posted
Very interesting talking points memo from O'Reilly last night. Don’t agree with all of it, but I thought there was some good info there. More Trouble On The Left....
quote: More trouble on the left, that is the subject of this evening's "Talking Points Memo".
One major casualty in the war on terror is the liberal press in the USA. Don't believe the right-wing ideologues when they tell you the left still controls the media agenda. It does not any longer. It's a fact.
As we predicted, Michael Kinsley (search) has been removed as editorial director of the L.A. Times (search) just days after the editor of that paper stepped down. As you may know, the circulation of the very liberal Times is falling fast.
The liberal stronghold PBS has been shaken up big time. Bill Moyers (search) is gone. And the new management is Republican. Many on the left are crazed over that.
The Air America (search) radio network continues to fail with catastrophic ratings here in New York City, perhaps the most liberal market in the country. The circulations of long time liberal newspapers like the Boston Globe (search) and Newsday are falling. And there is not one successful standalone liberal commentator on cable television, not one.
Phil Donahue (search) was fired for low ratings at MSNBC, but was actually much more successful than what they put in his place.
Meantime, the FOX News Channel continues to prosper. "The Factor" has been the top-rated cable news program for 195 weeks straight.
So why is the liberal media in retreat? Well, the answer is that most Americans are not ideologues. They're just everyday folks who want protection from people who would kill us. They want information about the border, about al Qaeda (search), about what the government is doing to defeat the enemy. Most Americans do not want to hear the USA is the bad guy in the war on terror, which some liberal media are pedaling. They do not feel the mistakes at Abu Ghraib (search) and Guantanamo Bay define this country. They do not believe the ACLU (search) is looking out for them.
Media and politicians who continue to run down the USA for ideological reasons will continue to be punished in the marketplace. "Talking Points" applauds dissent, but it must be done for the good of the country, not to disparage it.
Finally, anyone who watches "The Factor" knows we scrutinize all sides. We have heavily criticized the Bush administration for its weak border policies and its terrible energy strategy. "Talking Points" will also hold Mr. Bush accountable for Iraq. He got us into that conflict. Now he must do everything he can to win it. To lose in Iraq is simply unacceptable and would put all of us in even more danger.
But we want the USA to win. And that separates us from some far left elements. We believe the USA remains a noble country, fighting a very vicious enemy. We've made our stand on that belief. And the results speak for themselves. And that's “The Memo.”
posted
Yes. The Liberal Leftist Newmongers are all failing because everybody loves President Bush. His only failings seem to be that he isn't reactionary enough. Close our borders and win in Iraq. How we define "winning" is not clear, but that isn't important now.
Keep on believing it.
That is why his social security plan, that would have been neither secure nor social, (demands of the confounded lefties) has vanished. That is why more and more people are asking about Iraq and where it leads.
As the conservatives grab the media, they claim their rightist and righteous beliefs are the moderate course.
This forces the moderates to either change thier beliefs, or to align with the leftists.
And the pendulum swings.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Like O'Reilly has any idea what the average American wants. I have to laugh whenever I hear any of these people, from the left OR the right talk about how they understand the common American.
As for the rest of his article. Well, it's the same ole same ole, I won't bother to take it point by point, I'm sure someone else will do it for me. Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think he DOES have a point that pro-American viewpoints are much more comfortable for Americans to listen to. That's kind of a no-brainer. If your personal idealogy involves some degree of anti-American sentiment, you'll have a harder time appealing to Americans.
But he did pick and choose his examples. Jon Stewart, for instance, is totally liberal, and is one of the media's greatest recent success stories ... but he presents his viewpoint with a humble, common touch that keeps him palatable even to conservative audiences, while he still makes his views known. If more liberal TV personalities learned to present themselves the way Jon Stewart does, they'd probably have all kinds of success.
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't see how you can truly believe that "if more liberal personalities learned to present themselves the way Jon Stewart does they'd probably have all kinds of success."
Conservative radio and tv personalities dominate their liberal counterparts across the board.
The President was elected by a wide margin and the majority in Congress was greatly expanded.
Liberals need to wake up and realize that they are and for the foreseeable future will remain, the minority party in the United States.
Until they do so they have no chance of "reclaiming" anything, (as if the country BELONGED to snobs like Kerry and Clinton).
Repackaging the same tired message that was just rejected soundly in the last election will do them no good.
Posts: 201 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
So...the fact that network news still has the most viewers means that it's the news that appeals most to 'everyday Americans'?
Personally, I'm an every-other-day American. I guess that's why I get my news from the internet, which never lies.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the main reason that most "liberal" issue-oriented talk-show-type thingies (tv, radio, whatever) tend to fail, is that the people trying to make them spend all their time being angry rather than being entertaining. Case in point: Al Franken is about as fun to listen to as nails on chalkboard.
Jon Stewart is the exception that proves the rule. Sure he's a flaming liberal, but instead of being pissed off at the world, he makes fun of it, in a light-hearted rather than mean-spirited way. People seem to find that entertaining enough to watch.
I don't know if it's appropriate to talk about ANY of these shows as "news" in the sense of "information", however. I mean, we were just treated to six months of Michael Jackson trials... how informative was that?
Posts: 196 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
How much did he win by again? Even one vote would be more than the last election. It wasn't by more than 10% of the vote. I'd consider a "wide margin" to be anything 15% or higher.
And I'd say that Republicans are at the height of their power arc. It's going to swing back the other way in the next 20 years.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, I am not an ideologue - but you would have to be one to ignore the facts at present.
Namely, American citizens are mostly conservatives and there is no reason to believe -other than pure hope *cough* Lyrhawn *cough* that this is going to change anytime soon.
Bush's nearly 4 million more votes with a majority in the popular vote (which Clinton never achieved) is only part of the evidence.
Posts: 201 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, the voting issue could certainly, to some degree, be attributed to turnout.
The Republicans did a heck of a job getting people to go vote. They had an unbelievably high number (compared to the Democrats) of 'volunteers' (some paid, some not) going to the places where it mattered most.
Also, Kerry was a pretty pathetic choice (I think, anyway) for the Democrats.
I don't think we can claim the election shows us exactly how the 'average American' thinks.
Posts: 367 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: But he did pick and choose his examples. Jon Stewart, for instance, is totally liberal, and is one of the media's greatest recent success stories ... but he presents his viewpoint with a humble, common touch that keeps him palatable even to conservative audiences, while he still makes his views known. If more liberal TV personalities learned to present themselves the way Jon Stewart does, they'd probably have all kinds of success.
It's a comedy show. There isn't much at stake. I don't even think that Stewart believes that Tim Russert should start behaving like Stewart.
It's like saying that 60 minutes can rescusitate itself by taking notes from the Simpsons.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: No, I am not an ideologue - but you would have to be one to ignore the facts at present.
Wow. Rarely does someone come so close to saying "I hold no extreme opinions. People who do should be shot." Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
So you believe that less than 50% of Americans are conservative in their beliefs?
Or do you just enjoy watching other people react to your statements?
I read the other thread about this subject, and I can't say I believe you when you mentioned that you are trying "very hard" to break your "old habits" of attempting to bait and trap others on this forum.
But, maybe the above post was an honest attempt at thoughtful, genuine discussion - if it was, I guess I am just having trouble distinguishing the insightful part from the... *restraining myself* ...less insightful and more childish part.
Posts: 201 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: So you believe that less than 50% of Americans are conservative in their beliefs?
It depends a great deal on what you consider "conservative belief."
If you're asking whether less than 50% of Americans buy into the whole package -- pro-life, pro-death-penalty, anti-immigration, pro-military/industrial complex -- then, yeah, I think considerably fewer than 50% of the population is conservative.
But what the Republicans have done far, far better than the Democrats in recent years -- and I'm not going to use the labels "liberal" or "conservative" here, because I think it's more a partisan thing than an actual philosophical thing -- is identify specific "wedge issues" that can be used to mobilize a significant percentage of the population on a single issue which someone considers so important that all other issues become irrelevant to their vote.
Republicans have worked very hard to identify these issues, promote them in the media, escalate them to the federal level, and then demonize the Democratic position on those issues. In this way, they have cobbled together a very uneasy alliance between gun-rights libertarians, laissez-faire economists, America-Firsters, and a huge chunk of people who think abortion is murder and want it illegalized. They have bound these groups together using largely manufactured myths about "liberal media," "Ivory tower elites," and other jingoistic and patronizing semiotics, but I believe that this alliance is inherently unstable and will fracture almost immediately if Democrats eventually figure out that it's in their best interest to kill Roe v. Wade, too.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Finally, anyone who watches "The Factor" knows we scrutinize all sides. We have heavily criticized the Bush administration for its weak border policies and its terrible energy strategy. "Talking Points" will also hold Mr. Bush accountable for Iraq. He got us into that conflict. Now he must do everything he can to win it. To lose in Iraq is simply unacceptable and would put all of us in even more danger.
But we want the USA to win. And that separates us from some far left elements. We believe the USA remains a noble country, fighting a very vicious enemy. We've made our stand on that belief. And the results speak for themselves. And that's “The Memo.”
So, in other words, "The Factor" says it scrutinizes all sides but actually does the opposite - and openly admits an intentional bias towards the radically neoconservative view of America as a holy crusader against evil. This is the trouble with all of these new conservative media outlets... Whereas so-called liberal media elements at least try to be unbiased, shows like "The Factor" merely label themselves fair and balanced while blatantly and almost militantly supporting a single viewpoint above all others. They don't even try to hide the contradiction. And I suspect Air America is an attempt to apply the same shameful tactics to the liberal side of the argument.
Any supposed news program that even talks about what the "Left" or "Right" does likely has an agenda, because there really are no such institutions as The Left and The Right. There is no conspiracy going on. Instead those are labels, not makers of news themselves, but ways to interpret the news made by actual individuals and institutions. Thus, if a news program is telling you "the left is in trouble", you can be confident it is not giving you the actual news, but rather telling you how to interpret the news - it is giving you spin, not facts.
I think the idea that the "left" is losing control of the news is silly. There was never any such control. Instead the news was controlled by neither the left nor the right but rather by journalists, and the events that confronted them. And I believe what we should REALLY be worried about now is how principled journalism is losing control of the media - losing it to ideologues, editorialists, and politicians in general.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Judging from the fact that Bush won the last election by 3% (not the "wide margin" that RoyHobbs would have you believe), I would say that roughly half the country is "conservative."
quote:Judging from the fact that Bush won the last election by 3% (not the "wide margin" that RoyHobbs would have you believe), I would say that roughly half the country is "conservative."
Yes, but I would argue more people voted for Bush because they felt he was not as bad as Kerry, not because they were very conservative and loved his ideas. It hardly proves those voters are conservative.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Granted. I can't ascribe motive to each and every voter. But the president was not elected by a wide margin.
Posts: 1357 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
Hey, I'm not a Republican. Seriously, is that really a group? Because I am pro-gun rights and I am (pretty much) a liberterian, but I registered as an Independent.
Also, I really despise Air America. Andrew and I watched a documentary about them and they're just bitter, ugly people. That wouldn't bother me so much, but they're so openly hostile to the South and that does bother me. They genuinely believe that we're all uneducated, racist rednecks down here.
Plus, there HR policies are abyssmal and I suspect they'd gleefully pounce on a rival who pulled some of the same things they did - weeks without paychecks, paychecks that bounced, etc.
Posts: 3037 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think by any means I'm dreaming. We've been where we are right now several times before in history.
Radical conservatives are in power right now, and that isn't going to last for a very long time. I think in 20 years, while American will still have something of a morally conservative tilt, progressive social issues will have to be addressed, and the Rad Cons are going to find themselves on the losing end of that argument. The people will generally associate the Republican party with the Rad Con agenda, and they won't retain such a tight hold of power.
I don't think any time soon there will be some huge rebirth of the Democratic party, though I do think they will become far more geared up and on message (once they get a clear one) in the next ten years.
A combination of social pressures, international issues, and a reenergized democratic party will balance the playing field. It won't give them a clear advantage, but it will greatly dimminish the power of the Republican party. And no, it's not wishful thinking to say that this is extremely possible in the next 20 years.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Are you taking into account what's happening in the AFL-CIO? That is a major blow to the Democratic party.
Posts: 3037 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
What, they are all of a sudden going to start voting Republican? Especially with Bush being pro-business, I don't see that happening.
I suppose it hurts them financially, and from a grass roots stand point. But in the last election the Democrats proved they in fact (to the surprise of many) did know how to organize on the grass roots level and could raise money to compete with, though not beat, Republicans.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Again, let me point out the effectiveness of wedge issues when it comes to partisanship, not ideology. We confuse being Republican with being conservative, and vice versa.
Consider for example that Mrs.M, unless I miss my guess, almost certainly voted for Bush this time around. Does she consider herself a Republican? No. But on the issues that are important to her, the Republicans have positioned themselves so compellingly that she's willing to accept four more years of other policies she might not enjoy just to keep her other issues "safe." The Republicans figured out in the '80s that people vote for the lesser evil, and started quite deliberately identifying those issues which could sway big chunks of people. Democrats are only now starting to respond to this, and it's probably too late.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Is anti-immigration really a conservative thing? Labor unions are some of the biggest immigration foes, or more appropriately, propponents of stricter immigration controls and enforcement.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:What, they are all of a sudden going to start voting Republican? Especially with Bush being pro-business, I don't see that happening.
Unions' political strength is derived from the fact that labor policies will trump other considerations. When organized labor weakens, people will tend to allow other issues to affect their voting decisions to a greater extent. And on many of those issues, they align more with Republicans.
quote:I suppose it hurts them financially, and from a grass roots stand point.
Don't underestimate this. Labor's strength is a coherent membership that is easy to access through the leadership. Labor is grassroots, probably some of the best in the country, and if they're not actively working for the Democrats, the Democrats will feel it. In the 88-92 cycle, the Republicans spent enormous energy creating a grass roots network whose purpose was just to compete with labor - not to target union members for votes, but to provide manpower and critical mass in communities.
Like a ball club that dedicates resources to creating a good farm system, the payoff is long lasting.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Seriously, is that really a group? Because I am pro-gun rights and I am (pretty much) a liberterian, but I registered as an Independent.
