Saturday, July 12, 2014

The Myth of the Liberal Media: Intellectual Bumper Bowling. Did You See Michael Eric Dyson's Interview With Dinesh D'Souza About His Propaganda Film 'America'?

How would you demolish Dinesh D'Souza's arguments in his movie America: Imagine a World Without Her?

Once again, there is no liberal media; there is only a corporate media. If there was in fact a liberal media, the nonsense and intellectual poison offered up by Right-wing hacks such as Dinesh D'Souza would not be given a national platform from which their toxins could be spread.

Moreover, if there was in fact a "liberal media", Dinesh D'Souza would not have been interviewed by MSNBC and Dr. Michael Eric Dyson about his Right-wing propaganda movie "America" earlier this week.

I have met and talked to Michael Dyson on several occasions. He is smart and good people. I have no doubt that he could have destroyed, with minimal effort, Dinesh D'Souza during his interview on MSNBC. Propriety and the informal rules of being a good host dictated that Dyson hand off D'Souza to the panelists. Unfortunately, they too were nice, polite, and careful in their criticism of a Right-wing professional liar and thug.

The slavish devotion to "fairness" and "balance" by supposed "liberals" in the mainstream media means that equal time is given to foolish and specious claims about the nature of truth and empirical reality by conservatives. Consequently, myth and fantasy are then debated and engaged by serious people as worthwhile and rigorous propositions instead of the alternative where such claims are rightfully rejected as childish nonsense. In this exercise, the Right wins every time.

Dinesh D'Souza's discussion with Dr. Dyson and his guests was the equivalent of evolutionary biologists "debating" creationists. The latter cannot lose because the former have legitimated their absurd premises.

D'Souza's Right-wing propaganda disinformation film "America" could be easily dismissed by basic questions such as the following.

America is an "exceptional" country is it not? Then why excuse-make for its crimes?

What about pointing out how chattel slavery and the Maafa were a singular and unique crime against humanity?

In a sickening display, D'Souza lies, distorts, and willfully misreads history in order to claim that white European genocide against First Nations people was somehow similar to interstate conflict between those powers.

Dinesh D'Souza and the cabal of Right-wing propagandists (who are routinely given time by the "liberal media") are raping the truth.

Liberals, progressives, and reasonable centrists who provide a platform for Right-wing propagandists are legitimating the latter's fictions and lies. Why do they accept the specious premises of the debate?


Myshkin the Idiot said...

So much to unpack here.

First of all, in the movie he says, "theft of land from Indians" and "theft of labor from black people." It was 500 years of genocide. Abolished, annihilated cultures from Chile to Nova Scotia to Seattle to Haiti to Hawaii. From the coast of Africa, uprooted, theft of humanity, agency, culture, deprived of life and happiness.


Second of all, the Civil War was not "fought over slavery." The Civil War was fought to preserve the Union. Emancipation became a goal after two years of fighting because the Confederate States seceded to protect slavery and white supremacy. I can't even get into the post Confederate years.

Why are conservatives so afraid to critique history? I can think of numerous wars against different native Americans that were unprompted or coerced by fiat and all under the banner of subjugating inferior sub human savages.

At the very least, you can't argue with the Indian Removal Act. All tribes at peace with the US were forcibly removed to beyond the Mississippi for ever with the promise of never being bothered again, except not even 20 years later Americans were moving on them.

Then his last point about Progressives being against immigrants, lord how absurd.. It was the whole society that pushed lower income people and bought and sold lands on the border for cheap to provide a buffer for American society as a whole against the various Indian nations on the borders.

Shit, they bought land that didn't belong to anyone on paper, encircled all native cultures and then subjugated them to their own way of life.

Myshkin the Idiot said...

I should add, when he says, "every society forever and ever has dominated other people to use their land and enslave them" he is trying to deny the agency of those dominated by a dominant society their right to seek representation, equality, or an end to their subjugated status.

As far as real world, modern era people, people of color were dominated globally under the banner of white supremacy and for the benefit of capitalism in Europe and America. The effects of that history are alive in the present and similar policies continue to shape communities of color in America and beyond.

SabrinaBee said...

I totally agree that to give him a stage is to legitimize his arguments. What can one really say to such cherry-picked arguments. He mentions that 3500 blacks out of millions of whites, owned slaves. He fails to mention how many of those enslaved their own relative to protect them from the brutality of white slave owners. The remainder can either conform to what became the social norm, or be viewed as disapproving and likely wind up on someone else's plantation. Too, he neglects to mention that of the early black colonists that had property and slaves, earned upon their release as indentured servants, was snatched away from them when full on slavery was codified.

Native Americans may have warred with each other but it took the settlers, to implement extinction level violence to many tribes and bring the others to just about the edge of extinction.

And his argument that this has been done historically is supposed to somehow justify what was done? If that is the case, why not get rid of any laws made since we came to call ourselves a modern society? During which time, blacks were still enslaved and Indians were still being slaughtered, at the writing of the founding documents that established us as a "modern society." After all, these laws weren't in existence then either. Because "historically" Dinesh D'Souza might have been dressed in a butler's outfit and preparing taters and mash.

SabrinaBee said...

And the immigrants arguments is rewlly an illustration of how poor whites were used to do the dirty work of the established. Same as they continue to do now.

Learning is Eternal said...

This is the same guy who held up his hand and said "there is no difference between me and blacks in this country." Roughly saying he came from a slum and made a return on his investment in amurrKKKa in generation or less.

The one thing he and all like him left out is he subscribes to white pa' er (power).

Buddy H said...

Regarding immigration, I found this statement in a recent article by Adam Gopnik:

"The Statue Of Liberty was so resonantly reimagined as a monument to immigration that few remember it was built as an anti-slavery monument, uniting Republican France and the victorious Union government; the broken slave shackle around Liberty's foot is today only a detail in specialists' photographs."

SabrinaBee said...

Interesting. I didn't know this. ow that you pointed it out, I went in search and found a little more on the topic. For instance, the original model for the statue was a black woman, and it as a tribute to the Black French soldiers whom were instrumental in freeing the blacks here.

Learn something every day. here.

chauncey devega said...

How kind. I can give you a "no-prize" of 3 credits. Inside Marvel comic joke.

Myshkin the Idiot said...

I've often thought how great it would be if you offered an online class.

chauncey devega said...

Folks who have suffered with me in person would likely disagree :)

But, one of the things I am looking at doing is expanding the podcast, hopefully including an intro segment where I talk about the news, current events, or "connect the dots" and then answer readers' questions that they have submitted.

skilletblonde said...

I'm sorry Chauncey. I Played about 30 seconds of the video and had to stop. I find D'Souza utterly excruciating. However, I cannot pass up an opportunity to critique the media. As I've posted here before, the media conglomerates that dominates the citizens airwaves are owned and managed exclusively by Republicans. Brian Roberts CEO and owner of Comcast purchased NBC Universal in 2011.

natteringnabob said...

lol, de vega would fellate d'souza in public to become one of the well-paid "good people"

Myshkin the Idiot said...

I'm one of those foolish people who like to read and do their homework, enjoy turning in a paper or project I have worked hard on and look forward to taking an exam.

Buddy H said...

Skilletblonde, your comments about media are always sharp and perceptive.

I have experience with Jack Welch. In the late 1980s/early 1990s I worked for a small company that was a "vendor" for G.E. (some printing and film processing). Welch was hated by employees as the union buster. And he showed utter contempt for G.E. employees and outside vendors like us.

I didn't like that my work was aiding his empire, and I got out as soon as I could.

And the McLaughlin group! I remember McLaughlin's "freudian slip" during the last presidential election, when he asked what our "next president" would do. In his mind, the election had already been decided, and Mitt was the winner. Amazing that they put Mort Zuckerman on the left, liberal side! McLaughlin actually considers him a progressive voice! And contemptible Buchanan is given all the time in the world to interrupt the befuddled Eleanor Clift.

joe manning said...

The media is a sophisticated propaganda machine that would be the envy of Goebbels. It routinely juxtaposes serious scholars with liars like De Sousa to give the latter a patina of legitimacy. This process ostensibly adds credence to the radical right's unpalatable agenda. Lionizing such prevaricators can only be designed to further mass deception, thereby revealing the pathology of our oligarchs.

skilletblonde said...

Oh so true Joe. One of Goebbel's tactics was to present the appearance of diversity but behind is an actual uniformity. Rupert Murdoch uses his media properties in this fashion. Because they are so vast, he can propagate a lie and give the appearance diversity in reporting, when in actuality, it's Murdoch alone. Furthermore, all of the media conglomerates conspired against the American public to get George Bush elected. We can thank Bill Clinton for this conglomeration of the airwaves. As you know, he signed the Telecommunications Act of 1996 making the News Corp, Viacom, Time Warner and Disney possible. If we had a true democracy, the Telecommunications Act of 1996 would be rendered a violation of the first amendment.

Alison Swain said...

What a hysterical douche bag. He basically personifies himself everything of which he accused the viewers of D'Souza's film. Lots of claims of lies and mischaracterizations with nearly no specific examples. Typical liberal laziness and lunacy.

AlexVanderpoolstyle said...

As much as you dislike Tyler Perry...I think Michael Eric Dyson is the wrong guy to demolish D'Souza, while Tyler Perry would be the man for the job.

D'Souza (money hungry cultural backstabber false Christian "family values" advocate whose claims to being an intellectual are based on the fact that he wears glasses) plans a financial crime with his mistress and is caught when he is recorded by mistress's cuckolded husband.
All that Perry needs to ad is:
1) Cheated on abused wife eventually falls in love with younger more muscular blue collar good Christian (probably with a Tamil or Telugu good Southern origin to contrast with D'Souza's evil citified Bombay origin). Perhaps the cuckolded husband works at steel mill.
2) Mr Brown and Cora taking classes at King's College.
3) Someone having a backstory of childhood sexual abuse.

The kind of BS that D'Souza sells can't be taken down by intellectual Engaging with it intellectually gives it too much credibility. It should be taken down by Mr Brown and Uncle Joe.

SabrinaBee said...

Haha! "Young Mr. Bean" That was great! Yes, the media is wholly Reublican owned. Including MSNBC. An this is why the people will always end up on the losing end. They sure learned their German lessons well. Fascism disguised as democracy.

joe manning said...

One gets the impression that the media sprinkles its propaganda with a smattering of truth so folks will believe their lies.

joe manning said...

5% and 7%?

Myshkin the Idiot said...

I'm not sure what you mean.. ?

They count things in categories from "Mostly False" "False" and "Pants on Fire" as lies which is where the 60% and 46% numbers I gave you came from...

chauncey devega said...

Priceless. You should write up a treatment. Then Perry would sue you :)

joe manning said...

I meant 70% and 50%, and that's being generous. I think the truth o meter bunch engages in the same type of self censoring we're discussing. They're over cautious about offending the right and extra hard on the left consistent with right wing political correctness.

Myshkin the Idiot said...

I def agree with you

AlexVanderpoolstyle said...

Is Perry known to sue. My memory of "The For Colored Girls" story is he offers to produce and then steals project.

I was thinking about who I would want to fantasy cast in my Tyler Perry D'Souza take down film "Mr Brown Goes To Kings College"...and looked for pictures of the wife D'Souza cheated on.

I discovered that D'Souza's wife is named Dixie Brubaker. These are cartoon characters and shouldn't be treated seriously.

Miles_Ellison said...

Dixie Brubaker sounds like the stage name of a Mississippi stripper.