Are Chomsky, Parenti, Goodman farther to the left than Rush, Sean, Ann

are to the right? Or are extreme rightists getting major media attention while equivalent leftists are being completely ignored and marginalized by the media?

If Noam Chomsky, Michael Parenti and Amy Goodman are farther to the left than Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Ann Coulter are to the right, then who are the equivalent rightists?

(Works for the abovementioned reeps)

you cite is extremely insulting.

Amy Goodman is a legitimate journalist, but she does have a very blatant, very non-neutral, ideological bias.

I suppose there are some honest, intelligent conservative journalists that I could have put on the list, but I don't know of them and I was asking more about the comparative degree of ideological bias rather than comparing journalistic merits.

that alone cuts her from the company you cite and tells me she is not the extreme ideologue you're painting her to be.

Sad is the day when journalists committes to truth are "biased" and those that give the rights lies credence are "fair".

And if you think Amy is any nicer to Democrats than Republicans, you should hear her interveiw with Bill Clinton.

For starters, the two groups aren't monolithic. Chomsky and Parenti are further left than Amy Goodman; Ann Coulter is further to the right than either Limbaugh or Hannity.

The problem is that whatever Ms. Goodman's ideology, she is still a better journalist than any of the three rightists named. Try to imagine Ms. Goodman preaching like Limbaugh. It's just something she won't do.

Likewise, while Chomsky is not really a journalist, he still takes facts and encases them in a logical argument. One may disagree with Professor Chomsky and wish to refute him, but one will have to do some work to accomplish this. Ms. Coulter, on the other hand, seldom gives her readers anything to refute. She gives invective instead of argument; how does one refute something like Theresa Heinz Kerry has hair under her arms? Why would one even want to refute that kind of nonsense?

The difference between the two groups is that the right wing group is a waste of time and the left wing group is not. Ideologically, this is coincidental. I'm old enough to remember watching Firing Line even though I didn't very often agree with Mr. Buckley; nevertheless, I still found his program informative.

Thus, the question becomes why is the media giving air time to these the likes of Limbaugh, Hannity and Coulter? One answer is that the media is promoting a conservative/right wing point of view and marginalizing any other perspective. However, that can only partly explain it. There are certainly better and more qualified spokesmen from a conservative perspective than those three idiots.

I think she's just doing it for the ratings...for the money. I don't think she gives two shits either way.


Just a gut feel from listening to some of her shows.

Otherwise, you're right; she's a fraud.

If one reads her work, one finds facts that either aren't or are, at best, half-truths. Her use of invective is simply beyond the pale. Her work is to real journalism what hardcore pornography is to serious art: its value is in its ability to titillate or shock and otherwise doesn't really do anything for her audience.

Amy Goodman has an ideological bias; we all know what it is. However, she is not going to let her bias get in the way of disseminating facts. Ann Coulter is not going to let facts get in the way of propagating her ideological bias.

That is one way to tell the difference between a real journalist like Ms. Goodman and a rank propagandist like Ms. Coulter.

I just think Ann is playing a game and making money in the meantime.


I wonder where Molly Ivins would fit in? I love her wit.

then rational looks at policy and how it affects America and Americans. Most of the far right arguments do not stand up to any kind of scrutiny or reasoned debate. Take for instance supply side economics. It really exists only as an economic model that for politicians and pundits. Even most right wing economists see no rational in "supply side economics".

And I'm certain there are a lot of people at DU who would love that kind of thing as long as the shoe were on the left foot instead of the right. However, it really wouldn't serve us any better than what we are getting.

The purpose of a free and independent press is to provide the public with facts so that citizens can make informed decisions. That is simply not happening. As recently as a year ago -- one year after the invasion of Iraq -- a survey reported that 60% of Americans had serious misconceptions about the reasons given for taking action; they believed that Saddam had a biochemical arsenal (many actually believed the weapons had been found) or that Saddam had ties to al Qaida (some actually believed that he had a major hand in planning the September 11 attacks).

Surveys taken just before the 2004 election showed that while this level of misconception had been reduced to below half, it was still alarmingly high (about 40%) and that those who held these misconceptions overwhelmingly favored Bush. In fact, most people who held these misconceptions voted for Bush and most people who voted for Bush held these misconceptions. There is no escaping the conclusion that voter ignorance had a lot to do with the failure of America to remove Bush from power.

I don't mind being outvoted, but I would prefer to be outvoted by people who know what they're talking about. A mainstream media that provides Ann Coulter with an undeserved air of intellectual legitimacy and marginalizes opposing viewpoints is a major cause of this level of voter ignorance.

As Harry Truman said " I don't give em hell, I tell em the truth and they think it's hell"

BTW I am also a big fan of Woody

to those who pull them out of their ass?

opinion would be yes... yes he was... so let that be our ruler.... yardstick, micrometer, gas chromatograph, litmus test or whatever. :)

The right leaning republican "reporters/journalists" are for the most part..... scared... scared and unwilling to track back and see how we arrived exactly where we find ourselves. Pity.

the rightwingers are better showmen and a bit more shallow.

it is depth of intellect that is profoundly different.

Chomsky, Parenti, and Goodman are capable of articulating in a consistant manner their principles and how they shape their political positions. limbaugh, hannity and colter can not.

"Are Chomsky, Parenti and Goodman more RIGHT than Rush , Sean and Ann are more WRONG?

(while being sort of leftist themselves).

The question is: what is the extreme left, and more importantly, where is it?

...the left folks you mentioned are middle-of-the road, truth-tellers.

I've never heard Amy tell a lie.

...from which you measure distance to the left or the right.

If that center is current mainstream politics, then unfortunately, the answer is yes.

If that center is where I would put reasonable thought, then the answer is obviously no.

...we are in a time when the mere act of bringing up the past is considered revolutionary when the past is not in conformance with current propaganda.

Look at how many articles in the so-called 'left wing' press do nothing more than bring up things that authority figures have stated in the recent and not-so-recent past that contradict currently established mainstream 'truth'.

Look at how Farenheight 9/11 was blasted by the right when by and large it's composed almost entirely of video clips of authority figures saying things in their own words.

The political establishment and the corporate media have been working hard to acclimate us to a fluid reality that shifts day to day based on the needs of the moment. Anyone who brings up contradictory facts and quotes from the past is considered left wing, ie. "We have always been at war with Iraq."



"Who controls the present controls the past.
Who controls the past controls the future."
-- slogan of the Ministry of Truth