Why does Amy Goodman (of DemocracyNow)  invite ringtwing pundits for "debates" and "discussions"? Not just a few times, but lately quite regularly. Don’t the Rightwing propagandists have almost all the other platforms already? A majority of people are thirsting for some truthful explanation of their social environment, they are dying for some new ideas, and sick and tired of the same old mainstream typecasting of reality in stupefied, simplified journalism of "two sides of the story." So, why does Amy Goodman mimic the corporate media?

If a clash of opposing ideas is an absolute (and rightful) necessity, then why not have a real, free flowing debate between a Leftist and an extreme Leftist? There are precious few places still standing, where American journalism can save its soul (meaning, seek the truth), so it becomes absolutely imperative to establish as a tenet that government officials do not represent truth, but are agents for maintaining the current system. The journalistic Left should not have any problem reflecting that tenet in the content of its professional activities.

Robert Fisk best put it, "When covering the Sabra and Shatila massacres, I did not give equal time to the murderers who carried out the massacres."

We must create and expand a sense of rightful audacity, such as Cindy Sheehan’s. Who cares what right wing propagandists think of our programs and our views? 

Goodman also appears allergic to having anyone on the show who might speak from a socialist viewpoint. Since she interviews right-wingers whose views she presumably doesn’t agree with, why not socialists too? I find this odd, but perhaps it fits her reformist viewpoint, ie, things have gone very wrong in the system, so let’s fix what’s broken - without any real critique or condemnation of the system itself as being the problem.

1 Comment »