Network Television and "Coincidences"
...where were we? Oh, yeah, we had just dutifully marched off to the polls and put the Republicans in the majority position, both in the state of Florida and in our U. S. Congress (which, let me remind you again, was NOT designed by the framers of the Constitution to represent only a tiny minority at the top. That is a modern invention. Believe it or not, the Framers meant to have your Congress member represent YOU!)

And then we went back to watching TV, and absorbing all those little images and buzzwords and code phrases - let`s look at some examples:

Not that long ago many Americans were proud to describe their policy outlook as "liberal", by which they meant enlightened and benevolent and progressive and compassionate. They would speak proudly of the liberal policies of Roosevelt; and after WWII they spoke proudly of the liberal policy of President Eisenhower`s administration vis a vis our defeated former opponents. Can you imagine Bill Clinton loudly and proudly declaring himself a Liberal today? And he`s a Democrat. Can we even imagine that there was a time when Republicans would describe themselves as "liberal"?

What happened? Well, over the years there was a steady drumbeat on TV of buzz words and code phrases: "liberal coddling of criminals"; "tax-and-spend liberals", "bleeding-heart liberals", "liberal social experiments", ... until it finally got to James Watt, Reagan`s Interior Secretary, who declared that there are only two kinds of people in this country: Americans; and liberals.

Within the content of "Entertainment" programming as well as in "analysis" programs, these little words and phrases were fed to us every day and every day - and now, after a couple of generations of a steady diet of this, no politician in his right mind wants even the remotest connection to all this "discredited liberalism".

Common knowledge, right? Everybody knows all about the "failed liberalism" of Jimmy Carter, right? Everybody knows that all the liberals want to do is stop progress and interfere with good projects and coddle criminals and crush YOU under an insufferable tax burden, right?

Another good example: the word "Radical"

radical defined

But for 3 decades now we have been receiving images and comments - not only in the openly biased ads, but equally biased if less openly, news and commentary programs, and WITHIN even the most empty -headed and (seemingly) forgettable network 'sitcoms', 'afternoon dramas', and 'made - for - TV movies. (You know what that means, don't you? Made to be a vehicle for the networks commercial and political ads.) - which little by little have transformed 'Radical' into another one of those descriptions that nobody wants to touch with a ten-foot pole - you might as well be called a terrorist or an anarchist (there's ANOTHER one...) Radicals are all crazy, right? And their motives are bad, right? ...like, man, the idea is ..uh.. like, man, the idea is to just stop all progress, man, uh... cause it's just ...uh ...you know what I mea.. ...uh, like, it's the revolutionary thing to DO, you dig, man?...? All loaded out on something and have no clear ideas nor foundation for their positions; and they are bent on nothing but harm to our way of life - dangerous - extremist - 'way off center, not to be listened to nor trusted nor believed...

Only one problem. These statements, and a hell of a lot more stuff that "everybody knows", are dead wrong. Go to Europe and see what the scholars who study world affairs have to say about Jimmy Carter; and what they have to say about other U.S. presidents of our century. There`s enough of this stuff to fill a large book - stuff that "everybody knows" that just is not true.

Forward �������� Home