Sponsored Links
 |
|
Conservative thoughts from New Jersey & California |
|
Media Field Day
by Dave
8/10/2005 06:04:00 AM
The media is having a field day! A woman is camped outside Bush's ranch. The Olding Stones have recorded an anti-Bush song. Hillary has an opponent - one the left thinks she can beat, easily. They're just going about their business. They're just reporting the news. They're not biased in any way. To think they are biased is to buy into all that neo-con mind control crap, right?
In off times, the newsies report everything under the sun that has nothing to do with politics. They like to build up their independent bona fides when nobody is concerned with politics. Then when it's game time, they pretend to tell the whole story while denying they lean to the left. It's all part of a big game to them.
There are published studies claiming total objectivity on the part of large established media outlets. These generally count up the number of times a batch of newspapers, radio and TV news outlets mention some guy from one party or the other's name. Then they add up the number of stories whose overall tone is favorable to one party or the other. It always seems to come out to a zero sum game. But that's a big fat lie. It isn't so much the number of op/eds a given paper publishes which bashes the conservatives. It's far more about the subtlety in the news.
As an example of media subtlety, I have a local newspaper published by one of the huge media conglomerates. The news in my state happens to be about a race for governor. One candidate, by most accounts, is dirty. The other guy is fairly pristine. The newspaper pretty much reports both but the articles about Mr. Clean are buried while the articles about Mr. Dirty are front and center. The articles themselves may actually tell the whole story but the headlines read like today's "most important" story, "Corzine: The public can trust me." The subliminal power of headlines like that should be obvious to all. But the media thinks we cannot see what they are doing. They think we are all fools. And maybe they're right.
Every night on the network news shows or CNN, we see stories which may, on the whole, tell the whole story. But there are flashy hedlines and some very disconcerting facts worked in. The overall effort is to make the viewer suspicious about conservatives and trusting of liberals. I do think this is why fewer and fewer people are tuning in the networks. I do think this is why CNN is on the ropes and not on the ropes like Ali was. The large institutional media companies are taking hits to the face and beginning to collapse. They too often forget they are businesses and not some sort of American icon preserving our freedom. They tell us what they think we should know. They are a form of propaganda used by the left to "change the world." They tell us they want to change the world in a positive way but they really just want to change the world to keep power.
This woman sits outside Bush's ranch. It is not news except in as much as she has already had an audience. That makes her a nut. The media should be reporting about this nutty lady who thinks she knows better than anyone else the solutions to the terrorist problem the entire world is facing. She doesn't. her sanity is questionable at this point.
The Rolling Stones are on life support. I mean that literally. These guys are older than the grandparents of the generation they played to in the 60s. They have become their own great grandparents. And, let's face it, they suck. They have sucked for years. They're multi, multi millionaires because they made loads of money in the 60s and 70s. They can't play. They haven't been able to play for decades. They sound awful. That is the news. These old farts are still playing rock and roll. It is beyond absurd. (And by the way, I like a lot of Stones music, classic Stones music. I grew up on it. But they suck now.)
Jeanine Pirro is running against Hillary for NY Senator. She is a reasonably good choice to run against Hill. Unlike Rick Lazio, she is a bare-knuckle fighter. Rick is a great guy who if you said hello to him on the street, he would probably work extra hard to continue the conversation with you. He did with me, on more than one occasion. He's a real human being - not the guy who the party made confront Hillary on the debating stage. Jeanine is different. She's interested in power, real power. And she, as I said, is not afraid to engage Hillary in a cat fight, although she probably won't since Hill probably will not engage her back. But she is hardly a conservative. She is a policy conservative but socially liberal just like Rudy Guiliani is. She is pro-choice and has thousands of positions that would make a conservative cringe. She's a huge law and order gal. She fights against pedophilia until her knuckles are bleeding and the pedophiles are on the ground crying through their bloody faces, "mommy, mommy, I want my mommy."
Jeanine Pirro is a Rudy-con. In order to run for the Senate, Hillary basically has to cross the "Rudycon." But Hillary will probably beat her. Why? New York is stone cold Dem country. Make no mistake about it. While California and New York are decidedly different places, the two are almost identical twins when it comes to national politics. They always vote for the Dem. Hillary could run against her identical, though more liberal, twin from the Republican party and win in a landslide. Hillary doesn't really know New York in the way someone who buys food for holidays at Stu Leonards knows New York. She doesn't know New York like someone who has sat in traffic on the Beltway knows New York. She has likely never set foot inside a "Duane Reade" store. She's never fought her way out of Grand Central to get to work. She probably has never eaten a true New York deli sandwich. And she's probably never driven the thruway. She doesn't know where Red Hook is. She's never eaten too much at Mamma Leone's and then walked miles around the Museum of Modern Art. New Yorkers want a Senator not a President from Arkansas. But Hillary cannot honestly promise them to be that. That is the news. But the news organizations will not be reporting much about that unless you take a pure count of the number of times something like it appears deep within the papers.
In order to run this time, Hill is going to get a fight from Pirro and Pirro is going to ask her flat out if she promises to the people of New York to not run for President. New Yorkers want a Senator for the next 6 years. They do not want someone to use the office as a stepping stone to the presidency or even to lose a race for the presidency. They realize that if Hill were to run and win the office of President, she would not be a "New York President." She would be a midwest or Arkansas President whose chosen retirement home is in Westchester. In short, after she crosses the Rudycon by answering the key question of running for higher office, she may achieve vistory but will it be a "Pirroic victory." Will it cost Hillary a shot at the White House? But the newsies do not cover anything like that.
And so here we are in the year 2005. Journalism, as an institution of Democracy, is absolutely DOA. But because this institution is privately funded, there is hope. You simply cannot continue to sell a product which a thin sliver of the public actually enjoys and expect to have a national brand for long. The signs are very clearly marked. "This way to obscurity and eventually oblivion. This way to hell. This way all lefty media." The downfall of one dinosaur makes way for several warm blooded creatures. There may still be cave men roaming around amongst us but they are really just guys made-up to look that way doing Geico commercials.
In off times, the newsies report everything under the sun that has nothing to do with politics. They like to build up their independent bona fides when nobody is concerned with politics. Then when it's game time, they pretend to tell the whole story while denying they lean to the left. It's all part of a big game to them.
There are published studies claiming total objectivity on the part of large established media outlets. These generally count up the number of times a batch of newspapers, radio and TV news outlets mention some guy from one party or the other's name. Then they add up the number of stories whose overall tone is favorable to one party or the other. It always seems to come out to a zero sum game. But that's a big fat lie. It isn't so much the number of op/eds a given paper publishes which bashes the conservatives. It's far more about the subtlety in the news.
As an example of media subtlety, I have a local newspaper published by one of the huge media conglomerates. The news in my state happens to be about a race for governor. One candidate, by most accounts, is dirty. The other guy is fairly pristine. The newspaper pretty much reports both but the articles about Mr. Clean are buried while the articles about Mr. Dirty are front and center. The articles themselves may actually tell the whole story but the headlines read like today's "most important" story, "Corzine: The public can trust me." The subliminal power of headlines like that should be obvious to all. But the media thinks we cannot see what they are doing. They think we are all fools. And maybe they're right.
Every night on the network news shows or CNN, we see stories which may, on the whole, tell the whole story. But there are flashy hedlines and some very disconcerting facts worked in. The overall effort is to make the viewer suspicious about conservatives and trusting of liberals. I do think this is why fewer and fewer people are tuning in the networks. I do think this is why CNN is on the ropes and not on the ropes like Ali was. The large institutional media companies are taking hits to the face and beginning to collapse. They too often forget they are businesses and not some sort of American icon preserving our freedom. They tell us what they think we should know. They are a form of propaganda used by the left to "change the world." They tell us they want to change the world in a positive way but they really just want to change the world to keep power.
This woman sits outside Bush's ranch. It is not news except in as much as she has already had an audience. That makes her a nut. The media should be reporting about this nutty lady who thinks she knows better than anyone else the solutions to the terrorist problem the entire world is facing. She doesn't. her sanity is questionable at this point.
The Rolling Stones are on life support. I mean that literally. These guys are older than the grandparents of the generation they played to in the 60s. They have become their own great grandparents. And, let's face it, they suck. They have sucked for years. They're multi, multi millionaires because they made loads of money in the 60s and 70s. They can't play. They haven't been able to play for decades. They sound awful. That is the news. These old farts are still playing rock and roll. It is beyond absurd. (And by the way, I like a lot of Stones music, classic Stones music. I grew up on it. But they suck now.)
Jeanine Pirro is running against Hillary for NY Senator. She is a reasonably good choice to run against Hill. Unlike Rick Lazio, she is a bare-knuckle fighter. Rick is a great guy who if you said hello to him on the street, he would probably work extra hard to continue the conversation with you. He did with me, on more than one occasion. He's a real human being - not the guy who the party made confront Hillary on the debating stage. Jeanine is different. She's interested in power, real power. And she, as I said, is not afraid to engage Hillary in a cat fight, although she probably won't since Hill probably will not engage her back. But she is hardly a conservative. She is a policy conservative but socially liberal just like Rudy Guiliani is. She is pro-choice and has thousands of positions that would make a conservative cringe. She's a huge law and order gal. She fights against pedophilia until her knuckles are bleeding and the pedophiles are on the ground crying through their bloody faces, "mommy, mommy, I want my mommy."
Jeanine Pirro is a Rudy-con. In order to run for the Senate, Hillary basically has to cross the "Rudycon." But Hillary will probably beat her. Why? New York is stone cold Dem country. Make no mistake about it. While California and New York are decidedly different places, the two are almost identical twins when it comes to national politics. They always vote for the Dem. Hillary could run against her identical, though more liberal, twin from the Republican party and win in a landslide. Hillary doesn't really know New York in the way someone who buys food for holidays at Stu Leonards knows New York. She doesn't know New York like someone who has sat in traffic on the Beltway knows New York. She has likely never set foot inside a "Duane Reade" store. She's never fought her way out of Grand Central to get to work. She probably has never eaten a true New York deli sandwich. And she's probably never driven the thruway. She doesn't know where Red Hook is. She's never eaten too much at Mamma Leone's and then walked miles around the Museum of Modern Art. New Yorkers want a Senator not a President from Arkansas. But Hillary cannot honestly promise them to be that. That is the news. But the news organizations will not be reporting much about that unless you take a pure count of the number of times something like it appears deep within the papers.
In order to run this time, Hill is going to get a fight from Pirro and Pirro is going to ask her flat out if she promises to the people of New York to not run for President. New Yorkers want a Senator for the next 6 years. They do not want someone to use the office as a stepping stone to the presidency or even to lose a race for the presidency. They realize that if Hill were to run and win the office of President, she would not be a "New York President." She would be a midwest or Arkansas President whose chosen retirement home is in Westchester. In short, after she crosses the Rudycon by answering the key question of running for higher office, she may achieve vistory but will it be a "Pirroic victory." Will it cost Hillary a shot at the White House? But the newsies do not cover anything like that.
And so here we are in the year 2005. Journalism, as an institution of Democracy, is absolutely DOA. But because this institution is privately funded, there is hope. You simply cannot continue to sell a product which a thin sliver of the public actually enjoys and expect to have a national brand for long. The signs are very clearly marked. "This way to obscurity and eventually oblivion. This way to hell. This way all lefty media." The downfall of one dinosaur makes way for several warm blooded creatures. There may still be cave men roaming around amongst us but they are really just guys made-up to look that way doing Geico commercials.
13 Comments:
-
Pirro has an uphill fight in this battle because she's fighting on soil that is saturated with liberal "runoff".
However, I don't know much about Pirro but from what I've seen - she looks like a typical "in your face" New York street fighter. If that's the case, then Hillary is going to have a problem because HILLARY has a "glass jaw". She is easily rattled and we haven't seen this publicly because her handlers keep her out of the spotlight when she's "spun-up". But if Pirro drags this out of her - which I suspect she will - we'll all see a side of Hillary that isn't very enticing.
Think about it - Hillary is the leading candidate for the Dem nominee for prez. But it's all a paper tiger created by the press. You don't see her out there giving stirring speaches - cause she's a terrible speaker and can't.
Correct me if I'm wrong but last time she won the Senate against Lazario after the Republican ticket went into an upheaval when Rudy pulled out? She got real lucky methinks with that one.
But if Pirro calls her into a cat fight - I think you will see Hillary losing big chunks of flesh.By
Vercingetorix, at 8:53 AM, August 10, 2005
-
First, regressives were frothing at the mouth about Hillary stepping in and running for prez in '04. She's coming! Get ready! Man the hatches! Then, as she promised, she didn't run. Now here we go again with the original post claiming Hillary's opponent is going to run on a "you aren't going to be here for six years" platform. It's pathetic. How about, "here's what I can do for the state of New York"? The only way that regressives know how to campaign or present a point of view is by attacking and/or saying "if you think I'm bad, look at what this guy did." Hell, Bush ran for President in '04 with that very strategy.
Regressives like to intimate they know something about business and the real world, but I can state positively that if you interviewed for a job the way Bush and apparently Pirro are planning, you'd get booted out of the building. The problem is that employers tend to make intelligent, thoughtful decisions about who they hire, while the American public can't be bothered with the facts.
Every time Bush played the "I voted for it before I voted against it" commercial, Kerry should have responded with Bush's "I don't care where Osama bin Laden is", to remind people what an utter failure his anti-terrorism policy has been.
As for this supposedly "liberal" media, it IS news when a grieving mother attempts to see the president, is ignored because he's too busy with vacation, and ends up attracting people to her cause. She paid the ultimate sacrifice, as anyone with kids can tell you, yet the president is not willing to chat with her? While he's dinking around at his ranch? The man is a draft-dodger, a dimwit, a coke hound, and is utterly incapable of running his own life, let alone the greatest country in the history of the world.
C'mon Cons. Raise the bar a little bit for what a true leader should deliver. Your partisanship is killing this country.By
, at 10:16 PM, August 10, 2005
-
Read the piece "anonymous." It isn't about Hillary. It's about the news and the way it's reported. Your skin is far too thin.
"Regressives?" That's rich. You are calling liberals "progressives" because they represent new fresh ideas? New ideas like affirmative action, nationalized health care, socialims? These are old ideas which have been tried and failed. There's nothing neo about the conservative movement. We are just pragmatists. Some of us even used to be liberals.
It isn't about Bush or Hillary. It is about an honest approach to what works and what doesn't. It has nothing to do with Iraq. It has everything to do with lawyers deciding not to share information about terrorists because they have green cards and visas.
Your partisanship is laughable because your positions are not founded in reality. Your positions are meant to prop up a political party supported by foreigners like Soros and the Chinese. Your positions are meant to prop up the party which promotes socialism in this country. Everyone would know that if your party were ever honest enough to say it. But they won't because they know if they ever did, that would be the end. That wouldn't win more than a couple seats in the House.
Much of what you call "neo-con" is simply exposing liberals for what they are. That's why you're losing. And no amount of posting in con blogs is going to turn the trend around.By
Dave, at 3:36 AM, August 11, 2005
-
Dave:
Soros has been an American citizen since 1961. I'm fairly certain "the Chinese" do not prop up any American party. Children dying from lack of healthcare is certainly pragmatic. Perpetual war for perpetual peace, very pragmatic. Refusing to acknowledge climate change, very pragmatic. "Socialims", not a word.By
Joe, at 6:09 AM, August 11, 2005
-
Joe, what's with "children dying from lack of healthcare"??
In the USA, there are no children without access to healthcare. Any doctor or hospital is more than happy to help a child in need of medical attention, even without compensation or health insurance. In fact, emergency rooms are required by law to treat EVERYONE who comes in. Doctors and nurses take oaths to provide treatment to anyone who comes in and asks for it.
As for how do those services get paid, is the problem. Right now, the families are not obligated to pay. They are free to walk out, without paying anything. I know this because I did medical and hospital billing for a number of years.
The way the system works right now, both the state and federal governments set aside taxpayer funds to reimburse hospitals for "indigent services".
If there are any kids dying from a lack of healthcare, it's because their parents refused to take them to a doctor or hospital.By
Steve, at 7:59 AM, August 11, 2005
-
Joe, I'd be willing to acknowledge climate change if the scientists could just make up their mind about it. 25 years ago they were calling an ICE AGE and saying that CO2 actually had the affect of COOLING the planet. Now today they're saying it's GLOBAL WARMING. I don't just buy into every theory a guy with a degree and a loud mouth comes up with.
And as far as anonymous' comments about a real leader - I guess he's referring to Bill Clinton. Yep - Bill was a great one wasn't he? When Osama blew up the COLE - Bill launched Tommahawks into the unpopulated Afghanistan wasteland and made some big "holes" in the dirt - but didn't kill any terrorists. When the embassy in Kenya was bombed - Bill blows up what? -- An aspirin factory!
Yes, Bush did say "I don't think much about Osama".
But Bill would have said ...
"Who is Osama?"By
Vercingetorix, at 9:05 AM, August 11, 2005
-
>Much of what you call "neo-con" is >simply exposing liberals for what >they are. That's why you're losing.
Is that all you con's are left with? This tired "we won" mentality?
>And no amount of posting in con blogs >is going to turn the trend around.
Actually, it already is. Should we start at poll numbers? Or the Ohio election? Or the complete fu**-up that is Iraq?
No, you wouldn't. You like to shift the focus to clinton, or socialism or any of the other boogymen that the con's like yourself need to set up so as not to face the harsh realties of your own failed ideology.
How many backward, embarrassing steps will the con's drag this country through? Trashing evolution, homosexuals, the environment, veterans, mothers of dead soldiers, or even soldiers themselves? Giving tax breaks to only the wealthiest? Or our tax dollars to companies like Exxon that made BILLIONS in profits in it's last quarter? All while soldiers in Iraq don't have enough armor on their humvees?
But what does the country expect from the folks in charge like Karl Rove who think nothing of outing a CIA agent. And what about that troublesome issue of ethics? Remember that quaint little notion of doing business? Newt Gingrich made such a fuss over it it was in his contract with America, next to the paragraph about term limits. Now the ethics bar is set so low a snake like Delay can slither thru with a smile and... term limits? What are those?
And then there's the the propaganda arm of the con crowd. The fat, elite, serial marrying, drug addicted, sexual harassing, draft dodgers like O'rielly and Rush. Those who do the real dirty work of an administration that's up to it's neck in corruption. Do you think people, especially those in the blogosphere can't see thru their bullshit? Please.
You and you're kind built this sleazy house on fear and lies and it's going to come crashing down on your head. Maybe not today or tomorrow. But soon because dave, you're on the wrong side of history.
See you in '06!By
, at 9:35 AM, August 11, 2005
-
Joe,
My deepest apologies for any Mipellling. I typish very poworly.
I'm pretty sure you knew what I meant by Socialims because you are quite the clever one.
Did you miss the story about how Clinton was taking money from the Chinese? That constitutes "propping up" in my book. Maybe you missed that one. It was in all the media.
I do not care if Soros is a citizen or not. He's a foreigner who cares very little about this country as it is currently comprised. He is interested in converting us into a Socialist state.
Children dying from healthcare has nothing to do with pragmatism. A socialist system for dispensing medical care does - it is not pragmatic Healthcare shortages because the central government decides to not put another 50 guys and gals into medical school is not very pragmatic wither. That's what Canada's socialized medicine did. You know Canada, don't you Joe? That's the country from which citizens travel here in order to get healthcare when they are forced to stand in line at home.
Ever know anybody seriously ill in Ireland, Canada or another place that has socialized medicine? I can think of a couple dead people who died waiting for needed procedures which are ROUTINELY performed here on an immediate basis. They died half way through the wait. None of these folks should have died. They did because the system decided they should. I can only wish you a similar fate. For myself and my family, I don't want it.
Refusing to acknowledge climate change? Show us the specific reports by credible scientists demonstrating factually that there is a perceptible amount of climate change directly traceable to human activity. You cannot because there is no such document. You don't realize that because you blindly believe everything you are fed by liberals. You are an automaton.By
Dave, at 9:36 AM, August 11, 2005
-
A person camping out, outside any president's ranch is NEWS.
A rock group writing music critical of any president is NEWS.
The only paranoid people who can't stop talking excessively about Hillary are conservatives.
I don't get it. What would you have them report ?By
, at 2:37 PM, August 11, 2005
-
I consider myself conservative, and I agree with many of the things other conservative posters here have said. However, there is one area where I think you guys are mistaken: global warming. Yes, it is true that there have been conflicting reports in the past, because modeling something as complicated as the Earth's climate is very difficult. However, the literature is now beginning to show some real convergence on global warming. Virtually all scientists now agree that global warming is a fact; the question is not its existence, but how much there will be, and how we can stop it.
By
, at 3:26 PM, August 11, 2005
-
Hey Anon, regarding global warming, the data shows that the Earth has indeed warmed up by an average of 1 degree F over the past 100+ years.
The question though, is what caused it?
The global warming debate is not about whether or not the Earth is warmer, but what is causing it.
You might want to read the article that Dave and myself authored originally on global warming.By
Steve, at 5:29 PM, August 11, 2005
-
Just for the heck of it, I wrote another one about global warming today. It's here:
Greenhouse Gases
In today's piece I caved on you guys who insist that global warming is due to gases caused by humans just for arguments sake. I also noted that methane is half the problem. And of the other half, CO2, even if the U.S. is 25% of the problem, automobiles are only 20% of that. 20% of 25% of half yields 2.5%. So even if you agree with everything the left has to say about global warming, making cars 50% more efficient would alleviate right around 1% of the problem. So can we please stop barking up that tree? Your decision or the decisions of so many SUV driving liberals I know to go after 20 mpg instead of 15 does not make an impact.
But let's go ahead and hypothetically adopt Kyoto and even go further. Let's go ahead and bring U.S. emissions down to say 1950 levels. The way to accomplish this is with $10 or $20 per gallon gasoline for starters. Then your monthly energy bill will stand at around $2,000 if you dare to use a microwave or put your temperature above 55 in the winter, or below 80 in the summer. Build a house, pay an energy surcharge since industrial works like those for the creation of building materials also spew forth carbon. No vacations in Europe for the elite lib.s. Airplanes are a major contributor and there is no good fundamental reason to vacation in Europe. And no vacation home in the Hamptons - 200 square feet for each man, woman and child is sufficient for living. The list goes on and on. There are ways to really cut down our "greenhouse gas emissions." Are we ready for them?By
Dave, at 9:37 AM, August 12, 2005
-
Did I forget to add that the total amount of world emissions will be going up anyway? Think China.
By
Dave, at 9:38 AM, August 12, 2005
| Post a Comment | |
| Back to Homepage | |
A political blog mixing conservative New Jersey with libertarian California.
Smoking Dogs Media
Dave
New Jersey
Steve
California
Previously on Political Dogs
- The Devil Is In The Homeland Security Details
- Get Real, Mom!
- Taken For Granted
- Bring On The Homocons!
- When Someone Dies
- Is There Anything Lower Than A Pedophile?
- Guards Continue Defiling Books At Gitmo
- Counting The Costs Of Illegal Immigration
- "Funny" Corzine News
- Right Wing Clothing