1. What was the extent of David Horowitz's leftish background? Is there any particular story on his move to the right?
This is a topic on which he extensively expounds about in all of his books. My father used to be a democrat, but now in his 70s he keeps shifting around all over the place, and he was sending me Horowitz books about a year ago so I could possibly send you one. He is a person who is seemingly incapable of holding a moderate opinion. In the 60s/70s he was a left wing writer, but I suspect that he didn't really participate in a lot of activism, but rather observed and wrote about it. It seems to be really important to him to come across as an 'expert' on the other side, and this analysis on the inner-workings of the twisted psychology of the leftist mind is something that really sells well in his current circle, but I think his books are pretty silly and simple-minded and illogical. He called my friend a neo-stalinist who was out to silence him for bringing up East Timor at his book talk, and said that people who desire world peace are idealists who believe that human harmony is ever possible, and they have the same dangerous grain of belief that lead thousands to support the methods of Mao or Stalin.
2. Does John Ashcroft have ties to the KKK, or is this a liberal canard?
He is associated with Bob Jones University and neo-confederate publications and organizations. Would being tied to the KKK necessarily be much worse? I don't know how much power or significance the KKK really has, but the same middle or upper middle class people who might have been associated with the KKK in the past, say in the 1920s, now are associated with other groups or are independent.
3. Has anyone read "How to Watch TV News?" (Neil Postman) If so, how is the topic of "watching the news" approached in the book?
4. Does anyone have a succinct answer to the question below (from an email correspondent) (I have long-winded answers that I know will be unconvincing to my conservative correspondent...)
<<This whole business connection with the media that people are talking about has me a little bit confused...I tend to think of business as rather neutral, but more conservative because I think they benefit from conservative fiscal policy. But certainly neutral on social issues in general. Business operates with it's own best interest in mind even more than the rest of us. That's why I can't see why there should be any real connection between these huge corporations that own the major networks and the fact (I certainly see it as a fact) that the TV news personalities are clearly liberal and taint the news in that way. How do these corporations benefit from that in either the short run or the long run?>>
I'm not really answering your question, which is very complex, but I think that a lot of the public might classify the 'media', broadly, as liberal because they would call the tabloid news shows, stuff on the FOX channel, and most fluffy TV talk shows 'liberal' because it shows corruption and lack of morals and so forth, and some people associate that with the term 'liberal'. Speaking about television news, I really don't know how I would classify my local newscasts as liberal or conservative because they don't even show any news at all. It is Kent Brockman Action McNews all the way. They just show a sequence of car crashes and pets having surgery and health or children associated stories that are precursors for something coming up later on 20/20 that evening, and perhaps this strikes some people as 'liberal' news because it displays a lack of values.
5. Is the idea of public challenges to the existing media framework (say, the provisions of the 1996 telecommunications bill) totally quixotic?
Thanks, Les _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com