"Progressive" populist broadcaster Ed Schultz has been named the new 6 o'clock anchor on MSNBC. Sounds like he's a progressive in the Mark Green mode: PEP. Progressive except for Palestine. Susie Kneedler:
I don't know how he responded to the Israeli massacre in Gaza (I
can no longer just call it "Gaza"--too euphemistic) because Columbus, Ohio,
lost its Jones Radio-AirAmerica affiliate around Dec. 20, before the
assault. But he'd not been discussing the siege in Gaza or the truce
honored by Hamas.
MSNBC seems not to be giving us Sam Seder for 10:00. He'd certainly be better than Schultz at any time. Schultz may have okay intentions but he simply does not read enough; many times callers would mention something that had been discussed everywhere for weeks, only to find that Schultz hadn't heard a word of it.
they want another olberman style blowhard and he will deliver that.
The guy seeks fame and fortune — nothing more. He's an entertainer, ex-republican, opportuntist and blowhard who will have no problems whatsoever bending and adhering to MSNBC corporate doctrine.
I can barely watch TV entertainment news anymore.
Still miss Randi Rhodes.
I remember recently on Shultz' radio show, what sounded to be a black guy called up and questioned Obama's program, and said what we really need in this country is a third party. Schultz went completely ballistic and nearly blew a gasket on the air. It was shocking.
These two-party regime freaks just can't handle any kind of dissent. The authoritarian mind is truly a sick and frightening phenomenon.
General Electric owns MSNBC. General Electric makes weapons (and more). Israel needs, uses and therefore buys weapons.
Why would MSNBC seek justice in Palestine unless more than half of it's viewers would publicly say that they won't watch MSNBC again if they don't cover I/P more, and more progressive?
I feel about these goy careerist, shallow moralists, intentional ignoramuses, as a goy American, like
Phil negatively feels about his own partnering people in power, the jew Americans, also ostensibly America Firsters, Humanity firsters. It makes me want to puke.
We have seen this all before historically.
How can we change it?
I supported the Lebanon incursion, and have had a total reversal of viewpoint in two years. It had more or less happened below my consciousness by the time of Gaza, and Gaza precipitated it out. Something about Gaza seemed so elective – rockets had been coming in for months – compared to Lebanon, which in my mind was a response to a cross-border hostage-taking (I do recall now the point at which the tenuous justification I accepted just gave way in my mind to the obviously disproportionate means, especially the unexploded clusters). I'm sure my facts are all whack on that. But Gaza was just so plainly a strategic decision made at the time of Olmert-Livni's choosing. And in the midst of elections to boot. Then came Freeman.
Which is a long way of saying, see what Schultz thinks now – it was a long three years, at least for me.
In a letter sent to Dr. Norman Finkelstein in 2006:
Filling in today for Ed Schultz on his radio show on Los Angeles "Progressive Talk" radio KTLK was a regular to Ed's show, Norman Goldman. Ed has already weighed in with the position that "Israel's gotta do what Israel's gotta do" echoing the meme of "right of self-defense." The show has been taking heat from callers and in emails for his inability to recognize Israel's war crimes in addition to many historical misstatements about their dealing with the Palestinians.
Mr. Goldman made mention of this disagreement but said he sides with Ed. He knows a lot of listeners don't but attributes a lot of it to beneath the surface anti-Semitism. He also said he was willing to defend his position against all challengers. He prefaced his going o the phones by saying that he wanted to feel secure in his positions so he went back and researched the history. He spent some time noting how much effort he put into understanding the background of the region, the nature of the conflict, and how all the data confirmed his views. I listened with half an ear as callers either agreed with him whole-heartedly or tried to point to injustices done to the Palestinians by Israel. Mr. Goldman said that Israel could not be faulted in its use of force since from the beginning they only wanted to be left alone to live in peace, whereas all the Arabs there want to "drive them into the sea."
I found his stock answers less than compelling. I learned just how much insight his "extensive research" into the conflict entailed when he spoke of the "myth" of a Palestinian presence in the region as being "refuted" by Joan Peters in her book "From Time Immemorial." My jaw dropped. Nothing like broadcasting one's ignorance to a wider audience. I suppose he could be forgiven as no less than Benjamin Netanyahu has it listed first on his web site for resource links on the Middle East conflict.
—
Though this was from a substitute, it nonetheless demonstrates the willingness to trumpet the 'official narrative' at the expense of truth. I have no doubt that Mr. Schultz will continue in this vein.
As a PEP, he'll either ignore the reality of the I/P conflict altogether so as not to actually inform anyone as to the situation there, or more likely he'll continue to provide misinformation/disinformation in order to support the aforementioned official narrative.
A lot of moderates rave about Maddow, but I saw her advocate for bombing Pakistan recently. Moderates often claim to be liberal, but they cling to well worn platitudes and grasp at military solutions.
BTW, there's currently an Israel tourism ad that runs regularly on MSNBC's "Rachel Maddow Show" with the tagline "You belong in Israel" which I guess applies to all except the Palestinians. I would imagine their visitation rights are as limited as their right of return.
RE: "I don't know how he [Ed Schultz] responded to the Israeli massacre in Gaza…because Columbus, Ohio, lost its Jones Radio-AirAmerica affiliate around Dec. 20, before the assault. But he'd not been discussing the siege in Gaza or the truce honored by Hamas."
ME: Incredibly, he totally and completely ignored it. He went on and on about sports or anything but Gaza. It appeared that they were careful not to allow any callers on the air who wanted to discuss Gaza. I began listening to Ron Kuby instead by streaming his program from Air America Media. He lived in Israel for a while, is very knowledgeable about the ME and is not afraid to criticize Israel. That means he will eventually get the axe.
I’m just glad that they didn’t give Schultz the 10:00 PM slot. I’m hoping for Seder, Sirota or Uygur.
A comment I posted on this thread remarking upon the fact that for decades the USA has both funded and protected the most rabidly sexually reactionary armed factions in the Muslim world, because they were anti-Left, thus alienating the western feminist movement and lesbians most especially from all issues involving Muslims, has been removed by whoever it is who censors this blog. This tells me a lot about Phil's limits as a 'leftist'.
Rowan–I removed it with my Jewish telepathic-telekinetic powers. Woooooooooo!
America needed the oil and influence over the oil. This is one of those ugly quandaries in life…like the fact we all pay taxes for programs we don't necessarily support and we all die.
Countries don't strike relationships based on whether another country has a stellar gay or feminist rights policy.
There's a lot of compromise and weighing of self-interest involved.
Peter Pans have a very painful time accepting this.
I may or may not resemble Peter Pan in certain other ways, Suzanne, but I totally agree with you about realpolitik. One might wonder whether the USA has in fact pursued its own best interests here, though.