Not sure why I am receiving this stuff, but I will pass it on.
Showing posts with label inequality. Show all posts
Showing posts with label inequality. Show all posts
09 March 2010
The US media are as liberal as the corporations which own them.
I have been saying that NPR is a commercial media outlet and pretty right wing these days. The commercial accusation comes from the fact that the conservatives have worked to ensure that no public funding is used for public broadcasting (which includes the The Corporation for Public Broadcasting). Thus US Public Broadcasting resorts to extort-a-thons and corporate "underwriting", which is a fancy word for commericals. Corporations can pull their "underwriting" if the media decide to publish something contrary to the corporation's interests. Likewise, it seems that the Cato Institute is dictating NPR's editorial policy.
Anyway, FAIR had Steve Rendall 5 Mar 10 blog post: Progressive History on the Public Airwaves: U.S. vs. U.K. from 03/05/2010 which confirms that my suspicions may not be too far off.
Going to the NPR Finds Right-Wing Crank to Spit on Zinn's Grave: David Horowitz in ATC obituary with substance-free attack post makes the request for action that people ask "why All Things Considered brought on David Horowitz to trash the late Howard Zinn when NPR's extensive coverage of William F. Buckley included no critical guests?"
NPR's coverage has become very right wing as of late, which is part of the reason I posted the Coffee Party info. It seems to me that the US MSM is far too fixated upon the "Tea Party Movement" which is obviously astro-turf.
On the other hand, I watch the BBC and see stories about the Rich-Poor gap in Britain. There is the work Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett which posits that that there is one common factor that links the healthiest and happiest societies: the degree of equality among their citizens: not wealth,resources, culture, climate, diet, or system of government. Furthermore, more-unequal societies are bad for almost everyone within them—the well-off as well as the poor.
In the US, health care isn't considered a right, yet owning a deadly weapon is. Hardly anyone seems to be challenging this idiocy beyond FAIR (How the NRA Rewrote the Constitution and Gun Control, the NRA and the Second Amendment). Where is the screaming about healthcare other than the astroturf tea party movement?
Again, I have to recommend the Wisconsin AFL-CIO's reports on the Right Wing movement.
Anyway, why aren't the US MSM asking the same questions that the BBC and FAIR ask? Where are the media who will ask the questions and post the news that people need to hear?
Anyway, FAIR had Steve Rendall 5 Mar 10 blog post: Progressive History on the Public Airwaves: U.S. vs. U.K. from 03/05/2010 which confirms that my suspicions may not be too far off.
Yesterday marked the 25th anniversary of the end of the historic British miners strike of 1984-85. The BBC has a special broadcast in commemoration, The Ballad of the Miners Strike, featuring the voices of miners.
But where can Americans turn for commemorations of our progressive history? There is always Howard Zinn's excellent book, A People's History of the United States. But turn on NPR, the closest thing the U.S. has to the BBC, and the closest you'll get to the people's history is the denunciation of Zinn.
Going to the NPR Finds Right-Wing Crank to Spit on Zinn's Grave: David Horowitz in ATC obituary with substance-free attack post makes the request for action that people ask "why All Things Considered brought on David Horowitz to trash the late Howard Zinn when NPR's extensive coverage of William F. Buckley included no critical guests?"
NPR's coverage has become very right wing as of late, which is part of the reason I posted the Coffee Party info. It seems to me that the US MSM is far too fixated upon the "Tea Party Movement" which is obviously astro-turf.
On the other hand, I watch the BBC and see stories about the Rich-Poor gap in Britain. There is the work Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett which posits that that there is one common factor that links the healthiest and happiest societies: the degree of equality among their citizens: not wealth,resources, culture, climate, diet, or system of government. Furthermore, more-unequal societies are bad for almost everyone within them—the well-off as well as the poor.
In the US, health care isn't considered a right, yet owning a deadly weapon is. Hardly anyone seems to be challenging this idiocy beyond FAIR (How the NRA Rewrote the Constitution and Gun Control, the NRA and the Second Amendment). Where is the screaming about healthcare other than the astroturf tea party movement?
Again, I have to recommend the Wisconsin AFL-CIO's reports on the Right Wing movement.
Anyway, why aren't the US MSM asking the same questions that the BBC and FAIR ask? Where are the media who will ask the questions and post the news that people need to hear?
28 January 2010
Inequality: The Rich-Poor Divide
It's interesting listening to Americans (citizens of the USA) describe themselves as far as class alliance goes since what is called working class in other countries can be called "middle class" in the States. I think of middle class as those who fall socioeconomically between the working class and upper class. In the United States more people identified themselves as middle class than as lower or "working" class (with insignificant numbers identifying themselves as upper class).
These are trait which I see as being Middle Class:
--Achievement of University education.
--Holding professional qualifications, including academics, lawyers, engineers, politicians and doctors regardless of their leisure or wealth.
--Belief in bourgeois values, such as high rates of house ownership and jobs which are perceived to be "secure."
What brings this about is that there was a story on the News last night about the Rich-Poor gap in Britain. The BBC also has this story on its website as well as Lord Heseltine and Phil Woolas discussing the rich-poor gap.
Oddly enough, I have yet to see similar stories on the US Media outlets. In fact, I find it rather interesting that the US is having so many problems with implementing health care, and has had for nearly a century. Also, I wonder where the US falls in this chart of inequality: above or below the United Kingdom?
Oddly enough, I have a feeling that the US is more unequal than the UK, but can't confirm this. It's nice that the US electorate can be so easily distracted by wedge issues. Even more interesting that the Right can exploit single issues and manipulates religious faith to direct workers into voting for candidates who are a threat to their economic interests.
What I like is the ending comment that the policies needed to address inequality "will always be controversial since they mean neutralising the advantages of wealth. A prospect that those with money and influence will fight hard against."
These are trait which I see as being Middle Class:
--Achievement of University education.
--Holding professional qualifications, including academics, lawyers, engineers, politicians and doctors regardless of their leisure or wealth.
--Belief in bourgeois values, such as high rates of house ownership and jobs which are perceived to be "secure."
What brings this about is that there was a story on the News last night about the Rich-Poor gap in Britain. The BBC also has this story on its website as well as Lord Heseltine and Phil Woolas discussing the rich-poor gap.
Oddly enough, I have yet to see similar stories on the US Media outlets. In fact, I find it rather interesting that the US is having so many problems with implementing health care, and has had for nearly a century. Also, I wonder where the US falls in this chart of inequality: above or below the United Kingdom?
Oddly enough, I have a feeling that the US is more unequal than the UK, but can't confirm this. It's nice that the US electorate can be so easily distracted by wedge issues. Even more interesting that the Right can exploit single issues and manipulates religious faith to direct workers into voting for candidates who are a threat to their economic interests.
What I like is the ending comment that the policies needed to address inequality "will always be controversial since they mean neutralising the advantages of wealth. A prospect that those with money and influence will fight hard against."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
