Who is the voice of modern liberalism? Moyers? Olbermann?

I teach English Composition and Rhetoric at UNF and FCCJ here in Jacksonville. This fall, I have the opportunity to use political editorials as the "text" from which students will respond. Would you recommend your favorite writers to me, with a link to their respective newspaper/blog?

Thanks!

They each have their own perspective....in my opinion it is important to show a variety of modern liberalism viewpoints and then let the students draw from there...

Have fun with your class it should be interesting.

which do provide a conduit for his progressive views.

Newsprint is going the way of computer punched cards.

the OP covered it in his response. :)

... but still some of the intraparty CTs he comes up with fueled by anger at the status quo are gratuitously over the top and are used as ammunition to perpetuate intraparty discord - which is as pointlessly fractious as it is boring, a two-fer so to speak.

I prefer Bill Moyers who just tells it like it is and has enough respect for his audience to let them arrive at their own conclusion without beating them over the head with his opinion.

oops - wrong place

just my opinion

peace

:)

Some of these are just "blog" snippets, but others are essay-length. Contributors include people from a wide variety of backgrounds, including politicians, academics, writers, and various celebrities.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/theblog/index/



I've been reading James Zogby's posts recently.

Moyers certainly...Olbermann...

As for writers, Jim Hightower is a good one:
http://www.jimhightower.com/

Jon Stewart:
http://www.comedycentral.com/shows/the_daily_show/index.jhtml

If it's writers, John Nichols at The Nation is a good person to keep reading:
http://www.thenation.com/directory/bios/john_nichols

Nobody really speaks to me as a liberal. I feel I have no voice. Hartman is a Socialist, I suppose, but he does see clearly. Too many speak the works people want to hear, but live in the Corporate realm.

You would have many articles to choose from.

If Hartman had a larger audience I would put him up there with Moyers and Olberman, in fact, Hartman would be great with a national show, maybe on TV......


The CBS Evening news with Thom Hartman........ does have a nice ring to it.

is that his paychecks come from the MSM.... the same station that brings us Tucker, and Matthews.

But under those circumstances, he is doing a kick-ass job.

He really showed his balz after the election of 2004 when the only other one that was making a case
for fraud was Randi Rhodes. Those of you that were watching him then remember the heat he got where
he had to shut up for awhile....but he couldn't do it for long.

Does it not say something for him that he can work for the MSM and still say what he says?

And can you please provide a citation for "the heat he got where he had to shut up for awhile"? I don't recall anyone ever forcing him to shut up. Not that he's the kind of person who would listen to anyone telling him to shut up.

they have control over him. He cannot be free to say everything he wants.
Yet, thankfully his is willing to test his limitis ~ and it has paid off in ratings for msnbc.

As far as Olbermann being quieted for a few days, I really don't have the time today to do the research for you.
But here is a link to his blog from those days:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6368819/

or maybe someone else will have it.

He was talking non-stop about possible fraud, and then it just stopped.
But he did not stop for long.

If he were a regular news commentator, he would have to read the script that they feed him. Keith gets to say pretty much whatever he want as long as there's that unwritten disclaimer that he is biased.

NYT economist who just debunks underlying bs behind much of the conservative econoshit.

I really think he is liberal only because "the facts have a liberal bias".

:)

That "big three" at the NYTimes. GREAT ones. Helen Thomas!!! Don't forget Helen Thomas. Several years ago, once these bastards really started hitting their dreadful stride, she was just about all we had.

Bob Herbert and Cornell West on social and racial conditions, Jeff Faux and Paul Krugman on Political Economy, E.J. Dionne, Eric Alterman and Tom Frank on politics, Barbara Ehrenreich and JoAnn Wypijewski on labor.

I probably left out a few - I hope this helps.

By the way, I remember reading in the NYT that a new book was coming out by a collection of liberal writers.

Good luck with your class.

Hightower. And Barbara Ehrenreich: http://ehrenreich.blogs.com/

Most of Moyers will be transcripts from his speeches, of course, but no trouble googling them. Hightower is at his Hightower Report website.

I mentioned how Tom Snyder had recently passed away, Snyder always referred to his old school colleagues as "broadcasters"... Murrow & Cronkite etc. And that in the broadcaster sense, there are none these days, except for Moyers & Olberman. They have inherited the mantle, they carry the torch for what it used to mean to be a broadcaster.

Now, you used the word liberalism in your title, Moyers and Olberman are not liberal to me. in a world of corporate shills, they are the only 2 who do their job. Moyers and Olberman are extremely competent, extremely knowledgeable, extremely articulate. They speak of & to the people and their interests. Speaking from moral courage & conviction about right and wrong is not liberal, it has nothing to do with being liberal. Bruce Fein has proved that, don't you think ?

"The buying of the Iraq war," fantastic analysis of Neo-con/Pnac agenda, and how they were able to sell it to the American people.

Should be seen by all...............

he's been fearless for years. He was screaming about global corporate power 20 years ago.

And you wanna' talk about demonized, that boy done been dunked in devil's milk!

Also you might consider John and Katrina at the Nation. Others that are top rate are Bob Herbert and Clarence Page.

he's brilliant

If it's acceptable to use articles from The New York Review of Books, I would choose him. He's also an excellent writer.

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/19271">Three Questions for America
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/13954">A Badly Flawed Election
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/17293">What the Court Really Said
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/15284">The Trouble with the Tribunals

The modern liberal movement, like any other political movement, contains lots of people with lots of subtly differing views.

I tend to distrust anyone who claims to speak for people other than themself, especially anyone who claims to speak for "the people".

Say what you have to say, and let other people decide if they agree or not.

would make a great series to study.

Great stuff ~ and he is often the only one taking a risk in the msm.

nt

As I see it, liberalism underpins the ideologies that try to define/explain our reality. As a human construct any ideology will be imperfect. If anyone ties to cling to one as the "Republicans" are trying to do with their assemblage of oddly disjointed, often inconsistent catch phrases masquerading as an ideology, they risk waking to a world that has changed so radically they cannot operate in it. Also, the Libertarians are clinging to a simplistic ideology formed in a world that no longer exists. Somebody is going to be having a nervous breakdown, several somebodies. I think George already is.

The folks who have been mentioned in this thread all provide valuable insights which can help us cope intelligently with what is sometimes known as the "real world". If we think that any one view is the one and only gospel truth, we will run into the same difficulties. It isn't easy being liberal because the human race is populated by the the dim, the clever, the earnest, the deceitful, the fearful, the honorable, the kind, the selfish, and the selfless ... and the just plain weird. But our flexibility and adaptiveness are our allies. Which is why, when someone says children to not need to be given guaranteed health care because their parents are responsible for that, we shake our heads in wonderment of exactly what world he emerged from.

And about those basics from which liberal philosophies spring? For me they are empowerment of the individual, support for civil rights, maintaining a sense of community, and the continual striving for a responsive and responsible government that can help a complex society achieve its valued goals. Our culture has changed and the Libertarians and Republicans aren't able to deal with that, hence the current insanity and the consequent creation of a dangerous void being filled by fascist corporatism.

If this seems a tad incoherent, I'm recovering from a food born illness. Nasty stuff. Peace.

any and all.

TC

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greg_Palast

Palast has been particularly good on the election issues. Here's a good one on the election of 2006

://www.gregpalast.com/how-they-stole-the-mid-term-election

I don't believe that Keith Olbermann or Bill Moyers qualify. One is a broadcast journalist who is fighting creeping fascism, the other is a de facto media critic and oracle. Both are essential, but I wouldn't call them liberal voices.

Also, there is definitely a difference between being "anti-Bush" and being liberal. Many anti-Bushco voices exist today, and what they say is more anti-Republican and anti-Bush than a liberal voice. They have been diverted from the progressive or liberal message by the urgency of a near police state at hand.

And so I am making recommendations of those whose voices have promoted liberalism and are not fully engaged in anti-Bushism.

Lewis Lapham is/was the most elegant of the liberal voices. Few can write as well. His books are collections of his essays for Harper's Magazine. I recommend "The Wish For Kings" -- it deeply affected me.

Jim Hightower and Molly Ivins are essentials. Marie Coco, too.