Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
7 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies


(17,493 posts)
1. In a good functioning representative democracy such as ours it is essential to have a free ...
Tue Mar 11, 2014, 04:13 PM
Mar 2014

and independent press as it is the watchdog that sounds the alarm when the government is overstepping its limits.

That's why freedom of the press is included in the First Amendment to the Constitution in the Bill of Rights .

History shows that one of the first things an oppressive government does is to gain control of the press.

In my opinion it really doesn't matter if you are a Democrat, a Republican or an Independent. Even if the party you support is in power, you should wish that the leadership follows the law.

Without the free press it is quite likely that "Tricky Dick" Nixon would have been able to squash the Watergate Scandal and never have been forced to resign. We would have never heard of Iran-Contra.

If you don't believe me on how important the free press is just check our this article on Political Scandals in our nation that the press help to reveal:

List of federal political scandals in the United States

The bottom line is that a free press can be a real pain if the party you support is in power but it helps prevent all overly ambitious politicians from abusing their authority and power.

Of course a free press needs to also be free of corporate control. That may be even more difficult to accomplish than making sure it is free of political control.


(18,998 posts)
2. So true.
Tue Mar 11, 2014, 04:30 PM
Mar 2014

But I suspect we crossed the Rubicon long ago on a free press.
And no one can pinpoint a single instance that caused it, just small steps for a long time.


(15,774 posts)
3. Edward R Murrow....
Tue Mar 11, 2014, 05:08 PM
Mar 2014

warned about this. I think makeing Helen Thomas sit in the back was another sign.


(39,909 posts)
6. Those of us who pay attention noticed a BIG change in the so called "Independet Progressive Media"
Tue Mar 11, 2014, 06:25 PM
Mar 2014

... in late 2008.

This explains it:

[font size=3]Rahm Emanuel's Think Tankers Enforce 'Message Discipline' Among 'Liberals'[/font]

Over the past several weeks, independent journalists and anti-war activists have tried to shine a spotlight on how groups like the Center for American Progress and MoveOn, which portrayed themselves as anti-war during the Bush-era, are now supporting the escalation and continuation of wars because their guy is now commander-in-chief.

CAP has been actively pounding the pavement in support of the escalation in Afghanistan, the rebranding of the Iraq occupation and, more recently, Obama's bloated military budget, which the group said was "on target." MoveOn has been silent on the escalation in Afghanistan and has devoted substantial resources to promoting a federal budget that includes a $21 billion increase in military spending from the Bush-era.

What is clear here is that CAP and MoveOn are now basically psuedo-official PR flaks targeting "liberals" to support the White House agenda. This, though, should not come as a shock to those who have closely monitored these groups. They were the primary force behind Americans Against Escalation in Iraq (AAEI), "a coalition that spent tens of millions of dollars using Iraq as a political bludgeon against Republican politicians, while refusing to pressure the Democratic Congress to actually cut off funding for the war."

Now, according to John Stauber, executive director of the Center for Media and Democracy, the Center for American Progress is now running "Progressive Media which was begun by Tom Matzzie and David Brock in 2008 and now 'represents a serious ratcheting up of efforts to present a united liberal front in the coming policy wars....' [These groups] are working hard to push Obama's policies, including rationalizlng or defending his escalation of the wars in Afghanistan and Pakistan as "sustainable security."


There has been unending pressure at DU to have this site united behind Obama Policy.
The problem is that Obama himself has said that on policy,
he can be considered a 1980s Moderate Republican.

I was a committed DEMOCRAT back in the 1980s.
I fought HARD against the Republicans
BECAUSE I didn't support "Moderate Republican Policy", especially Moderate Republican Economic Policy
(Free Trade, de-regulation, "Market Based Solutions", Privatization of the Commons, and low taxes on the RICH)

WHY should I start supporting 1980s Moderate Republican Policy NOW?

I want to vote for someone who would have been considered A DEMOCRAT back in the 1980s.
That is WHY I was a DEMOCRAT back in the 1980s.

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»Video & Multimedia»This Is Why We NEED Indep...