Digby's Hullabaloo Posts

Again from His Purplosity, and on the subject of his earlier post on Rhandi Rhodes I’m pointed to a post by Skippy who lists a number of liberal radio voices who have been canned, eased out or otherwise metaphorically “disappeared” under suspicious circumstances.

But, he leaves out the best talk radio host ever in my book, the great Michael Jackson (not that one) who is considered by many in the radio business as having been the first talk show host.

His was on KABC until 1997, when the station unceremoniously demoted him to weekends. After being in drive time for more than 35 years, Jackson wasn’t too happy with his weekend gig at KABC, and eventually left the station in 1998.

He is famous for his “little black book,” which contains the name and phone number of anybody who is anybody-the rich, powerful, famous or infamous. Jackson has interviewed every U.S. President since Lyndon Johnson, and he was the first and only talk radio host to interview President Bill Clinton following the Monica Lewinsky scandal.

His show is erudite, intelligent, informative — but unfortunately he doesn’t get into any shouting matches with his guests, he doesn’t pontificate about how the world is going to hell in a handbasket because of the evil Americans who don’t agree with him and his callers seem to be more interested in asking questions than sharing their learned opinions on every subject. In other words, his show doesn’t appeal to the angry morons who seem to be the most coveted audience in America.

Interestingly, he just spent the last couple of years at a Clear Channel station KLAC. Of course he was let go this last November when Clear suddenly decided to change from the talk show format to oldies. As it said in this article in the Long Beach Press Telegram:

The change comes at a time when, perhaps, Jackson has never been better. His in-studio guest list reflects that: Tom Brokaw, Peter Jennings, Al and Tipper Gore all in the last week, all shunning phone interviews they might have given other radio hosts to meet in person with Jackson.

“Nobody turns us down,’ he says proudly.

But that only adds to the sting Jackson feels in losing his show. He explains the machinations that have put the political right in talk- show ascendancy, while making liberal hosts such as himself an endangered species.

“Talk shows are dominated by conservatives, probably because they reflect the political leanings of station managers, who, in the main, come up through the ranks of sales rather than through news, entertainment and programming. Also, they are in the main, although not entirely, hoping to emulate the success of (Rush) Limbaugh.’

KLAC, its sister station, KFI [on which appear Limbaugh, Elder, Hannity et al] and nearly 1,300 others are owned by Clear Channel Radio. But those vast holdings may prevent the company’s front office from correctly measuring the politics, public opinion, and personalities in its local markets.

Says Jackson, “The change at KLAC had nothing whatsoever to do with me.’ And, he adds, it had nothing to do with the rise of conservative talk-show hosts. “I don’t want to sound like sour grapes. I don’t want to sound as if hosts on the political right have driven me out. The decision was a business one where the owners feel that they can make more money by cutting the staff, in front of the microphone and backstage, and by running canned music.

“My show was way ahead of expectations in the ratings at this stage of development. I had been on the air for just one and a half years, and the company had decided that they were not going to spend any money promoting the project. By contrast, look around. Our successful sister station, KFI, is publicized and advertised everywhere.’

The guy is the absolute best and he is having trouble staying on the air in Los Angeles, for Gawd’s sake! This makes no sense whatsoever.

It is possible, he says, that Clear Channel has misread the L.A.-area market, and has failed to grasp the presence of an extensive audience for a liberal talk show. (He defines a liberal talk-show host as one “open to all points of view.’)

“California is different from the rest of the nation,’ he says. “Every single major elective office in the state is held by a Democrat: the governor, lieutenant governor, the assembly and senate, the mayor of L.A., the attorney general, all of them. And so, KLAC turns off the microphones to talk.’

No kidding. Los Angeles is one of the most liberal cities in the country and we have no liberal talk shows. We have one of the best talk show hosts in the country right here, the man who is credited as inventing the genre and he can’t keep a job.

Sorry. This simply does not compute.

.

There’s just something about it they don’t like

Atrios has a post up about John Edwards coming out against legacy admissions, a position which is immediately derided by some as being silly because the federal government can’t do anything about such things.

This is true, of course, but then the Government can’t make people go out “and love a neighbor like you’d like to love yerself,” as our President preaches, but he says it anyway.

The point is that Edwards is using the legacy issue as a way of drawing attention to the fact that there are many dispensations given for a variety of reasons in college admissions, so why is the race issue being used as the only example of discrimination in this area? It’s a smart way of putting the anti-affirmative action forces on the defensive by making them explain why one is so much worse than the other. After all, if a student is denied access to the college of their choice because someone with lower scores was admitted due to their race, how is it that no one complains if the same person is denied admittance because someone with a lower test score was admitted because their father graduated there? If one is discrimination, isn’t the other?

Clearly, the GOP is trying to mislead the public into believing that affirmative action is the only impediment to colleges being a pure scholastic meritocracy, which is nonsense. Admissions take many factors into account, race being only one of them. One could easily ask whether it is fair that a musically gifted student should be given admission even though her test scores and grades are lower than some others. Certainly many athletes are given preference over others with far more impressive academic credentials. Any one of these jocks could have “taken the slot” that would have gone to the student who would have made the cut if only scores and grades had been taken into account.

When you frame the issue this way, it makes you wonder why affirmative-action has become the only focus of these supposed legions of white students who have been denied admission to college because someone less qualified took their place. You have to wonder why they are so sure that their place was taken by undeserving African-Americans or women or Hispanics. Is it not just as reasonable that their place was taken by an undeserving football player, legacy C student or ballet dancer?

Why is it that only “less qualified” minorities make everyone so upset?

You only hurt the one you love

Via Cursor:

Following up on the item I posted yesterday on anti-trust investigation of the alternative media the SFGate reports on the issue and I obviously misunderstood the depth of the problem and was much too flippant in characterizing it as political. Apparently, it is also about whether there is too much style coverage in alternative papers and whether anybody in LA should ever have to answer to somebody in New York. It’s a super-duper crisis in the alternative press that some evidently believe can only be resolved with a tough US Attorney and a visit by some G-men.

The inquiry is the result of a horse-trading deal last October in which each of the two firms agreed to shut down one of its papers in a city where they competed. The arrangement between the nation’s two largest alternative newsweekly chains left Los Angeles and Cleveland with only one citywide weekly each.

[…]

If so, the trend would be one more sign that weekly newspaper chains are moving farther away from their progressive, grassroots origins and acting more like the gargantuan daily newspaper conglomerates they were meant to provide an alternative to in the first place.

Do read the entire article. You will see that the real problem is the corporate dominance of the alternative press by such behemoths as The Village Voice and New Times and how this is hampering the spread of progressive ideas.

Liberal critics seem to agree that we must help John Ashcroft stop these corporate media tyrants. Like progressive political writer “Marc Haefele, a former political columnist for the LA Weekly who resigned from the paper within a month after the New Times-VVM deal, and was first approached by justice investigators in mid November.” He told them, “The LA Weekly to a large extent is being edited under New York oversight at this point in time. This was basically going on before they made the [deal]. I was asked about whether I felt that had an effect on the content of the paper … and I said that, yeah, I thought the paper was basically run from New York by New Yorkers, and it was a paper about Los Angeles, and that did not necessarily work out all the time.”

If that doesn’t require federal intervention, I don’t know what does.

However, some people like Los Angeles Magazine editor in chief Kit Rachlis inexplicably find the much welcomed Justice Department investigation to be a bit more complicated:

“There’s a terrible irony in the John Ashcroft Justice Department investigating the alternative press when, in fact, they have allowed far larger corporate entities to get away with transactions that have certainly raised a lot more antitrust issues than the LA Weekly-New Times deal has, and which had far greater effect on society,” he says. “I don’t think it’s too paranoid to say that they’re looking into the alternative press for political reasons.”

As the article then points out:

Indeed, the U.S. Justice Department has done nothing to derail the endless media mergers that have taken place between corporate giants in recent years, and has yet to block a single joint-operating agreement between competing newspapers since the Newspaper Preservation Act was passed in 1970.

Oh please. Is he trying to say that there is something unusual about Ashcroft investigating a media company for anti-trust violations? Well, so what if there is, anyway? It is far more important that reporters from the LA Weekly don’t have to take orders from some stupid New Yorker. And if it takes crawling into bed with the Bush administration to make that point, well then I don’t see that you have any choice. As long as those rotten editors get theirs (and they stop publishing all that icky arts and culture junk that actually make people pick up the rags in the first place.)

Seriously, this is nuts. It sounds like NewTimes and VVM made a deal that was a technical violation of the Anti-Trust act. But, to believe that this “violation” of anti-trust in any way impedes competition in a marketplace that is totally dominated by mega-media corporations who own everything from the cable coming into your house, your computer dial-up, your only local mainstream newspaper, several radio stations and at least one of your local TV stations plus many more cable networks is ridiculous. The Justice Department is NOT investigating because of its grave concern about competition in the marketplace of ideas and those who are helping them out of myopic concern that these corporate chains are infecting the alternative press with commercial values are hopelessly naive.

Gleefully helping the Feds lean on the Village Voice just doesn’t seem to me to be the smartest thing for liberals to do in this day and age. Call me crazy, but I don’t think that’s going to guarantee a more “responsive” alternative media going forward.

It’s pretty clear that the Washington Kewl Kidz have decided that John Edwards is completely unqualified to be President. He just doesn’t have the requisite foreign policy experience or the “gravitas” required in this time of crisis.

The kind of gravitas that was presumably evident in the last presidential campaign when George W. Bush handled foreign policy questions with such aplomb:

“Can you name the general who is in charge of Pakistan?” asked Andy Hiller, political reporter for WHDH-TV in Boston. He was inquiring about Gen. Pervaiz Musharraf, who seized control of the country Oct. 12 in a military coup. “Wait, wait, is this 50 questions?” asked Bush.

Hiller replied: “No, it’s four questions of four leaders in four hot spots.” Bush said: “The new Pakistani general, he’s just been elected—not elected, this guy took over office. It appears this guy is going to bring stability to the country and I think that’s good news for the subcontinent.”

And he has grown even beyond that fine performance to attain a Churchillian stature today that is likely unbeatable. For instance, two days ago our leader showed the kind of calm, measured response that makes people feel confident that a mature person is in charge and can be trusted to make the right decision for America:

You said we’re headed to war in Iraq. I don’t know why you say that. I hope we’re not headed to war in Iraq.

I’m the person who gets to decide, not you. And I hope this can be done peacefully.

We have got a military presence there to remind Saddam Hussein, however, that when I say we will lead a coalition of the willing to disarm him if he chooses not to disarm, I mean it.

Just yesterday, President Lincoln…er…Bush demonstrated once again his thorough grasp of the complexities of the North Korean crisis:

“We’ve got a great heart,” Mr. Bush said of the United States, noting the nation’s food donations to North Korea, “but I have no heart for somebody who starves his folks.”

This is the kind of compelling, seasoned rhetoric we have come to expect from our President and I’m afraid that the Democrats are going to have to look long and hard to find someone who not only thoroughly understands the nuanced and subtle language required for delicate diplomatic situations, but can communicate the complexity of international affairs so clearly and understandably to the American people.

The Kewl Kidz know better than anyone that George W. Bush has set a new standard for foreign policy knowledge, leadership and rhetoric and it’s going to be extremely difficult for any Democrat to meet it. Those with furrowed brows or lawyerly backgrounds need not apply.

.

Now, where did I read that liberals are boring ascetics and conservatives are the real partiers…

A letter to the editor in today’s LA Times:

My “Right-On Girlstyle Award” goes to the women of Nigeria — not for the stoning problem. I’m talking about the women who took over and closed down a Chevron-Texaco oil refinery.

More than 100 Nigerian women closed it down for several weeks. Their big demand — jobs for their husbands and sons. Yes, all they wanted was a means to alleviate their severe poverty while living a stone’s throw from the symbol of U.S. wealth, cheap oil. They finally won by threatening to bare their breasts. It’s a tribal custom called shaming; if a woman bares her breasts in front of strangers it is a shame on the men who witness it.

I propose that the women of America go to Washington and shame those men. Yes, let’s go there and bare our breasts at President Bush’s State of the Union address. Shame on him for diverting attention away from the health-care crisis, the pension crisis, the education crisis; shame on him for stomping on environmental protection regulations; shame on him for bombing innocent people any minute now in Baghdad; shame on him for promoting the use of oil and thus a war, rather than promoting alternative methods of energy production; shame on him for all the young Americans who are totally unmotivated to vote, yet have already died in Afghanistan or will soon die in Iraq. Women of America, let’s bare our breasts for peace and democracy!

Carolyn Rios

I hadn’t actually thought of it before, but this could be the radical new form of political discourse we Democrats have been looking for.

.

Johnnie puts his foot down

General Johnnie is on the case when it comes to cracking down on those anti-trust behemoths who would crowd out competition and leave the poor unsuspecting public with no choices and no hope. He is the consumers best friend and don’t you forget it. Just read this by John Powers in The LA Weekly if you don’t believe me.

Who Do You Antitrust?

Ashcroft’s Department of Justice is investigating possible antitrust violations on the part of two alternative news companies, New Times Media and Village Voice Media (of which the L.A. Weekly is part). While I’ll leave it to the lawyers to limn the merits of the case, I must say it’s striking that two comparatively small chains should face the scrutiny of the same DOJ that notoriously gave Microsoft a cushy deal in its antitrust settlement, takes no steps against America’s broadband monopolies, and does nothing to limit huge “synergistic” empires like Fox, AOL Time Warner and Disney. If I were of a politically suspicious nature, I would wonder whether the DOJ is targeting alternative papers like this one because we are an alternative to the corporate media — opposing the Iraq war, chronicling Ashcroft’s efforts to dismantle the Constitution and challenging our government’s near-religious faith in the market. In fact, there’s something worthy of Joseph Heller, if not Kafka, in the idea that, at this point in history, the secrecy-obsessed Bush administration is going after free weekly papers — in the name of defending free expression.

So, the all powerful alternative media are flexing their muscles in the marketplace of ideas. Have they no shame?

You go General Johnnie. Shut these corporate tyrants down!

Can you say “deluded?”

I have one more little balloon I’d like to prick before we move on to “bare breasts for peace.” (Just hold on.) I have to take issue with a meme that seems to have infected the brains of many Republicans. I’m not the first to note this, but I don’t think it can be repeated too often. It is best exemplified in a letter I read in the NYTimes on Tuesday:

“George W. Bush’s campaign tactics in 2000, the “Southern Strategy” and the Trent Lott episode are yesterdays’ news. The Republican Party, and all it stands for, won an overwhelming victory in the 2002 Congressional elections. Americans are pleased with the presiden’ts agenda just as it is.”

Ok. I won’t go into the obvious absurdity of Trent Lott being “yesterdays news” compared to the election returns because he is literally last week’s news at the very least. Of course, the election was last November’s news, before the Trent Lott scandal, but why pick nits?

The real delusion is this triumphant interpretation of the 2002 election. The Republicans gained two Senate seats and 6 House seats. This is constantly claimed to be an “overwhelming” victory.

Ah, but it is an historic victory because the party in the White House always loses in the first midterm, right? And, they usually lose by more than 25 seats in the House, too, so it was extra, super-duper overwhelming. It’s been more than 60 years since any President was so beloved by the American people that they voted for his party in the first election after his inauguration. Therefore, George W. Bush achieved something that makes him eligible for Mt. Rushmore if not canonization.

But…but…he didn’t defy history at all. And why is that?

Because he didn’t win the election in 2000, that’s why. If Al Gore had been in office as the voters wanted, there would have nothing remarkable about the 2002 GOP gains at all, except for the fact that they were so small.

Uncle Tony may have defied history, but Dubya didn’t.

My oh my

I am truly overwhelmed by the welcome wagon in beautiful downtown Left Blogtopia. Thank you all very much. Now I suppose I’ll actually have to write something, huh? Is that how it works?

And many thanks also to those who voted for me in The Koufax Awards over at PLA. (Dwight Meredith is a mensch of heroic proportions. But, we already knew that.)

Congratulations to all of those grand lefty pontificators. Gawd knows my sanity depends upon reading all of them.

Still waiting for an apology…

I just want to say this before everybody moves on to bigger and better things and forgets Old Trent and all the hoopla around the sudden “revelation” that he had been a racist all of his life.

I was very moved by Peggy Noonan who seemed so puzzled and disturbed by Lott’s unfortunate statement. She wrote:

…when Strom Thurmond ran for president in 1948 he ran explicitly as a segregationist who would attempt to stop the civil rights revolution. He never, ever should have been elected president of the United States. It is truly weird for a person who lives in our world, in the modern world, to say otherwise

She goes on to tell a little story about a Democrat who fought for civil rights back in the 60’s. She feels his pain.

It is very painful, our racial past. We made blacks and whites and all other colors equal in this country at great cost. A lot of feelings got hurt; a lot of people got hurt; a lot of people died. To pick only one of the millions of examples: Harold Ickes, the political operative who worked for Bill Clinton and now works for Hillary Clinton. I can’t imagine agreeing on too many political issues with Mr. Ickes, but back in the ’60s he helped organize the Freedom Riders to desegregate the South. In Louisiana he got into a fight with some local bad guys. He was beaten so badly that he lost a kidney. He’s still walking around with only one kidney. He’s just a middle-aged white lawyer who’d pass you by on the street in a shirt and a tie, but in this respect, in terms of what he did 40 years ago, he is a hero. There were a lot of heroes in those days. It was all wrenching, but in the end we did the right thing

(Did we, now.)

In a later column she writes

But it would be best for the Republican Party–and the country–if Republican senators were utterly brutal and moved to fire him before then. This would be a Christmas present to the country: Jim Crow’s long, gasping death is finally over. If they do not move before Jan. 6 they certainly must fire him as leader on that date.

She goes on:

“… we believe completely in our hearts and minds that all races are equal and no one should be judged by the color of his skin. And then some guy comes along and speaks the old code of yesteryear and seems to reinforce the idea that those who hold conservative positions are really, at heart, racist. We are indignant, and we have been for a long time

In the Lott scandal our indignation reached critical mass. A lot of conservatives, many of them 50 and under, decided enough is enough, let’s end this, let a new party be born. And by the way, in the particular case of Trent Lott, it didn’t start yesterday. Stanley Crouch just surprised me by sending me a column he wrote almost four years ago for the New York Daily News. It was about a Lott appearance before the Council of Conservative Citizens, a white-supremacist group. I said it was springtime and it’s time to throw out the garbage, and Mr. Lott should go.

How inspiring. But I’m a little bit confused about one little thing and I sure wish Peggy would take the time to explain it. If Peggy felt so strongly about this topic, if she’s been indignant for a long time, if Trent Lott represented the last, gasping breath of Jim Crow, then I would really like to know where in the hell she got off tendentiously lecturing Democrats like her hero Harold Ickes about how they had “lost their souls” because a few people in a crowd of 20,000 booed this despicable racist bastard at a tribute for a guy whose entire life was about social justice?

Why did she say that booing a known racial bigot at a memorial tribute for the man who was Jesse Jackson’s Minnesota campaign manager in 1988, a man who in 1997 retraced Bobby Kennedy’s 1967 national poverty tour (which started in Mississippi) was “just envy and revenge and resentment?”

Why does she demand that the GOP leadership be “utterly brutal” and fire Lott for his racist statements, which she admits had been out there for at least 4 years, (and we all know his sentiments haven’t exactly been a secret for nigh on to 35 years now, don’t we Peggy?) when just 6 weeks earlier she had the ineffable chutzpah to write the following:

Imagine Trent Lott dies, and there’s a big memorial back home in Mississippi in some big auditorium. Half the Senate shows up to show respect: Trent was a nice guy. But they show up for another reason too: to show solidarity with democracy. To show we’re all Americans together, and we respect the ballot together, and we are big enough to feel regard and respect across party lines.

[…]

When you’re in politics not to live life but avoid it, you become especially susceptible to a kind of polar thinking. You become convinced you’re with the good team and the good people over here. You become convinced anyone who doesn’t want the same policies you want must be bad. After all, you’re good, so if they disagree they must be bad. When you’re polar like that you dehumanize the people on the other side. And when you dehumanize them–well, then you wind up booing them at a funeral..

Yeah, that’s true. Trent Lott was booed at the funeral because some of the grieving Democrats there “became convinced” that Lott’s known support for things like Thurmond’s 1948 campaign platform was “bad.” They were downright “polar” about it. They “dehumanized” poor old Trent and wound up booing him.

But, just 6 weeks later, without even a trace of embarrassment, Peggy is indignant that Lott is even associated with the Republican Party.

Seriously, I just hope she can live with herself for turning the pain and anguish in the Wellstone family into a cheap, political talking point. I hope she will find it in herself to examine how she could use a totally righteous display of disgust at a man like Trent Lott, who stood for everything that Paul Wellstone fought against in his life, into a campaign strategy that deigned to lecture Democrats about the “goodness” of the man she demanded the leadership of her party “brutally” fire less than 2 months later.

Here’s some advice for Peggy, in her own words:

…you need to stop, sit down, think, question yourself, look at your actions and ponder what you’ve become. And how somehow love for your side in the fight became hatred for the other.

Let me be very candidly specific. …You need to get a good psychologist and a good holy man or woman, a priest or rabbi or minister–or how about all three–and figure out why you’re turning everything in your life into politics. Because I have to tell you what I know: Politics is the biggest, easiest way in all of America to avoid looking at yourself, and who you are, and what fence needs fixing on your own homestead.

Via Atrios. Responding to the earth shattering news that the Democratic Party has realized that the Republicans have an effective marketing arm, John Podesta announces in the NY Times today that the Dems are looking into setting up similar operations.

As Hesiod points out, this is just a tiny bit….uh….stupid. You don’t announce that you are countering a successful Republican political operation by copying it.

You say that “there is a huge wave of interest in Democratic ideas among grassroots Americans and that the party is actively helping to disseminate those ideas along with various interested parties from business and industry who are gravely concerned about the direction this administration is taking the country.” It’s spin, marketing, shading the truth, selling the product. It’s called propaganda. And you never admit to it. Ever.

Propaganda is defined by Miriam Webster as:

Pronunciation: “prä-p&-‘gan-d&, “prO-

Function: noun

Etymology: New Latin, from Congregatio de propaganda fide Congregation for propagating the faith, organization established by Pope Gregory XV died 1623

Date: 1718

1 capitalized : a congregation of the Roman curia having jurisdiction over missionary territories and related institutions

2 : the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person

3 : ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one’s cause or to damage an opposing cause; also : a public action having such an effect

Setting aside this clumsy “announcement”, it’s clear that the Democratic media operation is non-existent, and in this day and age, that is pathetic. But, it seems to me that the real problem is not just that we don’t have liberal media outlets, or a unified Democratic message. The real problem is that we don’t understand what the modern media wants and what it needs.

I think that the mainstream media is actually fairly politically agnostic. Entertainment values are what motivate them and entertainment values are driven by emotion and sensation, not reason, the basis of rational political debate. But, these values are manifested in more than a race for ratings and careerist brown-nosing of the corporate boss (both of which are big factors, but not decisive ones.) Political news coverage is shaped by celebrity, insiderism, institutional cronyism, drama, stimulus, schaudenfraude, comedy, starpower and Washington zeitgeist. And, they are desperate for material. This need for a compelling story is a yawning black hole that constantly needs to be filled and that is something the GOP has learned how to manipulate.

Therefore, I believe we have to learn to present our policies in terms of conflict, courage, empathy, community, fun, heroic deeds and sex appeal and these “stories” must be told by people who know how to tell them in a stimulating way. We must learn how to lead the press where we want it to go by using seductive themes and dramatic narratives.

I am almost certain that Clinton survived the bashing he took because of his superstar charisma as much as his brains and toughness. Everything about him was interesting, either as a villain or a hero. He was a Master Celebrity and he made everyone pay attention. The media were far more interested in his Q rating than in his job approval rating. Up or down, they wanted him on screen. And he delivered. He was the first rock star president, for better or worse.

But, his presence and the focus the media put on him meant that the Democrats did not develop the media apparatus they should have when this new 24 hr cable universe came roaring into being. The Republicans did…

However, I do not believe that they could continue to beat us at this game if we applied ourselves to it. The only reason that the GOP has managed to dominate the media political discourse is by outright buying of outlets and broadcasting the political equivalent of “Battle Bots”; selling cheap, puerile schoolyard conflict on every single one of them. This attracts the kind of viewer who also loves to watch shark feeding shows on the Discovery Channel and any movie starring Steven Sagal which is hardly representative of the electorate.

But, up to this point that’s been the only version of “The Political Show” on television. Being a political junkie, I watched in the beginning but quickly found that I hated the format. The pre-ordained positions, the ritual argument, the predictable escalation to screaming and finally the shaking hands and good natured laughter between all the participants as the credits roll just failed to interest me as entertainment — these shows are like watching the WWF. A scripted narrative pretending to be real. (I’m all too aware that the consequences are very real, but I’m talking about the shows themselves.) Since they fail to inform about anything but a perfunctory analysis of daily spin, I don’t watch much of it. There are others like me.

The CW is that Democrats don’t do well in talk radio or cable news formats because we don’t have the right combative style. We’re too dry and boring. The NY Times article says that we “talk down to people.” This may be true, but it’s really a much deeper problem than that. The reason we’ve been stymied is because we have been clinging to the idea that political media should reflect a rational discourse in which views are aired and debated with civility and mutual respect and that commercial entertainment values are inappropriate and dangerous to democracy. I agree. The problem is that ship sailed while we were standing on the dock talking amongst ourselves and patting each other on the back for our fealty to reason. It’s over. Political journalism is now part of the entertainment media, at least on television and radio, and we are foolish if we don’t recognize it and get on with it. If there were a great disaffected audience of rational thinkers who just want to be informed, then Jim Lehrer would have the highest rated news show in television. He isn’t even close.

The fact is that people want the news to entertain them, in fact they demand it.

So, we have to find a way to provide it to them instead of letting the “Battlebot’s” dominate the national consciousness with the only definition of our policies and our values that seems to get out there these days. And, I expect if the Democrats got serious and consulted with their richest contributors who run the real media that most Americans watch every single day in numbers that make O’Reilly’s look like a local weathercast that they could develop a “show” that makes Rush and his jowly cohorts look like those old kinescopes of Dave Garraway and that silly monkey.

The Democrats need to be open to radically new ideas about how to sell politics. Because whether we like it or not, it’s another media product competing in a 500 channel universe for the attention of an over stimulated populace. Liberals have to use our dominance in the world of art, communications and entertainment to translate what is already a liberal cultural environment into a liberal political environment.

The brain-dead Battlebot script is not the only script that can sell political ideas. But, it may be the only script that can sell Republican ideas.

Psst. John Podesta: Think Oprah. Think music. Think reality television. Don’t be a dumbass and diss the most exciting new medium around — the internet. (John Podhoretz said the recent blogging phenomenon reminded him of when talk radio took off 10 years ago. That’s food for thought, eh?)