I referenced Democracy Now! last time, and it brings to mind that the show is an imperfect vessel -- it is utterly predictable. Recent events, see Media Matters, Glenn Greenwald and others, suggest this is not too much of a problem on some level. IOW, when the MSM is complicit in enabling a wrong-minded war among other things, a predictable alternative voice is downright essential. We take this for granted at our peril. All the same, an alternative voice need not be relatively one note.
Consider Christopher Hitchens. His pro-Iraq War musings has received much criticism (to be gentle), including on the Slate fray, is infamous in some quarters. But, in my free copy of the Freedom From Religion Foundation newspaper, Hitchens was a feature attraction, read by many surely against the war (a war supporting atheist is quite possible, of course, since "Bush's Brain" is said to be an agnostic).* He is an atheist, wrote a book in support of said views, and is known to have had negative (to put it nicely) feelings about Mother Theresa.
Point being, you can have someone strongly in one camp, but is not a johnny one note. I noted the same thing when discussing various recent Bill Moyers interviews. For instance, he told Jon Stewart that time ran out, so he couldn't ask Obama's former pastor certain questions on his controversial views/statements. Please. It would have take a minute or two and would have been very important -- he would have had a friendly forum to respond to criticism that received a lot of play. Ditto some questions left out in an interview of a couple with competing political alliances (Clinton/her vs. Obama/him).
BTW, Clinton promotes herself as some sort of white working class voter beacon. Putting aside the annoyance of tracking how Obama might do this fall before he even campaigns for it -- a largely fictional reflection of the actual match-up when the two go head to head -- please. If Obama wasn't the alternative, would conservative leaning white Dems really support Hillary Clinton? Sorry ma'am, you too are a member of the "elite." One who attacked the right wing attack machine also just might qualify for the "liberal" elite. If Edwards had more experience, he would have been their candidate. Betcha.
And, maybe it would have required a bit of tough questioning of someone for whom on the whole Moyers' audience is sympathetic. This is an essential part of a well balanced alternative media -- covering all the ground with a different voice does not mean you sometimes do not criticize people in effect "on your side." I listened, for example, to recent interviews on Democracy Now! focusing on Palestinians. It is fully appropriate for an alternative news source to focus on their point of view, especially -- as Glenn Greenwald has repeatedly noted -- Israel tends to have more openness for a fuller discourse on such subjects than our political/media culture. But, again, one note.
Compare this with some back and forth on various blogs. Said blogs can be one note too, but some of the ones I frequent repeatedly do criticize fellow travellers, especially when they do something stupid/wrong. GG fits the bill, though at times I find him violating the policy suggested in this post. For instance, his tit for tat stance on the congressional resolution against MoveOn.com. Being human, this happens occasionally, even to the best of us. Contrariness can go too far -- the Slate "our side is wrong but for a different reason" sort is annoying -- but on some level, it's a good thing. The "reality community" should realize this, especially given science's "always open to being wrong" dictate.
Anyway, I do not watch it regularly, but have seen and listened to the show repeatedly over the last year or so. So, I think I have a feel of the norm. It just does seem to do the even gentle criticism of our friends thing. Amy Goodman comes off as a leftist prophet, sure of what is just, and venting the usual themes. Let us not mean to imply that I think said themes are overall wrong or anything. It just is that they aren't as pure as it comes off all too often. And, sorry, a tad bit holier than thou. As to Palestine, hey, the other side is not going over the top out of spite or mere irrationality or anything. How about those suicide bombers and those who use violence overall, which demeans their often rightful cause?
I think the guests and such can handle some tough questions. Perhaps, try a bit more to get some opposition voices on at times -- even the likes of Jon Stewart and Steven Colbert manage that. It is not easy -- I found the voices on Air America did a fairly poor job overall in providing a complete nuanced conversation, even if some guests had some interesting things to say. And, unlike myself, these are mostly skilled professionals, who have been doing this for awhile. Again, it calls to mind the useful allowance by various courts (e.g., civil court in New Jersey) for jurors to ask questions.
And, like free speech overall, a more complete approach would strengthen the movement as a whole.
---
* A nod to Grace's Gone, a good little film about a Midwestern father (John Cusack) of two girls who finds out his wife died serving over in Iraq, and takes his girls on a trip while trying to get the nerve to tell them what happened. In an interview on the DVD, Cusack said it was an "anti-war" film, but the clearly liberal character is not really sympathetic. Cusack's own character is somewhat hard to like as well, but I think most would give him something of a pass given his basic decency and all the pressures he is under.
But, he has a point. The film is in effect a reflection of those unsure of the justice of the war, while finding it hard to admit to themselves that so much was lost for a mistake. This was reflected in the older (still only twelve) daughter, who is having trouble sleeping, and keeps on watching news reports that trouble her for the questions (oh so late) they raise. The dad says at one point that we have to believe that we are doing the right thing; if not "we are lost." Who wants that?
As with his debate with his liberal brother, the film is not focused on such questions, however. It is ultimately a family film about an average dad and his two young daughters. As such, it has a lot of force, and works totally about from its particular time. Good music by Clint Eastwood and his son.