Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

internetworkers - Re: [internetworkers] Sinclair Broadcasting - might replace my Smallville with anti-Kerry propaganda!!!

internetworkers AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: James Dasher <jdasher AT ibiblio.org>
  • To: "Internetworkers:http"@metalab.unc.edu://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/ <internetworkers AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Cc:
  • Subject: Re: [internetworkers] Sinclair Broadcasting - might replace my Smallville with anti-Kerry propaganda!!!
  • Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 17:17:18 -0400

You asked what I thought and why. The last time I asked a skeptical question - about the PATRIOT Act thing in Raleigh, actually - I received a couple links with the reply that I should "educate myself". That wasn't the way you approached my comment a couple days ago, and I appreciate that.

As something of a moderate, more inclined to the professorial than the pamphleteering, it's a rare thing on most of my email lists, which are mostly left-leaning. I'm not, myself, and I subscribe to some academic lists where the discussion focuses around topics within certain disciplines. I probably need to unsubscribe from a few, and limit myself to commondreams.org and frontpagemag.com, but I like having a longer books-to-buy list than I could ever afford, let alone afford the time to read. :-)

On Oct 14, 2004, at 12:26 AM, Evan Zimmerman wrote:

Ashcroft began using the power to access library records within days
of saying he hadn't yet. It was a matter of timing.

True, and we could argue about whether searching library records is okay. But that wasn't the point.

The point was that the story was wrong. Not mistaken, but flat-out lying about the guy. It was an article on how we were losing our civil liberties in a post-9/11, PATRIOT Act world.

Many people on this list have complained, loudly and vociferously, against Ashcroft, the PATRIOT Act, and so forth. I see the complaints, and the ensuing "activism", as unreasonable because nobody puts it in context, or seems to remember legislative history.

For example, I don't recall much comment about the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act. Let the PATRIOT Act expire - or showboat at a bunch of anti-PATRIOT Act rallies until it does - and the fact remains: the PATRIOT Act should rightly be called "Son of Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act". But it's easier to carp about Ashcroft than it is to spend a few boring weeks poring over the Congressional Record. And it's rhetorically easier to say, "These evil thugs are screwing with our civil liberties," than it is to say, "Well, folks, this act is really insignificant compared to that bill back in '96."

I'm not calling you a showboater, or saying you're ignorant of legislative history. Rather, I'm trying to portray an intellectual environment that could only be called religious. It has central tenets, or articles of faith, and it preaches that anyone who disagrees is, to use a word you (rightly) abjure, evil. Ironically, the American left is the intellectual child of a very Puritan morality. Much more so than the American right, anyway, which tends to be more evangelical.

(Oddly, the left is more evangelical in their practices than the right, which is one of the reasons politicians, especially on the right, speak of a "silent majority". Though I suspect that, if Bush wins this election, we may see a shift in those characterizations over the next 20 or 30 years.)

The blue drape thing not being Ashcroft? News to me. I've never heard
that contested at all other than a stock denial. We don't have to
argue it since there's probably no proof either way, but it definitely
passes the smell test for me. Obviously it doesn't for you. Eh.

Two articles to help sort things out:

http://www.nationalreview.com/flashback/flashback-nordlinger072402.asp
http://www.detnews.com/2002/politics/0201/29/nation-402789.htm

Also, I must apologize for accidentally mischaracterizing the story. A non-partisan appraisal induces a less-hostile interpretation, but it wasn't Ashcroft who instigated the affair. And re-reading these articles reminded me of the amusing history of photographers framing Justice Secretaries. For that, at least, I'm glad to revisit the topic.

I think Ashcroft might be a decent man

"Decent" is awfully subjective and personal. Ashcroft brings his
religion to work, and he's the highest law enforcement officer in the
US. That's a problem for me, because he appears to side with his
personal beliefs even when they contrast with the law.
Decent as a personal judgement doesn't describe his position on race
and equality issues, to put it mildly.

On religious affiliation, I have to say, who cares? Communism was and is evil - not a bad-so-I'll-exaggerate "evil", but downright exacerbating-the-worst-in-man, slaughter-anyone-who-disagrees evil. And yet, for years, people freely walked around advocating a system and philosophy that has killed more people, and in a shorter time, than any other ideology in history. A guy having religious convictions is hardly going to faze me.

But I am unaware of his habit of siding with his personal beliefs even when they contrast with the law. I am very aware of very many people making very many complaints to the contrary. But saying something - even saying it loudly and repeatedly - doesn't make it so. In many circles, it would seem that "Ashcroft" is a code for some political tendency that I am unaware has ever held much sway in this country.

For example: no abortion clinics firebombed by FBI agents; CommonDreams and the NYTimes are still publishing; Michael Moore is making and selling movies; no one has to make mandatory donations at their local evangelical church; ABC is still putting out memos advising network reporters to be tougher on Bush than they are on Kerry; Dan Rather hasn't been locked up for that whole "fake but accurate" fiasco; and people, including list members, aren't being thrown in jail for organizing a pro-Kerry boycott of a local TV station.

And racist? WTF?

When Tony pointed out that the Ashcroft Justice Department's use of the PATRIOT Act

... has resulted in charges against 310 people, with 179 convictions or
guilty pleas including the terror cell in NY in which all 6 plead guilty.

Sil replied:

heck, that's not many at all. considered as a percentage of population,
it's practically zero!

He may have been joking, or he may have been trying to say that the number is too small to sway him. But there are those of us who also think of numbers, like 19 - even closer to zero, but large enough to carry out 9/11 - or 3,000 - an order of magnitude larger, but still a statistically insignificant number of Americans.

Anyway, regarding Sinclair:

And I was being
contrarian, but for a purpose: complaining about an anti-Kerry program
on a private television network is like complaining about an anti-Bush
film in a private video store.

Disagree with you there (shocker!). Sinclair is licensed by the public
to serve the public interest in it's broadcasts. Broadcasting
propaganda -- and I would agree that F9/11 is propaganda too, though
we might quibble over degree -- over a public network to serve one
political party or another goes against their mandate. They're not a
video store.

If Sinclair must abstain from broadcasting propaganda over a public network, how much more so PBS? And yet, nary a peep, on this list or elsewhere, over the fawning biographical tributary to Kerry broadcast a few days ago. It is these glaring inconsistencies that lead me to conclude that some people think free speech is okay, so long as it's not supporting the other side.

In closing, let me first acknowledge that I didn't raise a number of points, and glossed over several others. My transitions aren't as smooth as I'd like, and I may have missed some things you would have liked me to address.

As I mentioned a couple days ago, I wouldn't be able to reply for a couple days. In the ensuing passage of time, the 'Bush's bulge' thread has received so many new posts, I no longer think people are amusingly pursuing an idle whim, like the Internet Time Waster, but are honestly captivated by the -- well, in this case, "story" is most apt.

Personally, I'm annoyed. I'm hardly a Republican; in fact, the only party affiliation I've ever held was Democrat. But I don't march in lock-step with partisans of a certain mind-set. I keep an open mind. I don't immediately suspect the worst motives of anyone on the other side. But trying to bring a bit of balance to the discussion, at least during election season, is a lot like bailing out the ocean with a teaspoon.

As the election draws nearer, I suspect that engaging dissimilar viewpoints will become increasingly anathema. But for your inquiry, I thank you.

--
James Dasher
misterdasher dot com
IM misterdasher





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page