ABC’s new right-wing hack: Why a network is paying for Laura Ingraham’s vile racism

[DonViejo]

In apparent effort to counter non-existent "liberal media bias," here's what ABC News will get from Laura Ingraham

HEATHER DIGBY PARTON

It was once an article of faith among many Americans, including many members of the press, that the news media was a hotbed of left wing propaganda, so filled with liberal bias that one had to use a decoder ring to get the truth. There may have been a grain of truth in it during the early days of Camelot and perhaps in the immediate aftermath of Watergate, but for the most part the media has always shown a bias toward the establishment, regardless of which party or ideology is dominant at a particular time.

However, the modern conservative movement, believing as it does in the All American capitalist maxim “there’s a sucker born every minute” used this perceived bias as a political tactic, what wags called “working the refs,” wherein they would accuse the press of being liberal so often that reporters would second-guess themselves and bend over backwards to accommodate a more conservative viewpoint. Despite the rise of FOX News and hundreds of right wing talk show hosts dominating much of the airwaves, they are still able to convince mainstream news organizations that they are biased and lacking in authentic conservative voices. Recall a few years back when even the New York Times ostentatiously declared that it planned to devote significant resources to covering “the conservative beat” (which might have been just a bit more understandable if it hadn’t come immediately in the wake of its credulous reporting on the Bush administration’s push for war with Iraq.)

Nobody has been more of a vociferous critic of the news media’s alleged liberal bias than talk radio host and conservative commentator Laura Ingraham. Going all the way back to her years as a notorious campus activist making her name as a vicious homophobe (since partially recanted,) she has been hitting the mainstream media for its so-called liberal bias. This “Reliable Sources” exchange with E.J. Dionne from early 2003 is an amusing example of how the best of them get the job done:

more
http://www.salon.com/2014/04/15/abcs_new_right_wing_hack_why_a_network_is_paying_for_laura_ingrahams_vile_racism/

[agbdf]

1. In all fairness...

As someone who used to work with the mainstream media closely, I can tell you that the reporters and producers do tend to lean toward our side of thinking.

We have nothing to worry about a conservative being hired by ABC. We will win the day in the marketplace of ideas because we have better solutions to our nation's problems. We should welcome the debate with those holding different viewpoints. Showing a desire to prevent our opponents from entering that debate only makes it seem as though we fear losing the battle of ideas.

[SecularMotion]

2. That's what the right wing trolls keep telling us

[agbdf]

5. To the contrary

I don't believe people on the right or "Right Wing Trolls," as you put it, really want a fair and open debate. For them, having their ideas put up in the public square to withstand the scrutiny of debate is what they seem the fear most. Their preferred means of mass communication, talk radio and right wing internet sites, carefully weed out those who are able to effectively refute their propaganda.

[kysrsoze]

9. Unfortunately, people on the right think the media debate is WAY to the left... which it isn't

And they constantly howl about it. Then ABC goes and hires Laura Ingraham. This right-wing hack does not belong on a major "news" outlet. Period. She's nothing but a hack and only brings faux legitimacy to the right-wing base's positions on everything.

[agbdf]

13. I see it slightly different...but, I don't necessarily disagree

The problems Republicans have with the mainstream media is that those outlets occasionally show them for what they are and they get mad about it. After having their ideas collapse under the scrutiny of debate, they claim "liberal bias." I'm am not familiar with this person ABC hired but, I welcome her to the debate and look forward to her ideas getting discredited after having them aired and rebutted on the national stage. At the end of the day, I have unwavering faith in the American people to decide whose ideas are best for them.

[Boomerproud]

29. Has being mocked (rightly so) on SNL, Maher, the Daily Show, Colbert et al stopped them from being

the loons that they are? It only seems to have emboldened them and their like-minded simpletons. BTW, wasn't it ABC who produced and aired a 9/11 hit piece (movie) putting the blame on Clinton and his national security advisors. The people who were portrayed in that film were extremely upset about words put in their mouths that were never spoken etc. Did ABC care-no. I agree that the right does not want a fair and open debate, no matter the fact that it was they who coined the phrase "marketplace of ideas". They believe in ideology, not ideas. It's in their DNA. You can pass laws, but you cannot change peoples beliefs and hearts.

[Peregrine Took]

7. My thoughts exactly. When will their stations hire one hard left person as she is hard right?

Did you hear her rant about "roof sitters" after Katrina? What a total piece of excrement.

[Arugula Latte]

3. But the liberal viewpoint is rarely expressed on television.

Lead-up to the Iraq invasion was one of the most extreme examples of this, when dissent against the war was barely mentioned, or, if it was, was treated with derision, as if only members of the extreme fringe and hippie-anarchists were the only ones opposed.

[PeteSelman]

4. Personal beliefs don't matter.

Even if the reporters and producers do hold liberal views they still regurgitate corporate right wing talking points with regularity.

[agbdf]

6. I couldn't disagree more

I have always felt that the mainstream, network news outlets do a fair job in presenting both sides of the debate.

[kysrsoze]

8. Therein lies the problem. They don't report news. They serve as mouthpieces for party communications

There's very little reporting going on, and little, if any investigation. They just allow pollsters, operatives and "strategists" to spew their orchestrated talking points. This is precisely why 60 minutes now completely sucks.

Since when did debate = news?

[catbyte]

10. You're so right. If Watergate had happened now, it wouldn't have survived a 24 hour

news cycle on cable. Tragic for democracy and for all of us.

[Ron Green]

11. Both sides of the debate?

For me, "both sides" means transnational capitalism and Marxism. Which two sides are you talking about?

[agbdf]

12. Scope of debate

The mainstream media does not provide a forum for the serious discussion of Marxist viewpoints for the same reason that it doesn't allow a serious discussion to other extremist viewpoints - they are fringe ideologies which have very small numbers of adherents in this country. When Marxist, Libertarians or other extremists win measurable numbers of seats in the congress they will undoubtedly get more attention with respect to their viewpoints from the mainstream media.

[SalviaBlue]

15. Teabaggers are extremist libertarians.

They have won measurable numbers of seats in the congress.

[agbdf]

19. Teabaggers are not Libertarians

Libertarians are pro choice, pro legalization of all drugs and pro gay rights. These views are anathema to the Tea Baggers. The Tea Party - an all too polite name for the extreme right - are not supported even by most mainstream Republicans (that is why they often mount primary challenges) and are not, thankfully, portrayed in a positive light by the mainstream media.

[Rex]

21. Teabaggers are mostly libertarians, how funny that you don't know that.

Nice story about working in the media biz!

[SalviaBlue]

22. Are teabaggers more extreme than libertarians

... because if they are, your argument doesn't hold up.

>When Marxist, Libertarians or other extremists win measurable numbers of seats in the congress they will undoubtedly get more attention with respect to their viewpoints from the mainstream media.<

PS: I don't agree with your definition of Libertarian... they have morphed into "all government is evil" (in other words, Teabaggers).

[Rex]

17. Then explain Foxnews! You can't, can you!?

Corporate media loves Wall Street and D.C. - try as you might to spin it any other way.

[agbdf]

18. Yes

Our party, if you are a Democrat, gets more money from Wall Street than the Republicans. There is nothing wrong with this per se. George Soros is a titan in the financial world and still does much to help
Democratic candidates. This is a good thing.

As to FOX news, they are not a mainstream news outlet. They preach, primarily, to their own choir and can be best described as a form of conservative talk radio with moving images.

[Rex]

20. Wrong.

https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2013/01/wall-street-republicans.html

"The world of high finance -- with its wealthy elites keeping a sharp eye on the bottom line and their tax liabilities -- is often presumed to be the domain of Republicans.

In fact, though, that has been true only recently -- at least when it comes to campaign contributions. For many years, the financial world had no clear allegiances.

Center for Responsive Politics data shows that historically, Wall Street would send more of its campaign cash to one party and then swing back the other way. The gaps between the giving to each side were always fairly narrow.

That has changed. According to the latest Center for Responsive Politics analysis, there has been a defined shift in campaign giving by commercial banks and securities and investment firms , which now heavily favor Republican candidates."


Money always goes to whatever party is in power or whatever party Wall Street thinks it can get the best deal from. Nice Rwing meme you tired there, but it is wrong.

[agbdf]

23. Anger is not the answer

You can't go through life accusing everyone who happens to disagree with your viewpoint of being right wing.

I've spent most of my adult life helping to elected Democratic candidates into office in order to effectuate change. I am a proud Democrat and liberal. What I am not is some angry radical. I have to work for change in the world as it really is and not the way I, and perhaps you, would always prefer it to be.

[kysrsoze]

24. Completely untrue. Soros has dropped off the radar. His donations are a pittance in comparison

Fact is, you rarely ever see anything on DU about Soros, who publicly withdrew a lot of his support for the Democratic Party. Perhaps he didn't see much he liked about the Democratic Party lately. Either way, the only time we ever hear about Soros is when a right-winger brings up some false equivalency argument in response to a statement about campaign finance reform, disclosure legislation, Koch Bros., Citizens United, etc.

http://www.businessinsider.com/george-soros-2012-donations-2012-9

[SalviaBlue]

14. Mainstream = Corporate

The mainstream “news” is Corporate propaganda. They pretend to present both sides and unfortunately many, many people believe that they are being educated by them when they are really being misled. It is impossible to know both sides of a debate by watching Corporate (mainstream) sources.

[Notafraidtoo]

26. You are not a very good troll.

The main stream media are for profit corporations, the customers of these for profit corporations are other for profit corporations their advertisers. The main stream media's customers are not its viewers. Almost all For profit corporations are anti union, anti public services, anti consumer protection, anti regulation, anti fair trade.

Now I can see why you have a weird belief that being socially liberal is enough to make you a Democrat, I am sorry its not. The truth is for profit corporations are socially what ever the people are at the time in their consumer pool. If the majority of Americans are extremely racist , corporations will advertise and behave in that mater to attract customers. The social tide is changing so corporations are acting accordingly, doesn't make them liberal.

More money from wall street does not go to Democrats, try again troll.

[Tom Ripley]

27. +1000

[agbdf]

28. Pathetic

I stand by my statement and hope we are able to extract more money from Wall Street. And by the way, I have been active in Democratic politics for many years.

You remind me of Right Wingers during the Cold War who saw communists boogie men under every bed. So, if you want to label everyone who doesn't agree with your radical beliefs a "troll," fine with me but that still doesn't change the facts.

[Rex]

16. Corporate media is the lapdog of Wall Street. How many liberal anchors have their been?

And I mean just on ABC/NBC/CBS over the years? Yeah...maybe one or two. The rest are all corporate spokespersons. The only news I expect from them is anything that helps the State and their owners. The 1%ers.

[JI7]

25. ABC still has a news department(outside of local news) ?

does all the porn crap they show on nightline count as news ?