Some on the left are dismayed at Fox News for its unabashed support of the "tea party" protest movement, wherein citizens protest the government's use of taxpayer money in its response to the economic crisis--primarily in the TARP bailout, and also the $787 economic stimulus package.
Frustration culminated this week with Glenn Beck, who promoted the tea parties on his show Monday, encouraging viewers to "celebrate with Fox News" and join the protests April 15. Some of Fox's more popular personalities--Greta Van Susteren, Neil Cavuto, Sean Hannity, and Beck himself--will broadcast live from tea parties in DC, Sacramento, San Antonio, and Atlanta on tax day.
"If you have a tea party anywhere that--we're not covering one of those, e-mail me at glennbeck@foxnews.com. We may cover your tea party live on April 15," Beck said, according to a Media Matters transcript.
This is exactly what Pajamas Media did in Feburary:
promote the tea parties, offer its own coverage as an incentive for
citizens to attend, then actually cover the thing. Pajamas and Fox have
certain similarities--both conservative news/commentary hybrid outlets
with a nose for commercial appeal--and it's interesting to see them
engaged in the same business, fundamentally, when it comes to the tea
parties. It's a business model of conservative activism and outrage, one that highlights the naturally symbiotic relationship between media outlets and the events they cover.
The tea party movement is a tricky one to observe, since protests
happen in different cities at different times. It's hard to know how
heavily each was promoted, so it's hard to gauge whether turnout was
impressive or lame. There's a definite mystique over whether the
movement embodies a significant contingent of America that's outraged
with the government, whether it's a fringe of far-right-wingers, or
whether it's mostly staged--by Pajamas, Fox News, and conservative
bloggers who post photos of events.
What would big protests on April 15 mean? Will it prove that many
Americans are truly outraged at the government's handling of their
money--or simply that lots of people watch Fox News? And now that Fox
is backing the protests, more or less, is there any difference?
I wouldn't say the left is "dismayed" by this so much as they're "amused". And to answer your question, a real popular grassroots movement wouldn't need to rely on a corporation like Fox News to get its message out.
Bingo!! Not only that but we also find out that the "Tea Parties" are being sponsored by big money Republican corporate donors.
The Tea Parties are a grassroots movement. Fox News only came on the scene after the fact. The movement did not, does not, rely on Fox News to get the message out, it is a plus though! The attendees are not fringes of far right-wingers but ordinary folks, from all parties, yes Dems too, who are fed up with the out of control spending by the Federal government.
No, the tea parties were originated by a former derivatives trader on CNBC who didn't like all the "losers" - ordinary Americans - getting any mortgage assistance.
It's a conglomeration of hypocritical financial aristocrats, paranoid nutjobs, and opportunistic Republicans looking for a cheap avenue back to power.
Nimrod, Tea Parties have been happening all over the country for years to protest the corrupt & oppressive tax system, the abominable IRS that enforces it, & the out-of-control spending & waste that it promotes. The problem is, until the recession & the subsequent bailouts, too many people have been oblivious to the problem, or not outraged enough to act. The bailouts didn't start the Tea Parties, they made them more popular. You'd be wise to know what you're talking about before you open your mouth.
Dismayed?
Brother, this shit is hilarious.
Rely on? The radical/progressive/liberal Left would love to get NSNBC to be even more of a promoter of their causes. as it is Pacifica radio and The Nation only reach a half million.
Rely on? The radical/progressive/liberal Left would love to get MSNBC to be even more of a promoter of their causes. as it is Pacifica radio and The Nation only reach a half million.
Chris Good is very, very confused. Let me explain all of this for you:
http://24ahead.com/s/tea-parties
Helpful tip: learn what the word 'Kochtopus' means, such as from this page: www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/ir/Ch21.html
Ron Paul was a legitimate grass roots movement but was blackballed by the media. The tea parties are a legitimate movement that the necons see as ticked back to power, can get behind so its getting the green light. President Teleprompter was carried by the liberal media and you fuckers are whining because its raining shit on dear leader.
So in other words, the tea party movement really is a bunch of nutjobs on the far right. Ron Paul was an interesting figure, but he, too, was taken over by paranoid nutjobs who rant about One World Government and other assorted conspiracies.
This will be fun to watch.
Those wackos! Leave it to them to be a few months ahead of the curve. If only they'd known that the following search brings up 1,843 hits at post time:
http://news.google.com/news?pz=1&ned=us&hl=en&q=%22new+world+order%22
There certainly were some loony ideas floated by RP's supporters, and I disagree with RP on many things, but it's certainly interesting how both the MSM and the Beltway "libertarians" worked to undermine his candidacy.
And, it's also sad that his supporters were too dumb to realize that dressing up in period costumes and flying blimps were never going to be effective just as the "parties" are never going to be effective.
When I left comments at digg et al pointing out how they could be effective ( http://24ahead.com/s/question-authority ), those comments were almost always voted down. RP isn't dumb, but his supporters sure are.
It means the far right is pissed off that Obama won, and they're doing everything they can to destroy him. But no, it doesn't matter. Polls show that these tea-baggers are in the extreme minority.