Reading Tom Paine (http://www.tompaine.com/feature.cfm/ID/7725) I was amazed when I read that comment on US right wing media reaction on anti-war protest in the US.

Of course, as a european I don't get much insight in extreme right US media comments, except that I sometimes felt that the Fox commenters might have liked to kill a couple of Iraqis themselves. What are the anti-war protests in the US like? Are the commenters just rabid or is it true that Saddams friends and moscows last supporters are marching the streets with red flags?

PS: Another interesting link (http://www.courier-journal.com/cjextra/editorials/ed0420_edwards.html)

[ May 09, 2003, 23:00: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

Of course the Right demonizes the opposition. The Left does the same -- from comments about the mental ability of Shrub, to the use of terms like "war hawks", to calling American soldiers baby killers, the Left is just as guilty of such ridiculous hyperbole. That's life in America -- you can do what you want, and others can comment on it. There's still plenty of people in America who don't agree with the war, and they too have their outlets for what they have to say. So the idea that the Right has hijacked the media and is stoppping free speech is ludicrous -- the fact that your article is available proves that the Left is alive and well in America.

That article is on the internet - not on tv or in the newspapers. That certainly makes a difference, even more as everyone can make a website with much less financial effort than connected with the other media. It's the poor man's media.

How is it in tv? Or in the major newspapers?

Well, on CNN's Crossfire, the Left is very well represented and has many supporters. The New York Times is pretty far to the left as well, IMHO. Lots of protests going on, and while the right may call the protestors all sorts of names, the protests are still going on, and they're being reported. So much for the Right stifling debate.

On most television news sources you'll see greater coverage of opposition to the war. Conflict makes higher ratings than agreement.

Ragusa -- IMO the Tom Paine article you cite is fairly accurate. The media has been pretty much for the war, since almost everyone is tuning-in. The news media is now much like the entertainment side of the business. War = good ratings and good ratings = high profits.

I guess Marshall MacCluhan was right after all. "Das Medium ist die Message."

There are reports of people being arrested in malls for wearing anti-war t-shirts and kids being sent home from school for protesting the war in various ways. I'm not sure how valid these reports are though. One thing is sure: there are no more Bob Dylans. And we are the worse off for it.

I think the fact that we all (myself included) tend to look at public issues as either "left" or "right" is proof that we have all been either brainwashed or just completely disenfranchised with politics. I suppose the logic is if you take an issue and have two completely polarized viewpoints then the right answer lies somewhere in the middle. That is a logic fault. The American political system is based on this premise. If you take two parties who both have polarized viewpoints on any given topic then the right answer will mysteriously appear as a result of the balance of power. This leads to a lot of logic faults.

That is a logic fault. The American political system is based on this premise. If you take two parties who both have polarized viewpoints on any given topic then the right answer will mysteriously appear as a result of the balance of power. This leads to a lot of logic faults. Yes, that's pretty it. That's the gerneral downside of having a 2-party-system. It eats up a lot of opinions and views. That's on of the main reasons of the problem. In domestic issues, it is by far not an optimal way, but it manages to work, because a lot of people still have a clear knowledge of what's going on in their neighberhood. In foreign policies issues it is a catastrophe. Polarized, it makes people either Saddams-hater or Saddams-lover, French-lover or French-hater. But nearly no informatoin, because of the isolation of the continent North-American continent, comes in from the outside world, to, at least, minimally outweight the polorazied picture.

This ends up in having an left-right-wing polarized view about the whole world.

And this view about the world is domestically translated in "patriots" or "traitors".

British are good, French are bad.

Yes, that is the problem, you have to buy the whole package with the two-party system. For instance, I have conservative friends who support the tobacco industry and will defend smoking. Yet, they are all for the war on drugs, (for me, it is just a code word for war on the poor). When I ask them why they are for the war on drugs they say: because drugs kill people and ruin their lives. But tobacco doesn't? They can't explain it.

For liberal-progressives it is the same. If you are a libral progressive then you must be pro-choice. That is not true, I have an 18th month old daughter and I could never conceive of a parent wanting to kill an unborn child because it is "inconvenient." I am opposed to abortion on demand, but that makes me a terrible progressive. So be it.