I just had to say it - Does anyone else wonder why the "tea bags" get the publicity & others can't?

[1776Forever]

When there was terrible atrocities at the Republican Convention last year there was hardly any coverage from the MSM. When people go to Washington D.C. for peaceful protest marches about the War or other peaceful issues there is very little MSM coverage if any. Why? The only city where there was a good sized turn out today was San Antonio at the Alamo and that was only because of Glen Beck being there. And still the MSM, CNN and local news broadcasts and of course FOX picked up on the "tea parties" like it was something huge!

I did hear Rachel, Ed Schultz and Olberman give some good commentary about this today so at least there was some counter balance. Thank goodness for MSNBC!

:fistbump:

[HughBeaumont]

1. Because they tow the corporate line and we don't. Nawt that difficile.

They're FOR regression, neo-fascism, eternal conflict with enemies foreign and created and "thuh way things OUGHTA be". We're FOR a better and more fiscally responsible way of doing things. Of course, that involves rich people being less rich, less wage disparity, less wars and more equality and corporations just ain't down with that plan.

[1776Forever]

4. True - I guess I just don't understand how some people can be so gullible & stupid!

:shrug:

[chefjas1960]

12. Gullible and stupid

Gullible, stupid, hicks, elitist, racists, moronic, etc. These are the words used to describe those of us in support of the "tea parties". What an astonishing display of emotional maturity! Let's call each names, that will help us solve our country's problems!

The main concern of many is runaway government spending. I was just as vocal during the Bush administration. As a matter of fact, I and many others are completely disgusted with the GOP because they should have known better.
The "tea baggers" are not all GOP. I voted for Obama. I am an independent as are many tea baggers. If you would get your heads out of the sky you might have noticed that there are also many Democrats who support the tenets expressed all over America today.

Can any of you present a good argument for NOT balancing the budget? Is it "crazy and stupid" to want that? Do all of you really want MORE federal government in your lives? Were you really in favor of the AIG and other bailouts? There is absolutely no historical evidence that increased government spending will heal our economic lesions. And please, don't parrot the argument that FDR's "New Deal" is what brought us out of the depression. Historians generally agree that the depression ended with our entry into WWII.

So I guess I'm a "moron" for wanting less government, less spending, balanced budget, and a FAIR tax code. Hmmm....the collective wisdom contained on this site can surely see that the principles that I have espoused are not moronic, but believing that more Federal Government is a good thing certainly may be! So? I won't call you names. We actually need to work together. Don't underestimate the anger and resolve that I and the other "tea baggers" are feeling right now. This movement is not a flash in the pan. It has been growing steadily since the election and unless the Democrats AND GOP begin to show some gumption and start making tough decisions, this movement will continue to grow.

[hfojvt]

15. balancing the budget during a recession is monumentally stupid

Yes, that is Econ 101, basic macroeconomics. Almost 23 million people work for governments, not including the military. And many other jobs are dependent on government spending. Governments also provide tons of services, from mail delivery to garbage removal to fire protection to food inspection to education to road building and repairing to education to libraries to aid to the unemployed and disabled and others in need, and so on. To cut jobs or freeze hiring, would make a bad economy worse. To cut services at a time when they are most needed would again make a bad economy worse.

As far as a FAIR tax code, well it depends on what the definition of FAIR is. Certainly the UnFairTax does not fit that bill. Republicans and libertarian minded independents, who are the core of today's tea parties, have been doing their best to make the tax code less fair for the last decade by giving ever more large tax breaks to wealthier people.

"Historians generally agree that the depression ended with our entry into WWII" Perhaps, although it was greatly eased by FDR's programs before that. But what did WWII provide on even a much more massive scale than FDR's programs? Deficit spending by the Federal Government. Look up the deficit and the debt as a percentage of GDP in the years 1943-47.

[20score]

20. 30 second lies. The unemployment rate went from over 25% in 1932- 1933 when FDR became

president to 10% in 1941 when Pearl Harbor was attacked. Not to mention all of the people who didn't starve to death or die of hypothermia because of the implementation of a safety net. WWII just hastened the inevitable pull out of the Great Depression. By then the numbers already reflected a recession. Better than the numbers we have now.

The right wing mantras of deregulation, privatization and laissez-faire economics got us into the Great Depression and got us where we are today. (With an extra push from Bush's war.) More of the same will not get us out.

Look at a graph of GDP and unemployment during the 1920's, 1930's and 1940's. 1937 - 1938 are the only years that don't show a perfect record for FDR's policies. That's because he was convinced to balance the budget at that time. Then he continued what he started and the numbers improved.

The rewriting of history that's playing out on television and radio are 30 second lies. That's how long it takes to disprove them.

[1776Forever]

31. One comment to you - Why are you a Democrat? And if you aren't what the H are you doing here?

Who got us into this mess? Republicans! I don't see anyone but the Dem's trying to get us out of the morass! Your buddying up with those who have nothing good to say about our new President and giving him a chance to try and balance our budget in the future is moronic. You don't make any sense to me. You want to be in this kind of crowd - REALLY????

?v=0

More here:

http://washingtonindependent.com/38877/scenes-from-the-dc-tea-party-more-photos

......................

This is NOT the way to change our policies!

FOX News is down the web.

[newspeak]

40. as explained below

FDR's programs did help put people back to work BEFORE the war started. But, the revised history your spewing was all over corporate MSM. From ABC to FOX, same old mantra "those programs didn't work." Now, I ask you why were these networks trying to sell you that FDR's programs didn't work? Because that's where your BS is coming from. Before * LIED us into a war, hundreds of thousands of people took to the streets, not only in our country, but around the world. Where was the media? I'd say that the media, especially FOX, wanted these teabagging protests, they helped create these protests. WHY? Because most of the media has always leaned towards pro-business, anti-regulation. These are corporations that own branches in defense and other mega businesses. Do you really think they won't promote war or a political group that will benefit them--their corporations. For over twenty years political talking heads and networks have repeatedly whined that the media is liberal. Until some of the clueless public echoed their mantra. During the * administration, you could go from one station to another and hear the same talking point over and over again. Hardly any opposition-just repetition over and over again.

Now I find it kind of ironic that suddenly you got people actually caring about the money. Where were the teabaggers for eight fekkin years when Rumsfeld stated publicly before 911 that over 2.3 trillion dollars was unaccounted for in the pentagon. Where were the teabaggers when we were lied into a war and have spent approximately ten billion a month for the past six years, where were the teabaggers when corporations like Halliburton, KBR, blackwater were getting sweet federal contracts, while giving our soldiers substandard service, where were the teabaggers when all the cash (plane load) was unaccounted for going to Iraq, where were the teabaggers when Gov. Davis in California pleaded with * to allow regulation because Enron was ripping them off (of course, it was no), where were the teabaggers when * continually lowered taxes and responsibility to the rich (I believe he said they don't hardly pay anyway so why tax them) to the detriment of the rest of us, where were the teabaggers when our infrastructure started falling apart because the * administration for eight fekkin years was cutting federal funds to the states to funnel the rest in his war hard on, where, where, where were these people?

[Richard Steele]

45. Fantasy can be fun, but I think you're overdoing it a bit.

Enjoy your stay! :hi:

[flvegan]

2. Nope. Media loves ridiculous. PETA is more than a household name

because of it.

Many Dems may hate them, but they'd do well to learn from them.

Been here saying that for years.

[arcadian]

7. PETA is fantastic at public relations.

But they aren't taken seriously. The stories are all "slice of life" or Jeanne Moos type blurbs. But they are getting blurbs and a lot of them. I want PETA to come up to Loudoun and Fauquier counties in Northern Virginia to protest fox-hunting. Now, that shit would get some news.

[flvegan]

11. Not taken seriously?

You should ask Yum! Brands (KFC, etc), Tyson and APHIS if that's the case.

Like them or not, they do both. And they do it better than anybody else.

[arcadian]

13. Well, any corporation is going to take an affront to their product seriously.

I'm not sure how they spin that publicly. I assume that they spin it as "not taking PETA seriously". I've only seen them protest one KFC, and that was in the Hampton Roads area. I have seen their campaigns everywhere though. Have any idea why they don't tackle the fox hunting issue in Northern Virginia?

[flvegan]

14. Most corporations don't change how they do business, though.

Unlike those I listed.

They seem to take PETA a bit seriously, if not quietly.

[arcadian]

16. That's interesting, I didn't know that.

n/t

[LanternWaste]

46. I agree without reservation...

The oddballs usually get the camera. It's true of politics, religion and special interest groups. And to follow-up on another post of yours on this thread, I had followed PETA's campaign in Canada against KFC with great interest, and was thrilled when PETA won some major concessions from the company. I can only hope that the similar campaign in the States is just as successful.

Not that I'd want the Democrats to get the same type of coverage as the Tea-Baggers, but I don;t think anyone can validly argue with your premise-- Oddballs get the coverage :)

[blonndee]

3. No, I don't wonder. I know.

As we all do. Whore media, that's what.

[rwheeler31]

5. Money, money, money.

[girl gone mad]

6. While we're at it, why are there so many threads on DU about this stupid protest..

and the backwash that are attending it?

[Jeep789]

8. Are you kidding me? The media organized these parties.

The majority of the "media" today is simply a propaganda tool for the conservative nut-wing.

[Bozita]

9. I watched many hours of live streaming video of the RNConvention in MN. The MSM couldn't find a ...

... story in the streets of Minneapolis and St. Paul.

Unfuckingbelievable!

Google: "Amy Goodman" RNC

Watch stuff like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYjyvkR0bGQ

[1776Forever]

35. I keep hoping someone will do a documentary on this - have you seen one?

It would be great to have the whole story told! I keep wondering if blackwater had anything to do with it!

[Hannah Bell]

10. Because they've got big corporate money organizing them. duh.

[4lbs]

17. The teabaggers had 1.5 networks doing their publicity for them.

n/t

[Hannah Bell]

19. isn't that big corporate money? & doesn't it suggest other money behind the scenes?

[4lbs]

41. Yup, Faux News, as well as some PACs set up by Repukes funded and publicized the event(s).

For example, after that planned public teabag dumping in D.C. failed because of improper permits, they were allowed to do a symbolic dumping in a private office space leased by an organization affiliated with Repuke Congressman Dick Armey.

[Divine Discontent]

18. even with their occasional faults MSNBC is pretty much all we've got on TV

that and Cafferty on CNN, and an occasional person on other networks.

so, just because groups of 50-1000 people across this country in hundreds of locations throw a fit about Obama, they somehow deserve mass attention? they're kooks!

I love hearing the nutjobs go off on TV and think to myself, "don't they realize Obama's reduced the taxes on the average person and raised them on the rich, and this, in a time of great economic turmoil!"



good post!

[tavalon]

21. It's the sex

Sex sells.

[autorank]

22. Here's the answer, imho.

The system is at stake. If the corporate media covers the vast majority of citizens who see through
the lies and manipulation, the whole scale looting of the Treasury by the people who caused the problem,
then we're about about a week away from a general strike and a "throw the bums out, all of them"
movement.

But there is opposition. If corporate media says nothing, they look ridiculous. So what do they do?
Create a diversion through the use of a fringe group like "tea baggers." There is a story there, but
it's not opposition to the looting of the Treasury. It's about the Republican Party descending into
the 9th circle of political Hell with these folks, including Gov. Perry's stupid independence speech
and bill.

Corporate media bypasses: those who have lost their jobs; all the people in trouble because their
pensions have tanked; the sick, the homeless, the desperate for support. They go right to the
ridiculous. That's supposed to teach us a couple of lessons. First, we're nuts if we stand up
the the theft of the nation in order to save failed financial institutions and the failures who
run them. Second, we can forget it if we think there will be a spokesman or coalescence around
a true reform movement.

Just shut up and take it.

It's not a failure of the press. We have no press. The corporate media is owned by the corporations
who have everything to lose if the truth comes out. That's why William K. Black is not covered. He
was the essential person in that clean up. He said:

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/04032009/watch.html

"BILL MOYERS: Who's covering up?

WILLIAM K. BLACK: Geithner is charging, is covering up. Just like Paulson did before him. Geithner is publicly saying that it's going to take $2 trillion — a trillion is a thousand billion — $2 trillion taxpayer dollars to deal with this problem. But they're allowing all the banks to report that they're not only solvent, but fully capitalized. Both statements can't be true. It can't be that they need $2 trillion, because they have masses losses, and that they're fine.

These are all people who have failed. Paulson failed, Geithner failed. They were all promoted because they failed, not because...

BILL MOYERS: What do you mean?

WILLIAM K. BLACK: Well, Geithner has, was one of our nation's top regulators, during the entire subprime scandal, that I just described. He took absolutely no effective action. He gave no warning. He did nothing in response to the FBI warning that there was an epidemic of fraud. All this pig in the poke stuff happened under him. So, in his phrase about legacy assets. Well he's a failed legacy regulator." William K. Black

The media won't cover stories in a way that serves our interests. Why would they? They're owned
by the very corporations that have participated in the scams that ruined the nation's economy or
they're the corporations who are interlocked through advertising, boards of directors, etc. with
those corporations.

Would Microsoft's public relations department promote Linux? Of course not.

That's the question that answers any questions about why the wrong things are covered.

Instead of the theft of America, we've got the "Tea Baggers" and the pirate stories.

"It's all good when you're on the take and the take is legal." The Money Party

[Z_I_Peevey]

42. Kick for this individual post. Right here. n/t

[Uncle Joe]

44. I second your post, autorank.

I believe with the tea baggers the corporate media was trying to create a mental box around an artificial issue for the American People to focus on.

CNN covers it from angle, FOX from another, but it's only professional wrestling in relation to the real issues surrounding the underlying crisis.

You can root for CNN, or MSNBC showing up FOX motivated top down tea baggers or you can root for the FOX manipulated tea baggers, but in either case the people lost, because it was only professional wrestling and the hidden dysfunctional system sucking up those trillions is the cost of the tickets to this long time on going show of diversion.

[BlooInBloo]

23. No. Republican whiny liars always get coverage.

[depakid]

24. They're largely a media creation in the first place

[GoCubsGo]

33. Yup. They're publicizing their own events.

They're the sponsors of them. Of course they're going to cover them more.

[zbdent]

25. because they want to cut Rupert Murdoch's taxes?

[Prophet 451]

26. Because the teabaggers are ridiculous

We all know the mass media doesn't have a liberal bias but they do have other biases: sensationalism, pack mentality and, most of all, cheap-and-easy-to-cover. Covering the other protests in any more than a superficial way would require spending time (and money) explaining their reasoning and aims. But because the teabaggers don't have any real aims (apart from a generic opposition to everything Obama does) and look ridiculous, they're easy to cover and hence, cheap.

Of course, Fox pimping the hell out of them as part of their agenda to create an impression of massive opposition to Obama helped.

[Orsino]

27. The baggers are patsies for the ultra-rich.

Murdoch will ensure they get face time, these fools who just can't stand being given a tax cut by a black man.

[1776Forever]

32. I am truly with you on that one!

:fistbump:

[H2O Man]

28. For the same reason

that local newspapers, radio and tv stations give more coverage to their "hometown" sports teams.

[Hubert Flottz]

29. Because BAGS stick together...

Be they tea bags or scum bags or shitbags they all act alike to me! Locksteppers and Goosesteppers are the same way too.

[jasmeel]

30. comcast in Atlanta doesn't give MSNBC w/ basic cable.

I find that to be an interesting omission. I wonder how the lack of MSNBC broadcasting correlates with the tea party attendance?

[1776Forever]

34. Good question. You can get a lot of the broadcasts on the MSNBC site though.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3096434/

[G_j]

36. Millions of people protested in approximately 800 cities around the world

and got less publicity..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/February_15,_2003_anti-war_protest


February 15, 2003 anti-war protest
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The February 15, 2003 anti-war protest was a coordinated day of protests across the world against the imminent invasion of Iraq. Millions of people protested in approximately 800 cities around the world. According to BBC News, between six and ten million people took part in protests in up to sixty countries over the weekend of the 15th and 16th; other estimates range from eight million to thirty million.<1><2>
Some of the largest protests took place in Europe. The protest in Rome involved around 3 million people, and is listed in the 2004 Guinness Book of World Records as the largest anti-war rally in history.<3> Opposition to the war was highest in the Middle East, although protests there were relatively small. Mainland China was the only major region not to see any protests, but small demonstrations attended mainly by foreign students were seen later<4>.


The February 15 international protests were unprecedented not only in terms of the size of the demonstrations but also in terms of the international coordination involved. Researchers from the University of Antwerp claim that the day was possible only because it "was carefully planned by an international network of national social movement organisations."<9>
Immanuel Wallerstein has spoken of the international protests as being organised by the forces of "the Porto Alegre camp in reference to the emergence of global social movements who had been organising around international events such as the 2001 World Social Forum in Porto Alegre."<10> Some commentators claim this is an example of "grassroots globalisation", for example one book claims that "The worldwide protests were made possible by globalisation ... But make no mistake—this was not your CEO's globalisation. The peace demonstrations represented, not a globalisation of commerce, but a globalisation of conscience".<11>

The idea for an international day of demonstrations was first raised by the British anti-capitalist group Globalise Resistance (GR) in the wake of an anti-war demonstration in Britain of 400,000 on 28 September. At the time GR was involved in planning for the Florence European Social Forum (ESF) and brought up the suggestion at an ESF planning meeting. According to GR's Chris Nineham, "There was considerable controversy. Some delegates were worried it would alienate the mainstream of the movement. We, alongside the Italian delegates, had to put up a strong fight to get it accepted."<12>




http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/2765041.stm

[1776Forever]

37. Exactly my point - thank you. This shows what money can buy!

Greed sells!:grr:

[G_j]

43. they still don't talk about it much

that WAS an historic event, the world said NO to war before it ever began.

[lame54]

38. Because they are not sponsored by Fox News

[luckyleftyme2]

39. this might perk you up

Portland tea party was a bust; could it be a message to those who organized it?
Or was it who they choose to give the message?
yea who wants to hear sameo sameo-only about 200! out of a possible 300,000!
not to many interested in hearing the same ole deal!
I THINK BOTH! MAINERS ARE WAKING UP!