Nowadays, we live in a time when racism has been tabooed by mainstream society at large. It's been accepted as truth that racism is evil. No sane person would admit he's a racist and still expects to have some kind of political future, or any career future for that matter. I've attended meetings held by white supremacist groups such as the KKK and the message that I got from those meetings is they're not racist and that they only wanted to keep the races separate. So, even those hate groups are starting to disassociate themselves with racism.
That said, some things have been happening lately that have made the latent racism within the republican ranks a little more obvious than usual. Those town hall meetings where people are shouting "I want my country back", people accusing Obama as a terrorist, and people using Obama's middle name against him are some of the examples of this latent racism that are coming out to light because of recent events. Watch this vid clip to see what I mean.
He should have stuck with Barry? Yes, this was slip of the tongue. But you know what, the only reason we have slips of tongue is because we use the words in our everyday language. The slipping of the tongue happens when we notice someone is around that we would offend with the language and therefore consciously try to not use the language.
What shocks me about recent events is the country is actually tolerating this crap from the conservatives. The birthers movement, the accusations that Obama is not a christian, the accusations that Obama was born in Kenya, the blatant mischaracterization of Obama's health care reform plans, the editing of the video of Obama's grandmother making her to sound like she said Obama is a Kenyan citizen, etc. are all very disturbing to me.
When this all started, I could understand that this was just normal politics. But it's starting to go beyond normal politics. I'm not even sure if it's even latent racism anymore. It's starting to look to me like blatant racism.
So, the question again. Why is the country tolerating this crap?
I am not an American, so it is hard for me to judge, but I think a big reason for the racism is the lack of other things the Republicans could use against Obama.
Virtually all problems you guys have at the moment (economic crisis, wars, etc.) are the direct or indirect results of 8 year Republican (mis-)management. It is hard for somebody who run a huge deficit during a boom to blame Obama for handling the crisis poorly.
My two Euro Cents
Edit: Ups...I missed the topic. Anyway, I think it is important to avoid discussion about such attacks, because otherwise the Administration gets bogged down in a huge racist controversy. So count me as one of the people who doesn't speak up against racism in this case.
What shocks me about recent events is the country is actually tolerating this crap from the conservatives. The birthers movement, the accusations that Obama is not a christian, the accusations that Obama was born in Kenya, the blatant mischaracterization of Obama's health care reform plans, the editing of the video of Obama's grandmother making her to sound like she said Obama is a Kenyan citizen, etc. are all very disturbing to me.
They may be disturbing to you but they make for great news stories. It's a business. They are in the business of selling advertisment. They must put garbage like that on TV because the news stations have to compete with outragiously extreme shit like "The Real Houswives of Orange County" and crap that follows that same shock value.
How boring would the news be if they just told you the news without all this shockingly opinionated stuff? Nobody would tune in and they'd lose money. So what do they care, put all the crazy shit on the news so people will watch.. it was the same as morning radio. No one gave a shit about morning radio til Howard Stern changed the formate of how it was done. Same with the news. Crap sells, that's all they care about.
Watch the following vids. When I saw these during the election period, i was simply astonished that McCain and Palin actually tolerated this crap from their own crowd.
We didn't call George Bush "Dubya" because we wanted to exploit the buried/hidden biases that many people who agree with us have against the latter end of the alphabet. In fact, the name Dubya was one he used himself.
Emphasizing the "Hussein" part of Barack Obama's name is to make sure people associate the name with Saddam Hussein, or at the very least, with Muslim-sounding names in general to characterize Barack as being "other", "alien", "foreign" at best and "terrorist", "Muslim" (because we all know Muslim's can't be good Americans) at best.
It's only a double standard if you look at in the most superficial way and ignore the meaning behind the use. Was Dubya used in a disparaging way to indicate the man isn't very smart? Yes. Is that childish and even unworthy of good debate. Yes. Is it racist at best and a call to arms at worst? Not in the least.
They may be disturbing to you but they make for great news stories. It's a business. They are in the business of selling advertisment. They must put garbage like that on TV because the news stations have to compete with outragiously extreme shit like "The Real Houswives of Orange County" and crap that follows that same shock value.
Can I ask as a matter of interest what you make of the concept of the BBC as a news, and more generally TV, channel?
BBC TV (within Britain at least) is entirely advert free. All of it. Radio as well. It is also the most watched news and listened to national method of broadcasting. I believe that the website is also the most visited site in Britain aside from Google (but I might be making that up so I will have to check if challenged) and one of the most internationally accessed news sources too. It is funded by a sort of taxation. It sometimes takes almost absurd lengths in the name of commercial impartialiality (covering up logos on products etc.)
It is also at frequent loggerheads with the British government. Some notable and very public disputes have resulted in serious embarressment for the government and near all out war netween the corporation and specific government representatives. Most notably over the Iraq war.
Newspaper Article Linked To writes:
Mr Dyke said: "I left the BBC after a very unpleasant battle with the Government and the publication of the Hutton report, a report which to this day makes very little sense to me. I think Hutton and I were living on different planets and attended a different inquiry." He said: "I will always defend the actions I took at the BBC when we were subject to such a vitriolic attack from the Government's director of communications [Alastair Campbell]. I do not do so uncritically, but my job was to defend the integrity and independence of the BBC and I believe I did that."
Now I don't claim that the BBC is a paragon of non-bias. But whose interests, if anyones, would you claim the BBC is serving in Britain? Does it fall within the paradigm you are detailing here for US news? Or not?
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
Edited by Straggler, : Add link and article extract
Who handles the taxation? Does it filter through the government? Is there a charge added on to TV purchases or something like a cable bill that goes directly to the Beeb? In America, if we had something like this where the money went anywhere near the government, the government would assume all control.
somehow calling one man Dubya is cool and calling the next one Hussein is not.
you guys and your double standards.
But those terms are not at the same level.
What subliminal fear factor is being raised by "Dubya"? Is there a corresponding anti-Redneck hatred from ignorance similar to the anti-Arab hatred hiding inside many Americans?
Maybe "Barry" is at the same level, or possibly "Obamasiah".
Who handles the taxation? Does it filter through the government? Is there a charge added on to TV purchases or something like a cable bill that goes directly to the Beeb? In America, if we had something like this where the money went anywhere near the government, the government would assume all control.
It is called the "TV license" which is an archaic term. I had to look up the rest of the details and rather than repeat them I will quote them here:
Wiki on TV License in UK writes:
The United Kingdom has three independent public broadcasters, the BBC which is funded primarily by a TV licence, Channel 4 which is funded by advertising and S4C which is funded through a combination of direct government grant, advertising and in an indirect sense through the licence fee (see below). The BBC is by far the biggest broadcaster in terms of funding and breadth of output.
In the United Kingdom, the current annual cost for a colour television licence is 142.50 (approximately 176) and 47.00 (approximately 59) for monochrome TV (black and white).[42] The licence fee is charged on a family unit per household basis, which means there could be many TVs per household covered by a single licence. The majority of UK domestic customers will require one licence per household. The licence fee is used to fund the BBC's radio, television and internet services. A similar licence, mandated by the 1904 Wireless Telegraphy Act, used to exist for radio, but was abolished in 1971.
There are concessions for the elderly (free for over-75s[43]), the licence fee here being paid for by the Department for Work and Pensions. Blind people get a 50% discount on their licence or completely free if only in possession of an audio only receiver. Residents of residential care homes (for the elderly and people with physical/mental disabilities) can apply for a special licence called the licence for Accommodation for Residential Care (ARC) which is 7.50 per year.
The licence fee represents approximately 75% of the BBC's income with most of the rest coming from the sale of its programming overseas and other business allied to broadcasting such as publishing.[44] The UK's second public broadcaster, Channel 4, which is funded by advertising did however get funding for digital switch-over paid for from the licence fee.[45]
My understanding is that the government ultimately sets the TV license rate (in negotiation with the BBC itself - always a controversial negotiation) but that it does not administer or deal with the money in any way.
I would guess that it is as hands off as any "state" broadcaster in the world. But I could be biased on this
quote:In America, if we had something like this where the money went anywhere near the government, the government would assume all control.
You mean the Corporation for Public Broadcasting is under complete government control? Indeed, Bush certainly tried to make PBS and NPR arms of the Republican Party during his term (the president of the CPB is the former chair of the Republican National Committee and the chair of the CPB had to resign due to ethics violations regarding introducing conservative bias into the programming), but the CPB has done a much better job and maintaining neutrality in the American system of reporter-as-bad-stenographer school of journalism.
It's why those who got their news from NPR and PBS were the least likely to be misinformed regarding what was happening in Iraq.
Now, the vast majority of funding for public broadcasting comes from donations (only about 15-20% from federal funds), but the CPB was established by the government and the government provides funds to it.
Now, I'm hardly saying that government sources are always pristine and perfect. But what I am saying is that government, since it isn't working for profit, usually has a "promote the general welfare" motivation to it and when managed properly, is more likely to work for the service it is trying to provide than other interests.
This used to be why network news did well: The news was always considered to be a loss leader. The rest of the programming would bring in the money which would be used to pay for the news. When the broadcast companies decided that news should be a profit-making center, the motivation for doing the news shifted.
Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
quote:So, the question again. Why is the country tolerating this crap?
Well, the simple answer is that the country is still racist. The fact that we managed to vote for a black person doesn't mean we are free of racism.
And given that the broadcast news has shifted from actual journalism to reporter-as-bad-stenographer, there will never be any investigation into such ridiculous claims, never any editorial control to refuse to dignify such lunacy, and will in fact become part of the problem. Since there is never any pushback regarding the last outrageous claim out of fear of cries of "bias," that only encourages an even more ridiculous incitement.
And let us not be disingenuous and try to invoke the "Pox on both your houses!" whine as if the excesses of the left are anywhere near the scope and significance of the excesses of the right. The right will play off of the racism that is still pervasive in this country, the media will refuse to call them on it, and it only encourages more.
Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
It's why those who got their news from NPR and PBS were the least likely to be misinformed regarding what was happening in Iraq.
I agree. However, how many people get their news from NPR and PBS? I know of two families that listen to NPR at times, and next to no one who watches PBS, least of all for their news. There has been a decided push by some in this country to marginalize anything from PBS and NPR as "liberal blather", and it has largely succeeded. I'd be curious to see what steps would be taken by some were PBS and NPR to become nearly as influential in America as the BBC is in England.
Now, the vast majority of funding for public broadcasting comes from donations (only about 15-20% from federal funds), but the CPB was established by the government and the government provides funds to it.
I speaking more about the case were all funding to funnel through the government. In that case, were PBS/NPR to be overly critical of said government, and were PBS/NPR to remain as low on the radar of most people in the country, how long do you think it would take before said government just pulled the plug?
Now, I'm hardly saying that government sources are always pristine and perfect. But what I am saying is that government, since it isn't working for profit, usually has a "promote the general welfare" motivation to it and when managed properly, is more likely to work for the service it is trying to provide than other interests.
I am definitely not in the camp that says government is bad, that they can't manage projects that promote the general welfare, though I do have a less than rose-colored view of the practicalities in the current governmental system. Most people are disconnected from their government, and while there are a good many people in office who truly try to serve their entire constituency, there are a good many others who try to help those who help them get into power, and after that, try to maintain or increase their power/wealth.
American system of reporter-as-bad-stenographer school of journalism.
Very apt description. They also equate "balance" with giving "both sides" of an issue equal time, as if being on one side over another of any given issue is always of equal merit. (Holocaust deniers and their ilk come to mind.)
quote:In that case, were PBS/NPR to be overly critical of said government, and were PBS/NPR to remain as low on the radar of most people in the country, how long do you think it would take before said government just pulled the plug?
The conservatives have been trying to get rid of PBS since at least the 90s and so far, the response that has kept it has been effective:
The Republicans want to kill Sesame Street.
As long as Big Bird can remain the face of PBS, it will still be around.
And PBS and NPR used to be much more critical of the government. But because the conservatives have been working the refs, screaming "BIAS!" at every opportunity, even public broadcasting has fallen into the trap of bad-stenography, thinking that merely quoting "both sides" is sufficient investigation...and then misquoting people in the process so as to ensure there are "both sides" to talk about.
quote:Most people are disconnected from their government
In a conscious sense, yes. Most people don't realize just how connected to the government they are. Air, water, food, drugs, all the things we take for granted and use every day, the government is involved. The mail we receive, the television we watch, the very internet we're communicating over right now, all of that has government hands all over it.
That's why we have people at these astroturf convocations whining at the top of their lungs, "Keep your government hands off my Medicare!" They simply don't understand just how much their lives are touched by government services.
I'm not sure how to bring this back on topic. No amount of public television is going to be able to stop people from being racists. They might be able to at least prevent the people who aren't blatantly so from thinking that there is any legitimacy to such things as saying that Obama is a Kenyan, a Muslim, a terrorist, but that requires a deeper change in the entire journalistic enterprise.
Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
Pardon my ignorance but can I ask a couple of questions:
1) How is PBS funded? 2) The fear with any "state" broadcaster is that it will effectively be a mouthpiece for the government. What measures are in place to avoid this? 3) Is PBS commercial in any sense? Is it, like the BBC, advert free? Does it take the same sort of lengths as the BBC to remain brand impartial (e.g. covering brand logos on TV programmes) 4) Is it international in any sense or US based and available only. 5) To bring back vaguely on topic - What is the PBS take on Obama? Does it have opinion based reporting? Or is it purely dry factual content only?
I hadn't really heard of PBS until you mentioned it here. That is why I am asking. I guess ultimately my point of comparison is the BBC so in what ways is it similar or different are the most obvious questions for me to ask.
™ Version 4.2
(1)