Remembering Phil Donahue. When Cable News Found Out It Had One Liberal, It Fired Him.

Giant of TV talk Phil Donahue passed away at age 88 last month. I can't say I ever watched his shows, but I do remember one thing about him. He certainly proved that TV cable news does not have a liberal bias.

Today there is widespread belief that the 2003 invasion of Iraq was a mistake, even among many conservatives. American support for the invasion was in excess of 70% when the war started. Five years later, that support had fallen by half.

In early 2003 Phil Donahue had the highest rated show on the young MSNBC network. George W. Bush had told a whole series of lies to gin up an illegal invasion of Iraq. Donahue invited anti-war voices on his show. For this, Donahue was fired.

Amy Goodman, producer of the news podcast Democracy Now! has described what happened at MSNBC: "In 2003, Phil Donahue was fired from his primetime MSNBC talk show during the run-up to the U.S. invasion of Iraq. It was the most popular talk show on MSNBC at the time. The problem wasn’t Phil’s ratings, but rather his views. An internal MSNBC memo warned Donahue was a, quote, “difficult public face for NBC in a time of war,” providing a, quote, “home for the liberal antiwar agenda at the same time that our competitors are waving the flag at every opportunity,” unquote."

Phil's own description of the situation: "I think what happened to me, the biggest lesson, I think, is the — how corporate media shapes our opinions and our coverage. This was a decision — my decision — the decision to release me came from far above. This was not an assistant program director who decided to separate me from MSNBC. They were terrified of the antiwar voice. And that is not an overstatement. Antiwar voices were not popular. And if you’re General Electric, you certainly don’t want an antiwar voice on a cable channel that you own; Donald Rumsfeld is your biggest customer. So, by the way, I had to have two conservatives on for every liberal. I could have Richard Perle on alone, but I couldn’t have Dennis Kucinich on alone. I was considered two liberals. It really is funny almost, when you look back on how — how the management was just frozen by the antiwar voice. We were scolds. We weren’t patriotic. American people disagreed with us. And we weren’t good for business."

Jeff Cohen, senior producer of Donahue's show, has described the situation at the network in 2003 in similar terms, "But “the suits” ruined our show when they took control and actually mandated a quota system favoring the right wing: If we had booked one guest who was antiwar, we needed to book two that were pro-war. If we had one guest on the left, we needed two on the right. When a producer suggested booking Michael Moore—known to oppose the pending Iraq war—she was told she’d need to book three rightwingers for political balance."

I'm glad Phil Donahue lived long enough to see the lies and and warmongering politics of George W. Bush be completely discredited. And also that he lived long enough to see MSNBC come to its senses and hire great progressive journalists like Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow and Chris Hayes. MSNBC isn't perfect, but perhaps it has recognized that in America, if the news seems a bit too "liberal" it's because (as Stephen Colbert once said), "Reality has a well-known liberal bias".

 

 

Tweet

It Was Wrong for Democratic Party Leaders and Donors to Force Joe Biden Out

Joe Biden has ended his campaign. Party leaders, major donors, and apparently about two-thirds of Democratic voters wanted him out.

I did not. The party has made a mistake.

After Biden's disastrous June debate against Trump, there was widespread agreement among the faithful that we needed to have a conversation about whether Joe Biden is mentally and physically well enough to continue as nominee. And we had that conversation. And the answer was, yes, Joe is old and frail, but he is healthy enough to do the job he was chosen to do.

But then as they say, A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum. Persons who saw Joe Biden as a weak nominee decided they wanted him replaced, with, well, anyone at all. And they won the argument.

Folks, this is not how democracy is supposed to work.

A little history. The modern Democratic Presidential nomination process began in 1972. That was the first election where the results of the primaries really counted more than the opinions of the super delegates in choosing the nominee. And in four of the next five elections, the Democrats looked like a party that couldn't do anything right. McGovern was crushed in '72. Carter nearly lost a virtually unlosable race in '76. And the less said about 1980, 1984 and 1988 the better.

But one thing we did not do in any of those elections was to choose a nominee, then press the panic button when that nominee fell behind in the polls and force him out.

Now that we've done this:
1. We've sent a message that we will betray anyone the minute the going gets tough.

2. We've given major donors and party leaders the power to deny the choice of the voters.

3. We look ridiculous. We became a squabbling, circular firing squad as soon as our campaign had problems.

4. We haven't gained anything. It's not as if Kamala Harris or anyone else polls any better against Donald Trump.

5. Right up to today, Professor Alan Lichtman, who has predicted the last 10 elections correctly, has pointed out that Joe Biden was still on track to win, largely because he's an incumbent President in a strong economy. Now we've thrown that away.

Perhaps we will win. Perhaps we will lose so badly that in four years the party will have new leadership. We need new leaders who believe in the democratic process, who believe that when the going gets tough, the tough get going, and who believe, maybe just a little, in loyalty to a very successful President. Assuming we ever win another election.

Tweet

A Few Links to Dispel Conservative Myths Part 21.1: Red State "Freedom" - Tennessee

Between 2020 and 2022 Idaho, Montana and Florida, all red states, had the greatest population growth among U.S. states. Meanwhile, New York and Illinois suffered the biggest population losses. California saw a population decrease of about 1%, although the Golden State's population rose in 2023.

Some folks would have you believe that there is some kind of mass migration from blue states to red states due to quality of life issues. First of all, the idea of a blue-to-red state exodus is overstated; my very blue home state of Washington has seen continued growth while the very red states of Louisiana, Mississippi and West Virginia have seen population fall. In terms of raw numbers of people relocating, bluish-purple states like Arizona, Georgia and Nevada are seeing a lot of population influx. Second, people are moving for any number of reasons; I'd say the biggest driver of folks leaving the west coast is to find cheaper housing costs as the increase in remote work options means tech workers no longer need to live near the very expensive urban cores of cities like San Jose.

But the point of this post is to dispel an idea I see a lot in conservative media: that people are moving to red states because life there means more "freedom". Or as Glenn H. Reynolds of the New York Post said of new arrivals to the state of Tennessee, "They come seeking a place where they are free from tyrannical governments, where their businesses and money are safe from destruction and confiscation, where they and their families feel safe and included."

I don't know exactly how "businesses and money" are not "safe from destruction and confiscation" in blue states; Reynolds doesn't say in the Post article, although he does mention migration from blue states, "in favor of red states where taxes are lower, intrusive government bureaucracy is less and political violence is uncommon."

OK, sure, the tax burden in Tennessee is lower than many blue states. But I think it presumes too much to say that what blue state migrants really want is to live in a state like Tennessee where spending per capita on public school students and teacher pay, as well as public health outcomes are among the poorest in the country, and where the public infrastructure is crumbling, only because they base quality of life largely on a slightly lower tax burden.

As for why someone from a blue state would feel more "safe" in Tennessee, I'm sure I can guess. Conservative Americans feel safer in public when more people are carrying guns. In reality, Tennessee is not safer; the violent crime rate there is 45% higher than New York and 65% higher than Washington state. The gun death rate in Tennessee is more than twice that of California and nearly four times that of New York. And as for "political violence", Nashville wasn't spared violence during the George Floyd protests in 2020 any more than other cities. The Metro Courthouse was set ablaze when a May protest became a violent riot.

Onward to freedom from tyrannical governments. Let's look at some hot button issues of the day, and how Tennessee fares when it comes to freedom.

1. Reproductive rights
Abortion is banned in Tennessee.

2. Marijuana
In Tennessee, both medical and recreational uses of marijuana are illegal.

3. Voting rights
"Tennessee has one of the most draconian laws in the country stripping voting rights from people convicted of felonies." "One in five Black residents of Tennessee are prohibited by state law from voting." - The Center for Public Integrity. Tennessee also has a bizarre law, imposing criminal charges and fines on voter registration groups over incomplete forms and missed deadlines. "Voter rights groups contend that the law is intended to prevent people, particularly African Americans and other minorities, from registering to vote in a state that has one of the lowest voter registration rates in the nation." - The Hill

4. Libraries
"Tennessee is at the national forefront of book challenges and book bannings" - The Nashville Scene

5. Transgender care
Tennessee law not only prohibits medical providers from treating transgender youth with evidence-based gender-affirming medical treatment, this year it passed a first-in-the-nation law penalizing adults who help minors receive gender-affirming care without parental consent.

6. Gay rights
In 2023, Tennessee became the first state to explicitly ban drag performances in public spaces. The law was struck down by a federal court.

7. Protest rights
From 2020: "New Tennessee Law May Make Protests Illegal - After more than two months of protests against police brutality, Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee signed a new law revising criminal laws surrounding protest-related offenses and making it illegal to camp on state property." - The law firm of Burch, Morrison and Stewart

8. Health Care rights
Tennessee is one of only nine states that have not accepted Medicaid expansion making it possible for low-income persons to obtain health insurance.

9. The rights of people not permanently housed
In Tennessee it is a felony to camp in a park or other public space.

10. Democratic elections
A 2023 federal lawsuit, "charges the Tennessee Legislature, during the redistricting process following the completion of the 2020 U.S. Census, subordinated traditional redistricting principles in order to minimize Black votes by "cracking" and "packing" methods of gerrymandering, limiting voter input and participation".

In conclusion, some folks may be moving to Tennessee because they like the things listed above. But those things do not represent any reasonable definition of freedom.

---
Of course for some folks, "freedom" is all about the right to kill oneself and others with covid virus. I'll be covering that next time.

Tweet