US Social Forum

[Love As Arson]

We’re on the road in Detroit, where more than 10,000 people from across the country and the world marched here yesterday to kick off the opening ceremony of the US Social Forum. The colorful, joyous, sometimes raucous procession down Detroit’s Woodward Avenue included social movements and community organizations struggling for justice on everything from healthcare, the environment, fair trade, labor solidarity, immigrant rights and racial profiling to Palestine solidarity, ending the wars, police brutality, and the devastating impact of the recession on people’s lives and sense of security. After nearly two hours of walking, chanting and dancing in the blazing summer heat, an estimated crowd of over 10,000 arrived at Cobo Hall, the headquarters of the Social Forum activities this week
http://www.democracynow.org/2010/6/23/over_10_000_march_in_detroit

Imagine if this received the same kind of coverage the people in the Tea Party did.

[loveisdead]

We could only hope.

[Theseventhson]

We could only hope.

qft

[Scrawns]

the tea baggers got mad coverage because they are stupid as hell. the media hates people who gather for the cause of good.

[Machu505]

Why would Fox News, a channel owned by the multi-billion dollar News Corporation, report on a movement suggesting alternatives to capitalism? Or CNN, owned by Turner? Or MSNBC, owned by GE? Or ABC, owned by Disney?

[caveBEAR]

qft

Is your name different or do I really need to lay off the bottle?

[ghostyouare]

the tea baggers got mad coverage because they are stupid as hell. the media hates people who gather for the cause of good.
Nope but nice try.

[Scrawns]

Nope but nice try.

no really, the tea baggers are stupid as hell.

[loveisdead]

no really, the tea baggers are stupid as hell.

It's not fair to blanket them as such.

[saysmydoctor]

I'd argue corporate funding made the tea party legitimate, if anything.

[ghostyouare]

no really, the tea baggers are stupid as hell.
I'm down with that, it's just not why they get publicity.

[Theseventhson]

Is your name different or do I really need to lay off the bottle?

No, I used to be tytygood.

[Zeran]

http://www.democracynow.org/2010/6/23/over_10_000_march_in_detroit

Imagine if this received the same kind of coverage the people in the Tea Party did.

it won't simply because fox news wouldn't endorse them.

[Zeran]

Why would Fox News, a channel owned by the multi-billion dollar News Corporation, report on a movement suggesting alternatives to capitalism? Or CNN, owned by Turner? Or MSNBC, owned by GE? Or ABC, owned by Disney?

good point.

[InTheatersNow]

http://preaprez.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/gun-to-head.jpg

[bridgeofeldin]

there isn't a strong enough media outlet for the left. msnbc is as left as it gets on television

[caveBEAR]

there isn't a strong enough media outlet for the left. the daily show/the colbert report is as left as it gets on television

Fixed.

[bridgeofeldin]

Fixed.

Haha yeah, I can agree with that actually. But comedy central isn't a news network, and if the left wants to be taken seriously, they need an outlet that can propose debate without the "we're just dumb reporters" shtick over and over again

[caveBEAR]

Haha yeah, I can agree with that actually. But comedy central isn't a news network, and if the left wants to be taken seriously, they need an outlet that can propose debate without the "we're just dumb reporters" shtick over and over again

The Daily Show and Colbert Report is less 'dumb reporters' and more satire on the state of journalism in our country. It's fucked when they can just play a clip from one of the main networks, have Stewart make an 'are you kidding me' face, and it shows how shitty all the 24 hour news networks are.

That bitch from Fox and Friends comparing their job to the Presidency from last night's episode was golden.

[bridgeofeldin]

The Daily Show and Colbert Report is less 'dumb reporters' and more satire on the state of journalism in our country. It's fucked when they can just play a clip from one of the main networks, have Stewart make an 'are you kidding me' face, and it shows how shitty all the 24 hour news networks are.

That bitch from Fox and Friends comparing their job to the Presidency from last night's episode was golden.

Didn't see it, but I'll check it out. I loved the bit the Daily Show did a few weeks back when they ripped on Fox News for using the atomic summit logo

http://liberalvaluesblog.com/2010/04/17/jon-stewart-shows-that-if-obama-is-a-muslim-fox-news-supports-nazis/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+liberalvaluesb log%2FMjjM+%28Liberal+Values%29

2:00 ^ mark roughly

[caveBEAR]

Didn't see it, but I'll check it out. I loved the bit the Daily Show did a few weeks back when they ripped on Fox News for using the atomic summit logo

http://liberalvaluesblog.com/2010/04/17/jon-stewart-shows-that-if-obama-is-a-muslim-fox-news-supports-nazis/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+liberalvaluesb log%2FMjjM+%28Liberal+Values%29

2:00 ^ mark roughly

That was the one where they made the FoxNEWS logo look like the Nazi propaganda, right?

[David87]

Stewart and Colbert are both clearly liberal, but to call their shows far left is laughable. They mock everything politics and news coverage of that politics.

[caveBEAR]

Stewart and Colbert are both clearly liberal, but to call their shows far left is laughable. They mock everything politics and news coverage of that politics.

No one called them 'far left'. We said that they were as left as it gets on television.

[bridgeofeldin]

That was the one where they made the FoxNEWS logo look like the Nazi propaganda, right?

haha yeah, Stewart's point that Fox News doesn't professionally report because "maybe their telephones don't work" was so funny. You're right though, it's sad that a parody news show does better reporting then the most popular American news network does

[caveBEAR]

haha yeah, Stewart's point that Fox News doesn't professionally report because "maybe their telephones don't work" was so funny. You're right though, it's sad that a parody news show does better reporting then the most popular American news network does

I'd say it's less 'sad' and more 'downright fucking scary'.

[<*)))><]

Don't we already have a John Stewart thread?

[0s0]

I know alot of sentiments here are aimed at the Tea Party - and personally I disagree with the Tea Party. But as a believer that democracy is best propagated with opposing views [thus leading to synthesis of both ideals], I feel that the Tea Party undermines conventional movements because it once was a legitimate group of people trying to perpetuate a grassroots effort. Unfortunately the powers that be took notice that the Tea Party was gaining attention due to the sentiments of a percentage of the American populace, and soon government officials saw an opportunity to "adopt" the group's beliefs. As a result, you see many politicians [who tend to Conservative/Republican] suddenly supporting the group, edifying that the Tea Party "reflects" America's general view of Obama/Democrats/Liberalism. And what power-hungry politician wouldn't jump at the chance to basically "support" a ready-made movement? The point being, the Tea Party's message of political centrism has been polarized by - for example - Sarah Plain, when the truth of the matter is that a majority of people who were there at the Tea Party's inception generally disagree with having politicians run the group.

[caveBEAR]

Don't we already have a John Stewart thread?

Don't we already have enough people not adding anything of value to the topic at hand?

[caveBEAR]

I know alot of sentiments here are aimed at the Tea Party - and personally I disagree with the Tea Party. But as a believer that democracy is best propagated with opposing views [thus leading to synthesis of both ideals], I feel that the Tea Party undermines conventional movements because it once was a legitimate group of people trying to perpetuate a grassroots effort. Unfortunately the powers that be took notice that the Tea Party was gaining attention due to the sentiments of a percentage of the American populace, and soon government officials saw an opportunity to "adopt" the group's beliefs. As a result, you see many politicians [who tend to Conservative/Republican] suddenly supporting the group, edifying that the Tea Party "reflects" America's general view of Obama/Democrats/Liberalism. And what power-hungry politician wouldn't jump at the chance to basically "support" a ready-made movement? The point being, the Tea Party's message of political centrism has been polarized by - for example - Sarah Plain, when the truth of the matter is that a majority of people who were there at the Tea Party's inception generally disagree with having politicians run the group.

The Tea Party was never for 'political centrism'. It has always been a right leaning group from it's inception of 'Taxed Enough Already'. Calling your group centrist =/= being centrist.

[<*)))><]

Don't we already have enough people not adding anything of value to the topic at hand?

Sorry it only has value if it is bold right?

[0s0]

Calling your group centrist =/= being centrist.

This.

I meant that Palin's recent comments about being centrist are altering the group's direction. Mi mal.

[caveBEAR]

Sorry it only has value if it is bold right?

No, it generally has value when there's a point behind the post besides 'their talking about the daily show, lolz'. This was a thread about a group to mirror the Tea Party on the left, which led to discussion on television exposure of the left, which led to the Daily Show. Decent points were being made and conversation was occurring, then you made a quip about there being a thread for John Stewart already (hilarious insight, by the way). It's OK though, I understand your sentiment. There's been a lot of people posting here with really low post counts, and you gotta up your post amount somehow. We've already seen how hard it is for you to come across as anything but a troll, so I feel for you needing to make throwaway comments.

Keep it up, Slugger! ;-)

[<*)))><]

No, it generally has value when there's a point behind the post besides 'their talking about the daily show, lolz'. This was a thread about a group to mirror the Tea Party on the left, which led to discussion on television exposure of the left, which led to the Daily Show. Decent points were being made and conversation was occurring, then you made a quip about there being a thread for John Stewart already (hilarious insight, by the way). It's OK though, I understand your sentiment. There's been a lot of people posting here with really low post counts, and you gotta up your post amount somehow. We've already seen how hard it is for you to come across as anything but a troll, so I feel for you needing to make throwaway comments.

Keep it up, Slugger! ;-)
I only read the bold.

[Love As Arson]

Why would Fox News, a channel owned by the multi-billion dollar News Corporation, report on a movement suggesting alternatives to capitalism? Or CNN, owned by Turner? Or MSNBC, owned by GE? Or ABC, owned by Disney?
I assume that, because they covered five hundred tea-parties, they might be a mention about ten thousand people in the streets, even if it were a small one. Must be my optimism acting up again.