Tea Party Media Coverage

This isn’t what you think it is. This isn’t about FOX reporting on the Tea Parties and the rest of the media all but ignoring them. Or when they’re not being ignored, they’re being denigrated and called inflammatory names. That’s too easy.

Tonight I sampled a lefty talk radio host named Mike Malloy to see what he was talking about. A listener, imagine for a moment that these people actually vote, but a listener emailed him to ask why the Tea Party coverage is so out of sync, in their opinion, with other demonstrations and causes.

According to Mike Malloy, it’s because these ‘baggers’ protesting the Obama administration ‘have a potential for extreme violence’ and are all armed and dangerous, and just waiting to blow your head off. That, and they’re all morons. And the protests against Buch/Cheney were all peaceful.  What?

It was harder for me to record this than it will be for you to listen to this three minute extravaganza. But I’m happy to make that sacrifice for you. The sound quality actually matches the content, but it is a little hard to listen to for a number of reasons.

Mike Malloy opines on TV coverage of the Tea Parties.

Next time you hear those on the left accusing people like Rush Limbaugh of perpetrating ‘hate radio,’ think of Mike Malloy. Malloy is more rabid than the Ring of Fire folks, and who ever thought that to be possible?

6 thoughts on “Tea Party Media Coverage”

  1. Until we have real campaign finance reforms, and as long as we have corporate Lobbying influences, I think we are going to have problems with Corporatist. They are on both sides of the isle politically. IMO there are far fewer on the Left. The GOP, again, IMO, are mostly made up of these types.

    That’s one of the reasons they have no ideas for fixing anything. They have liked the status quo. The GOP worked real hard on watering down the Health Care Reform Bill when it was worked on in the Senate. They got a lot of what they wanted, even though they voted against it.

    If you remember in the last week or two before HCR passed, there were no Insurance CEO’s talking bad about the Bill and when it passed, stock values on Wall Street went up, not down.

  2. My take on Corporatist is that it references Legislators or Politicians who serve the interest of big corporations in how they do their jobs.

    It can also be a reference, IMO, to people working in big Corporations trying to undermine our politicians and/or government from representing “the people”.
    Just because someone owns a corporation does not make them a corporatist.

    The Corporatist pretty much work to stack the deck in the market in their favor, or in the favor of friends, through Legislation. They end up working against the idea of capitalism and subvert the efforts of small business or take advantage of, and exploit, consumers.

    That video you shared with me, if the information turns out to be accurate, would be an example.

  3. Please help me understand this ‘corporatist’ stuff. I hear that word a lot on the Ring of Fire and other left-wing hangouts.

    I get the impression that being a corporation, or corporations in general are bad. Like they carry a pall of ill-repute by being one. I find that hard to believe since it is corporations that hire people and get stuff done. My knee-jerk reaction to people that use that term is that they might feel more ‘at home’ in a communist country or Venezuela than in the United States of America.

    Are corporations that loose money good, and ones that make money bad? Does it come from a position of envy where, like in your example above, Malloy and the now defunct Air America can’t cut it in the free marketplace while Limbaugh can make millions in the same industry? I know some on the Left think that it’s not FAIR that Limbaugh can make it big while people like Malloy or Papantonio can’t give away their talent. As if the world order and our economic model must be outcome-based on some concept of fairness.

    It seems like it is all wrapped up in a societal concept called ‘social justice.’ Which to me is just a feel-good word for the redistribution of wealth.

    What do you think?

  4. He’s ‘out there’ alright. Seems all he does is name-calling. He takes name calling to some higher level. One thing common among him and his ilk, is that they do it for the purpose of not dealing with the issues, writing opposition off as crazy or lying, so there’s no need to discuss whatever the subject was.

    I found a perfect example on the PB blog in a post about Social Security over there. Despite all the replies I got to my usually brilliant post , not one of them answered the pertinent questions. Like I said, it is a common defect, or trait, among the Left, so I didn’t expect anything else but what I got. I do enjoy injecting a bit of reality where I have some knowledge. Like I did on your website, before doing so got me banned.

    I am glad to learn that Malloy was even too much for Air America. I was unaware that they had standards or limits. 🙂 He’s a piece of work for sure.

  5. Also, Malloy doesn’t have any where near the listening audience that any of the Conservative/Corporatist Talk Radio Host like Rush and others have in talk radio. It would be disingenuous to suggest or imply that they are some how equal opposites in their ability to influence politics.

  6. Malloy is bit out there in his extremes. He actually got kicked off from being a host on Air America before it went under. I haven’t tried listening to him in years, but he reminds me of Rightwing types like Rush or Savage in how they are representing their own ideas, rather than being journalist out for information and real political discourse.
    .
    That’s not to say that there aren’t extremist in elements in the Tea Party’s. To suggest they don’t exist would be just as extreme as Malloy suggesting, that is all they are about.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *