse. That's mostly due to being the
host of the nation's first Presidential Caucus. And that distinction is
one reason why some local female lawmakers are surprised that the state
has never seen a female governor or elected a woman to the US House or
Senate.
Iowa Senator Amanda Ragan tells KIMT Newschannel Three, "They [they?] have just as good of a grasp on issues, health care, education and jobs. I mean, there's nothing that women can't do." [Except *** standing up, which is of course, why women are not qualified to hold high office in Iowa.]
The same thought is echoing through the thoughts of other women who help shape our state.
Iowa
Representative Linda Upmeyer adds, "Ideally you'd like to have about
the same balance you have in the general population which would be
around half." [Yeah, and Bush will be impeached for treason before Iowa will see THAT kind of balance of power.]
And the
shock of the statistic isn't only being felt by lawmakers. We talked to
many people in the area today and all had the same thing to say; they
can't believe Iowa has never produced a high ranking female politician.
[No, but we can produce a DLC chair - don't forget that little claim to shame.]
Richard
Paxson tells KIMT Newschannel Three, "I think we have a strong
tradition in Iowa of valuing contributions from persons regardless of
whether they're male or female." [But especially if they're male.]
Bonnie
Ames adds, "We have some very competent women in the lower government
offices and we really need women to run for these [higher]
offices." [Well,
you know, over here in the "Great" 5th District, we had a fabulous
woman by the name of Joyce Schulte run for Congress against that
shameful, embarrassing neo-con, Steve King. Joyce is completely
qualified and is a great people person to boot . . . and the
"man" still won.]
But everyone we spoke with is also confident that an Iowa woman will eventually get her turn. [When?
In 2050? I'll bet Hillary will be president before Iowa gets a
woman in Washington. That's sort of like hell freezing over,
isn't it?]
Senator
Ragan notes, "I think that if a lot of women could see that they can
make a difference, they would make that step." [I
think a lot of women ARE making a difference - it's just not in the
cushy, good-paying, high-profile jobs. It's in the jobs
where the work actually gets done, as usual.]
A step in a politically progressive direction. [Sigh.]
(Click here to read the source article.)
Saturday, July 9
The Counterpoint Translates 'Hymanspeak'
by
Trish Nelson
on Sat 09 Jul 2005 07:49 AM CDT
The Counterpoint Translates 'Hymanspeak'
The rational counter to "The Point," "The Counterpoint"
critiques and corrects the daily editorial by Sinclair Broadcasting's corporate
vice president, Mark Hyman, that is broadcast on all Sinclair-owned television
stations across the country.
by Iowa's Ted Remington
Hyman
loves to try to portray progressives and liberals as hypocrites by
accusing them of participating in exactly the same sorts of
narrow-mindedness they criticize in conservatism. Hyman’s latest
attempt is his explanation of what he terms “euphemisms” of the left.
Through his bizarre definitions, he charges liberals with being racist,
anti-Semitic, and intolerant. (Paging Dr. Freud . . . Doctor Sigmund
Freud . . . A severe case of projection in Baltimore, Maryland.)
Hyman
offers no examples of anyone using these terms in the euphemistic way
he claims they are. I can’t say that I know anyone who defines these
words the way Hyman does, either. I won’t speak for others, but below
I’ve described what I mean when I use the phrases Hyman defines.
Afterward, I offer a list of terms culled from nearly a year of
Counterpoints that are tried and true examples of Hymanspeak and
offered translations for you English speakers out there.
Affirmative
Action: policies that attempt to provide a level playing field by
counteracting hundreds of years of discrimination that artificially
kept talented and motivated people from realizing their full potential.
Neoconservative:
a politician, government official, or public intellectual who believes,
among other things, that democracy is best spread through unilateral
military action and that the U.S. should ignore its commitments to
other countries when they seem bothersome.
Diversity:
The range of experiences, beliefs, and personal backgrounds that has
led the United States to be the most culturally vibrant nation in the
world.
Tolerance:
Accepting the right of others to be who they are, including the right
to be bigoted; does not include the right to openly discriminate
against others on the basis of that bigotry.
Undocumented
immigrants: people who entered the U.S. illegally, but who are not
themselves “illegal.” Actions can be illegal; individual people are not.
Patriotism:
love of the ideals and people of your nation without respect to
specific policies of those currently in power; OR willingness to speak
and act in the best interest of your country even if it contradicts the
positions of those in power.
Hymanspeak to English Translations
War on Terror: Preemptive invasion of Iraq (which, by the way, had no ties to 9/11, Osama bin Laden, or al-Qaeda).
Non-partisan: conservative
Partisan: reporting facts that conservatives would rather you not know about
Flat tax: work tax in which working people bear the greatest tax burden
Sales tax: consumption tax in which working people bear the greatest tax burden
Tax simplification: making the tax system more regressive
Middle class: those making over $100,000
Immigrant: brown person
Terrorist: brown person with a gun (or, sometimes, just a brown person)
Liberal: anyone who disagrees with Hyman
“Hate America crowd”: anyone who disagrees with Hyman
“The Angry left”: anyone who disagrees with Hyman
Communists: anyone who disagrees with Hyman
Whack-jobs: anyone who disagrees with Hyman
Elite: People with education and/or money who aren't conservatives.
Cheese Eating Surrender Monkeys: The people who saved our bacon in the American Revolution and gave us the Statue of Liberty.
Liberal
media: the corporate owned media controlled by a handful of giant
conglomerations and run by those with a vested interest in maintaining
the status quo and pursuing a conservative economic agenda.
Local news: Prefabricated news from Sinclair headquarters in Baltimore
News: Partisan propaganda (when applied to “Stolen Honor”)
Disgruntled Employee: Principled employee (Jon Lieberman)
Tolerance: allowing the majority’s opinions and values to trump those of the minority
Supporting the troops: supporting the Bush administration, even when its actions harm the soldiers and help the terrorists
Supporting
the terrorists: criticizing the Bush administration, even when its
actions hurt the soldiers and help the terrorists; OR reporting news
stories that suggest anything is less than hunky-dory in Iraq
Dishonoring the troops: Honoring the troops
Koppelgate:
Sinclairgate—Sinclair’s decision to order its ABC stations not to run
the episode of Nightline honoring troops that died in Iraq which
prompted condemnation from Democrats, Republicans, families of the
troops, Sinclair’s own viewers, etc.
Public Interest: the interest of the Bush administration and/or Sinclair Broadcasting
Maryland
Governor Bob Ehrlich: longtime friend to Sinclair Broadcasting, former
employer of Mark Hyman when he was a Representative, receiver of
illegal campaign contributions from Sinclair Broadcasting executives,
and unethical lobbyist for deregulation of broadcast ownership rules
that benefit Sinclair.
Academia:
college teachers of courses in the humanities and some social sciences
(although not the hard sciences, economics, business, engineering,
etc.) who teach critical thinking skills, present students with new
ideas, and prompt them to self-reflection
Fringe thinker: yours truly, along with anyone else who disagrees with Hyman
And that's The Counterpoint.
You can
experience "The Point" by tuning in to your "local" evening "news" program on
KGAN-TV Channel 2 in eastern Iowa or KDSM Channel 17 in the Des Moines/Ames
area.
Mark
Hyman
Join these Iowa Media Reform groups:
|
|
