Media Reform

Center-Left America

Eric Lotke — Wed, 27 May 2009 10:23:44 -0400

The wind is at our backs. The media still calls America a “center-right” nation, but “center-left” is closer to the truth.

On issues ranging from health care to energy, the public is more progressive than people think. Demographic groups from youth to Hispanics are voting farther left and in larger numbers than ever before. The new report the Campaign for America’s Future is publishing with Media Matters for America—"America: A Center-Left Nation"—documents the trends and challenges the mainstream media to recognize reality.

Sources for this Report
The report relies on high quality, nonpartisan sources. Baseline information comes from the American National Election Studies (NES) maintained by the University of Michigan, along with Pew Research Center and Gallup. Additional detail comes from polls by mainstream organizations such as CNN and The New York Times.

Public opinion

The American people are surprisingly progressive. Surveys on individual issues show the way:

Government is not the problem. The authoritative new National Election Studies reveals why the conservative attack doesn’t resonate as it used to. Two-thirds of Americans (66 percent) say “there are more things the government should be doing.” Why? Because “the problems we face have become bigger” (62 percent). Only one third (32 percent) say, “the less government the better.”

Regulation of industry makes ideology concrete. Conservatives downsized government until it hurt. Salmonella in our tomatoes, melamine in our pet food, financial instruments worth less than the paper they’re printed on. People miss the cop on the beat.

• “Government regulation of business…” — Pew Research Center, October 2008.
“… is needed to protect public interest”: 50 percent
“…usually does more harm than good”: 38 percent

The proportion has almost exactly flipped since conservatives started their anti-regulation crusade.

Health care brings government home. Health care is a #1 issue, and people don’t want government to get out of the way. They want it to help.

• “Do you think it is the responsibility of the federal government to make sure all Americans have health care coverage?” — Gallup, Nov. 16, 2008.

Yes: 54 percent
No: 41 percent

• “Should the government in Washington provide national health insurance, or is this something that should be left only to private enterprise” — CBS News/New York Times, Jan. 11-15, 2009
Government: 72 percent
Private enterprise: 32 percent

• "In general, would you favor or oppose a program that would increase the federal government's influence over the country's health care system in an attempt to lower costs and provide health care coverage to more Americans?"— CNN/Opinion Research Corporation, Feb. 18-19, 2009
Favor: 72 percent
Oppose: 27 percent

Energy also requires government attention. Higher fuel prices weren’t enough to turn the market — at least not at a rate that will keep up with global warming and instability in the Middle East.

• Would you prefer the government to increase, decrease, or not change the financial support and incentives it gives for producing energy from alternative sources such as wind and solar? —Gallup, March 5-8, 2009.
Increase: 77 percent
Decrease: 8 percent

• “Would you approve or disapprove of a proposal that would require companies to reduce greenhouse gases that cause global warming, even if it would mean higher utility bills for consumers to pay for the changes?” — NBC News/Wall Street Journal, April 23-26, 2009
Approve: 53 percent
Reducing Deficit: 40 percent

Taxes are not the problem. According to Gallup’s poll on tax day April 15, more people consider their tax payments “about right” than “too high” (48 to 46 percent),

When people do complain, it’s less about their own taxes being too high, than about rich people’s taxes being too low. People think corporations and the wealthy pay less than their “fair share” (67 percent and 60 percent each). People are willing to pay taxes if they think they are getting something for it.

• “Which do you think is more effective in stimulating the nation's economy and creating jobs: An economic agenda focused on returning money to taxpayers through tax cuts, or an economic agenda focused on spending for improvements to the country's infrastructure such as roads, bridges and schools?” — Los Angeles Times, December 6-8, 2008
Infrastructure: 54 percent
Tax Cuts: 33 percent

No culture wars. “Moral values” get single digit support in questions about ‘the most important question” facing the country. People care more about jobs and the economy.

Even on moral issues, people are more progressive than often recognized. Yes, the California ballot initiative for gay marriage lost in November. But since then, same-sex marriage has become legal in Iowa, Connecticut and Vermont. Pew Research shows majority support for gays serving openly in the military (59 percent). The trends are clear. It is only a matter of time.

And yes, the number of people considering themselves “pro-life” took a recent uptick, but this devil is in the details. On finer points like parental consent for teenagers, Medicare payment for poor people, and the late-term procedure successfully labeled “partial birth abortion” — Americans do differ. But the fundamental Roe v. Wade first trimester right remains solidly supported (68 percent, CNN, May 2009). The people who want abortion to be “illegal in all circumstances” are simply a vocal minority (23 percent, Gallup, May 2009).

Demographics

Not only public opinion, but demographics are also pointing left. The bedrock voters of the conservative movement are growing older and declining in number. In contrast, progressive demographics, are on the rise. America is becoming an increasingly diverse, younger and more metropolitan. These changes will drive our politics more than any single election.

Younger voters: People under 30 chose Barack Obama for president by a full 34-point margin over John McCain (66 percent to 32 percent). Even more impressive than the margin was the diversity. Obama garnered a 91-point margin among young African Americans (95 percent to 4 percent), and a 57-point margin among young Hispanics (76 percent to 19 percent). He even won young whites by a 10-point margin (54 percent to 44 percent), a strong contrast to his 14-point deficit among whites aged 45 to 64 (42 to 56 percent).

Hispanics: Hispanics are growing and mobilizing, and political parties have been dueling for them. But Democrats are winning. The Pew Hispanic Survey from July 2008 showed 65 percent of registered Hispanic voters identify with or lean toward the Democratic Party. Only 26 percent identify with or lean GOP, a gap “larger than it has been at any time this decade.” The gap is driven by the same issues that drive white voters — a general dissatisfaction with the state of the country, and their priority issues of education, health care and jobs. In the 2008 presidential election, Obama won Hispanics by an impressive 36 points over McCain (67 percent to 31 percent).

Unmarried Women: Women as a whole tend to lean Democratic, and Obama outscored McCain among women by 56 percent to 43 percent (compared to 49 percent to 48 percent among men). But this is only the tip of the iceberg. The most important hidden block are unmarried women, who chose Obama by 70 percent to 29 percent, a stunning 41 point margin.

Unmarried women are growing in number (47 percent of adult women today, up from 38 percent in 1970). And they are starting to assert themselves politically. Fully 20 percent of unmarried women voted for President for the first time in 2008, compared to 11 percent of voters overall and just 4 percent among married women.

Moreover, the issues important to unmarried women read like the wish list of the progressive movement. Universal health care, clean renewable energy, ending pay discrimination, raising the minimum wage, making college more affordable. Married women share these concerns — but more unmarried women add the word “very” in front of “important” in their survey responses.

Geography: Proximity produces progressives. People living in close proximity tend to tolerate individual differences, and to appreciate shared resources like schools, courts and subway trains. As urban cores expand into suburbs and as metropolitan areas prove to be dynamic, fast-growing and desirable places to live, progressive politics find fruitful soil in which to grow.

More than half (54 percent) of the country now lives in large metropolitan areas, defined as places with populations over a million people. Obama won these 51 regions by a 17-point margin (58 percent to 41 percent). Another 20 percent of the population lives in medium-sized metropolitan areas, with 250,000 to one million in population. Obama carried these regions by four points.

Obama only lost in rural America and small metropolitan areas. McCain won in small towns by 11 points and in rural America by 16 points. These regions look big on the map, but they account for only a quarter of America’s population between them.

The Media

Not everyone has gotten the message yet. The media continue to describe America as conservative or “center-right,” as if the election were an aberration.

• Populist economics are associated with words like angry, and treated like road rage.

• Conservative blue-dog Democrats in budget negotiations are honored with such labels as centrist or moderate, even as they stand on the wrong side of the American people and on the wrong side of history.

The media is starting to turn. Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter’s defection was a wake-up call that no one could miss. But the mainstream media needs to recognize progressives for the true Americans that we are, not a fringe that sometimes ekes out a victory.

The Movement

This report should give people the courage to push ahead. The danger is not in going too far, too fast, or overreaching. The danger is in not doing enough. The American people want to achieve the promise in Obama’s great speeches, not the compromise forced by conservatives in both parties.

The crisis is great. Bold action is needed. The people are hungry for progressive change.

Andrew Slack

Andrew Slack — Thu, 16 Apr 2009 15:02:47 -0400

Andrew Slack is creator, co-founder, and Executive Director of the the Harry Potter Alliance which takes a creative approach to activism by mobilizing thousands of kids to spread love and fight for justice in the spirit of the Harry Potter novels. The HP Alliance has been featured in over 200 US publications including Time Magazine, and the front covers of both the Chicago Tribune Business Section and Politico Newspaper. Andrew's HP Alliance piece in the LA Times was the Times' most viewed and emailed piece for two straight days.

In his prior career, Andrew performed comedy at hundreds of venues across the US and produced four videos that have been viewed close to eight million times.

Andrew has studied acting at a conservatory in London, served as a coexistence fellow in Northern Ireland, and done in person interviews with Civil Rights activists from Boston to New Orleans.

A Phi Beta Kappa graduate of Brandeis University, Andrew is dedicated to learning and extrapolating how modern myth and new media can transform our lives both personally and collectively. He lives in both Honolulu and Boston.

Contact Andrew at andrew@thehpalliance.org

Eldon McMath

Eldon McMath — Mon, 11 Aug 2008 10:29:14 -0400

I am a sixty year old man. Most of my family and friends think I am crazy because I am the only person among them that thinks George W. Bush is a criminal and should face prosecution. I want to know what groups there are out there that are working toward that goal after he gets out of office. I do not think Nancy Polosi is going to alow him to be impeached and I do not know if we would have the votes to remove him from office if she did. So criminal prosecrtion may be our only avenue of justice. Give me some help here. Lets get this movement on the road.

Linda Ellinor

Linda Ellinor — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 19:44:50 -0400

Worked in corporate America for 10 years after earning an MBA at Columbia. Worked briefly at my family's real estate business before deciding to go back to school in Organizational Psychology. Never got the PhD, but got started in Organizational Development work and spent 12 years doing this in my own firm, The Dialogue Group, and doing executive coaching and team building and out-placement counseling.

Then, back to a PhD program in clinical psychology at Pacifica Graduate Institute and more family real estate (inherited property).

Now am creating a retreat center and interested in peace work, sustainability, and media reform work. Am volunteering in the Tucson area in a variety of venues to "take back our country". Very interested also in democratic work. Let's actually create the democratic society we are supposed to living in.

We need some public media

Robert Vogel — Sat, 19 Apr 2008 16:47:22 -0400

Recent televised debates are but one of the many examples that demonstrate clearly that corporate media is the enemy of good government.
Questions are argumentative, largely about wedge issues or personal attacks, and real public issues are marginalized.
"Last week's Democratic debate in Philadelphia was an abysmal display of journalism. By sticking to trivial topics for half of the debate, ABC sought to provoke controversy without asking the candidates serious questions. The Huffington Post's Jason Linkins wrote that the debate "ventured into territory so utterly asinine that I could scarcely believe what I was witnessing."

Ironically, the mainstream media have been giving John McCain a free ride while trying to pin Clinton and Obama with manufactured "gotcha" questions. In fact, they don't seem to be challenging McCain at all. So there's no reason to think ABC's brand of pseudo-journalism won't continue tomorrow morning, when George Stephanopoulos will interview McCain on his show. Here's a satirical look at what that interview might be like."

There is serious danger in allowing media as usual to continue. In Nazi Germany media was Hitler's enabler. Don't think it can't happen here.

Democrats wisely chose not to have their debates on Fox news. Airheaded, hate speech from ignorant shock jocks is no improvement of the public dialog.

US media has been almost completely privatized, and that has not worked well. We need some public media. Begin by providing one broadcast feed which is used exclusively for the public. This would be free for political debates without commercial interuption. Moderators ought to be chosen from knowledgable, leading academics who have some understanding of policy issues. Candidates messages could be shown full length When it is not election season, allow the academics to air issues of importance and even to produce some thoughtful documentaries.

This would remove some of the burden of fund raising from political campaigning, enlarge public discourse and make it more informed, remove some of the corporate bias from the political arena, lessen actual media bias, and, with good management, could allow for some public speech.

(There is more on the problem at http://www.seconnecticut.com/media.htm)

Tom Gardner

Tom Gardner — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 11:19:47 -0500

Biographical Sketch

Tom Gardner is assistant professor of communication at Westfield State College, Westfield, MA.
He was formerly managing director of the Northampton-based Media Education Foundation, which he helped develop into the nation’s leading producer and distributor of educational videos on media and culture. (See listings at www.mediaed.org ).
Before joining the staff at MEF, he served as public affairs officer and editor of Harvard Divinity Bulletin for Harvard Divinity School, senior editor at the Harvard Institute for International Development, and director of communications and public education for the Union of Concerned
Scientists. He has taught communication courses for eight years, including courses in Communication Law, Persuasive Communication, Political Communication, Advanced Public Relations, and Issues in Journalism. A native Southerner, Tom became a prominent activist and leader in the Southern civil rights and national peace movements of the ‘60s and ‘70s. He later became an award-winning senior political reporter, columnist, and city editor at the Pulitzer Prize-winning Montgomery Advertiser. He subsequently served as public relations director for the Alabama State Employees Association. He holds a B.A. in sociology from the University of Virginia, an M.A. in Journalism and Mass Communication from the University of Georgia, a Master in Public Administration from the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, and a Ph.D. from the University of Massachusetts Amherst. Tom’s dissertation research focused on a case study of journalism as persuasion. He has published in numerous national publications, has spoken at more than 100 campuses, and is an award-winning photographer. He serves on the Board of Directors of the Men’s Resource Center for Change and the School Council of Fort River School in Amherst, MA. He is a member of the National Communication Association, the Union for Democratic Communication, and the Action Coalition for Media Education.

Current Lecture Topics: (fee available on request) (all incorporate media clips)

“Journalism as Persuasion: The Case of ABC 20/20 and Mumia Abu-Jamal”

“War Rhetoric and Mass Media”

“Mass Media and the First Amendment in War Time”

“Race, Mass Media, and Mass Incarceration”

“Men Overcoming a Violent Culture – Defining our Humanity”

Contact Information:
Tom Gardner (413) 572-8058 - email: tgardner@wsc.ma.edu

Tom Kenny

Tom Kenny — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 16:10:30 -0500

US expatriate Tom Kenny is a tenured faculty member and associate professor of linguistics in the department of British & American Studies at Nagoya University of Foreign Studies in central Japan, where he teaches media studies with a focus on "independent media through podcasting," and holds a seminar on American Society.

Tom is a 30-year veteran broadcaster who has worked in the US and Japan as an announcer and voice-over artist. The author of several textbooks on speaking and listening in ESL, a skilled and dynamic speaker, Tom has been presenting his research and giving talks at international conferences for over a decade.

Prisons Warp the Vote

OurFuture.org Staff — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 13:00:28 -0500

Brett Blank is a law student and a law clerk at the Prison Policy Initiative.

There once was a time when in the state of New Hampshire, wealth bought votes. It wasn't illicit or even unusual. In fact it was the law of the state. The amount of power each Senate district had was directly proportional to its taxes paid. This method of redistricting was struck down in Reynolds v. Sims less than 45 years ago.

New Hampshire was not alone. Other states had fundamentally unfair apportionment schemes. For example, Alabama gave every county the same number of state senators. As a result, sparsely populated Lowndes County had the same number of state senators as densely populated Jefferson County. This too was struck down by Reynolds v. Sims.

In that case, the Court declared its now-famous "one person, one vote" principle, holding that the Constitution prohibits redistricting plans giving voters in one area power beyond their numbers. The Court explicitly held that "legislators represent people, not trees or acres. Legislators are elected by voters, not farms or cities or economic interests."

In other words, apportionment plans must be based on population and where voters reside should not affect the power of their vote. As a result, an industry or other economic interest can only exert political influence in proportion to the number of people that support it. The Reynolds case intended to permanently the settle the question of whether other interests besides population can be the basis of representative democracy.

Except it didn't.

The Census Bureau counts people in prison where their bodies are located on census day, not where they come from and where they will return, on average, 34 months later. Forty-eight states bar prisoners from voting, and most states have constitutional clauses or election law statutes which explicitly declare that prisoner remains legal residents of their home addresses. When states draw districts based on the Census Bureau's padded counts of prison locales, they give those districts extra representation just because the prison industry has a facility there.

Where prisoners are counted matters not only in big-prison states like Texas, it matters everywhere. New Hampshire has one of the lowest incarceration rates in the nation, yet relying on the prisoner miscount to draw districts creates a serious vote dilution problem. Of the 12,594 people in the district containing the New Hampshire State Prison, 11 percent are incarcerated. As a result, every group of 89 residents in this prison district has the same political power as 100 residents elsewhere in the state.

When the Reynolds Court required legislatures to apportion political power on the basis of population they could not have foreseen that a glitch in Census Bureau methodology would later undermine their groundbreaking decision. Prisons are the only industry that has its raw material counted in the decennial census. For example, tourists are counted at their home addresses, and Detroit receives no additional boost from the automobile industry's unsold inventory.

The intent of Reynolds was to ensure that industries could not exert political influence. To do so, the Court crafted a rule stating that political power must be distributed equally on the basis of population. The Court could not have foreseen that two million people associated with one particular industry would be counted at the wrong location.

To fulfill the promise of representative democracy embodied in Reynolds, the Census Bureau and the state legislatures should develop a plan to count prisoners properly. There is no excuse that people who are easy to count by virtue of their confinement should present such difficulty.

Iowa Killed Apathy

OurFuture.org Staff — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 11:54:19 -0500

Ian Mishalove

Ian Mishalove — Wed, 12 Dec 2007 20:39:32 -0500

I'm currently the Director for Online Communications at the Campaign for America’s Future, where I've been since July 2004. Prior to CAF, I worked for seven years at the National Wildlife Federation, first as their webmaster and then as their technical director for activist development. I received an M.E.S from Yale’s School of Forestry and Environmental Studies and a BA from Princeton University -- and in both places focused research on how to empower progressive social movement networks -- esp. through online technology. Outside of computers and activism, I co-own and help to run Flow Yoga Center with my beautiful wife Debra, play the bass, enjoy mes animeaux -- Carmen, Maggie and Maxie -- and try to spend as much time as possible playing outdoors.