Comments on: What public discourse? On corporate political speech

By: Moataz

Moataz — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 10:22:09 +0000

specifically you failed to address: 1) the proper role of government, 2) the current state of the economy, and 3) how and why individuals would see the need to form pressure group politics to exert influence on legislators and why that is the logical outcome of the first 2 points. Once these issues are identified and addressed the principles behind special interests/lobbying, irrespective of any issue, can be recognized and those "power struggles" between citizen vs corporation that you regard as a metaphysical given would cease to exist.

As for now I am going to celebrate the decision of the supreme court which drew a firm line between government power and the inviolability of freedom of speech despite the naysayers and hypocrites who think first amendment rights apply to them only and not to others.

And Sean, you have it right with boycotting that which does not agree with our values. However your suggestion that we should instead donate our money to progressives is utter rubbish.

By: Moataz

Moataz — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 08:36:21 +0000

That was a pretty good ruling as a matter of fact. The outrage is not necessary and misguided. Your article is not too shabby but it fails to address the underlying principles behind why lobbying and special interests have come to dominate the political environment in the first place.

By: Sean2009

Sean2009 — Sun, 07 Feb 2010 23:08:19 +0000

Generally, when an article is well written and covers all the bases, few people feel the need to comment on it. I see this on a lot of high quality blog posts. Few people will chime in just to say "ditto" and most comments on most blogs tend to be adversarial. I wrote in myself to express my opinion that the article was good and because I saw an opening to discuss my pet hobby horse of boycotting the media.

It's sad that we rarely respond to the stuff we agree with, if only to give the author support even if we have nothing to add to the debate. I find it very awkward to do so, but that is part of my culture. You can't judge anything about an article by the number of replies.

By: yaman

yaman — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 17:16:53 +0000

One way to do this is to reproduce articles we want to share/criticize in mainstream media by embedding them in other sites, so advertising revenues go elsewhere, and the context of the site is independent rather than business.

By: yaman

yaman — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 17:15:38 +0000

In my experience, people at the core of organizing around Israel boycott and Palestinian advocacy in the US have big picture views and are involved in all kinds of community issues, not just Palestine. However you might be right about the mass of support, ie the Arab American & even Muslim communities in general.

That said it would be presumptuous of me to assume that those 2 facts explain why there has not been a more vibrant discussion. It could be better explained better by other things, like my boring writing

By: anyone else?

anyone else? — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 15:57:54 +0000

I love it Yaman. What do you think it means that Sean2009 is the only one to comment on this? Do few others in the Palestinian movement in the US adopt a critique of the influence of corporations in their analyses of the I-P conflict? That's a big gap that needs to be addressed.

By: Sean2009

Sean2009 — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 00:25:12 +0000

Great article Yaman, and well written. I agree that the left is perhaps exaggerating the impact of this ruling, but that is no reason to let it slide, either. The fight against media should occur on all levels, not just "horizontally, " as you say, in the sense of developing media alternatives or teaching critical thinking skills, but also "vertically" in challenging and dismantling the hierarchy itself, and attempting to bring it down in ways that don't minimize or challenge the right to free speech. Plugging holes in the dyke is a worthy if futile effort.

To this end I feel enouraging a boycott of the mainstream media is the best tactic. We cannot govern content without attacking free speech, but we can choose to refrain from supporting media whose content we abhor. Lots of people criticize the media but then watch the news and buy newspapers every day. This influences their thinking whether they realize it or not, and no matter how much they may fancy themselves to be objective or critical thinkers. My brother watches Fox News because he "wants to know how the enemy thinks." But he isn't aware that many of his opinions, such as a belief that most malpractice lawsuits are "frivolous" (his word, and the mainstream media's) are heavily influenced by exposure to this mind poison. He is also helping Fox stay in business.

If everyone in this country who disdains the media would boycott it, newspapers and television would go out of business. Don't just boycott Fox News, but boycott Fox network as well. Boycott their advertisers. Turn your tv off, give the money you spend on newspapers and magazines to genuinely progressive candidates like Ralph Nader or Cindy Sheehan, and give your mind a much-need mental health break.

Boycott is a revolutionary act, it's free, very liberating and doesn't involve violence, coercion or attacks against anyone. It simply requires your non-participation. Don't wait for a movement to come along to tell you what to do and set the boycott agenda. Do it yourself, now, based on your own values.