I have a question for all you who consider themselves to be

[Road Scholar]

knowledgeable about the way things work in politics.

I'm just trying to understand here.
Generally speaking, the republican party base seems to be made up of citizenry who are around average or below average intelligence which would constitute about 1/2 the population.They are controlled by a very small percentage of the wealthiest people in the world such as Murdock etc. etc. Their instructions and talking points are conveyed to them through the media such as "Fox News" Limbaugh, etc.
These simpletons have been drinking the right wing "Kool-Aid" for years and somehow feel knowledgeable and therefore as voters,they are empowered. The voting base have been made immune to any logic and most believe that things are going really well in this country and if there are any problems, it is caused by those "filthy wine sipping low life homo liberals". It is impossible to have a rational logical discussion with any of them.

It is my conclusion that the head of the snake is the right wing media and until the media has the special interest removed we are in a struggle that we cannot win. We always wind up fighting the symptoms and not the problem. I hear very little discussion about solving this. I think it's more of a crisis than most people realize.

Here's my question: Is it fair to conclude that until the media is required to actually be "fair and balanced" that we are like the dog who is chasing his tail? Is it ever discussed?
I would appreciate any comments regarding this.

[blondeatlast]

1. It's discussed here a lot. Not only did we beat them in '04, we now are

making further inroads because in the end, ratings matter. The media knows that cheerleading for Bush isn't going to get them anywhere unless they are FAUX, so no, I think we can overcome the bias--and we have, to some degree.

[AndyTiedye]

18. Ratings Always Take a Back Seat to the Parent Corporation's Agenda

The networks continue to support Bush** because their parent corporations order them to, regardless of the effect it may have on ratings.

GE makes more money off the war than they do off of all of NBC, so they don't care what happens to NBC's ratings as long as they can keep the war going.
We all know about Rupert Murdoch. He has more money than King Midas, and it's all about power for him.
He's supporting HRC in the primaries because they have been accumulating stuff to attack her with for 15 years and they want to use all that in the general election campaign.

[TechBear_Seattle]

2. The root of the problem is the First Amendment

The Fairness Doctrine was ultimately struck down as unconstitutional because it was seen as an unfair restraint on freedom of speech and freedom of the press. If private owners wanted to use their own resources to further political views, it was their constitutional right to do so.

Basically, we are between a hard rock and a very hard place. If we were to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine, we open the media to the government control of political speech, and the government (including most of the Democrats in Congress) have shown itself repeatedly to be sympathetic to right wing corporate causes. If we do not, then the right wing corporatists who currently control the media continue to control the media.

Really, I don't see any way things can be made better without making things much, much worse.

[madokie]

9. should they, the hanities and the limballs etc get a free pass on out right lies though

I'm not sure lies are covered in the first ammendment are they

[TechBear_Seattle]

17. Lies are perfectly acceptable free speech

One might argue for "truth in advertising" and consumer protection with regards to politics, but that opens several other cans of worms and most likely will get truth in advertising and consumer protection laws struck down as unconstitutional limits on free speech. Then there is the fact that claims my sugar pill will cure cancer can be empirically proven or disproven, while claims that atheists are out to destroy Christianity can not be empirically proven or disproven. We end up with an agency, no doubt under government control, which determines whether a political statement is true or a lie. How long would such an agency be independent and non-partisan?

[DangerDave921]

19. yes they are

Free speech has never had a truthfulness requirement. Of course, you can sue for defamation if someone is spreading lies about you, but that is a civil action that is filed by one person against another. It doesn't mean the government can step in and tell someone to be quiet because we (the government) think you're telling lies. The government can shut down an advertiser or manufacturer that is blatantly telling lies about its products because of consumer safety. But when it comes to opinions, the government can't tell you not to express an opinion.

I am one of the few on this board who does not like the fairness doctrine. I don't want the government dictating what private companies can or cannot air on their shows. Especially when you stretch it out to mean all media -- t.v., magazines, and internet in addition to radio. Should the government force Air America to have a 4-hour conservative program to balance out its regular hosts? Should DU be required to post FReeper posts in the interest of fairness? Of course not.

[AndyTiedye]

14. Things Have Gotten Much Much Worse Since the Demise of the "Fairness Doctrine"

[TechBear_Seattle]

15. No argument here, but how do we put the genie back into the bottle?

I have a bad feeling that the country has crossed the Rubicon on this one.

[porphyrian]

3. I think the media is a major player, but they are only handing out the Koolaid...

...people are drinking it voluntarily. If we really believe they are the problem, why are we still giving them our attention? They make no money without viewers. Instead of trying to change corporations from trying to make money, which is their function, why don't we simply change what people choose to consume? Of course, the answer to that is that many people want the Koolaid for whatever reason, even if it does have cyanide in it and is completely truth-free. Maybe we just need to think of a better way to compete with that.

[Mountainman]

4. For all the power of the right wing media, only about 30% of people call themselves conservatives.

The majority of Americans are against the war. In the last two presidential elections I believe the majority of voters wanted the Democratic candidate to win, Many of their votes either weren't counted or they were not permitted to vote.

If the right controls the media we are still more popular than the right is. We must be getting the message out some how. I think the right has a loud voice but not everyone is listening. Mostly they preach to the choir because the choir will tune in and that makes for an audience and a ratings. Liberal radio could not get those ratings because the truth isn't as popular as propaganda is.

Also most people can compare what the see with what they hear from the media and can see the lie in what the hear.

We also have the internet which so far is open to anyone to say anything.

[supernova]

5. You're mostly correct

The Repub party is made up of people who think they are entitled to "lead" and make decisions for the rest of us, for no other qualification than that they are wealthy and in most cases have inherited that wealth.

There is media consolidation which makes it increasingly harder to find objective news sources.

The other piece, and the one that makes it work, is that the Repub faithful enjoy being told what to do by a strong father figure. They don't want nor need to figure out what to think by themselves. They simply want their marching orders. They are never happier than when this is true. The big beef they really had with Big Dawg wasn't really the skirtchasing, that was just window dressing. What really made them upset about him, and about Carter too, is the idea that they wanted to mediate and discuss issues and come to a national consensus. They hate that with a vengeance. It makes them insecure and afraid.

Our job is to figure out how to get power from them, and our best option will be along the path of breaking that willing follower model.

edit: The RW media would never have become such a big player in the "free marketplace of ideas" if there weren't an audience of willing dupes ready to receive that message. :-(

[aikoaiko]

6. The 1st Amendment is designed to stop gov from controlling the content of political speech.

IMHO.

[NeedleCast]

7. I think you're making a mistake with the

"Republicans are dumb" meme. They, are at least their masters, have out-smarted us in the past two elections, regardless of whether you feel they stole them or not. Bush 2.0 was probably the weakest incumbant in my life time and once again the Dems managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. I think the Democrat campaign machine is going to have to learn how to get dirty and how to be the attacker instead of the defender.

Yeah, Republicans pull a lot of their vote from the NASCAR belt, but so do the Dems, even if they're the southern yellow dog flavored ones. If we say the Republican voters have been drinking the right-wing kool-aid for years does that mean us Democrats are just as guilty of drinking the left-wing kool-aid? Republicans might have reached different (and incorrect) political opinions than you or I, but that doesn't mean they're all ill-informed. I've met plenty of Democrats who have no idea why they're Democrats.

I also think you're making a mistake in calling the (board-brush) media "right wing." I don't think the media has much in the way of political leanings except for shows that are specifically about politics. The media is the "Sensationalism Media." They're going to run whatever "news" will sell and bring in viewers/readers/listeners. There's also the issue of how trying to "remove the head of the snake" by taking our right wing media and it's special interest will be viewed. The Republicans will jump all over it as a clamp down on free speech and honestly, they'd have a good point.

Forcing the media to be "fair and balanced" is probably an impossibility for both sides. The media is going to tell us what they think will sell the most papers, bring in the most listeners and provide the highest ratings.

[madokie]

8. I feel your concern cause I bring up the media all the time and its always pretty much

met with a fast trip down the page. Nothing else matters with what we talk about until we do something about our media. they are killing our government and doing it with a vengeance. I repeat nothing we do matters or will matter until we get a handle on our media

[napi21]

10. John Dean was on Olberman's show last night and Keith asked him

what the difference is that convinced Congress to go after Nixon rather quickly but they seem so hesitant to go after Bush now for crimes much worse than Nixon's and much more numerous! Deans response was that it's a very different time now. You didn't have RW talk radio or Fox News back then, nor did we have the internet. He believes all of those things are extremely influential and are the reason ShrubCo is getting away wtih all their criminal activities.

I think we all knew RW radio and Fox have made a big difference in promoting the PUBS, but I never gave it a thought that it could be the cause behind the stop the impeachment firewall. The more I think about it, the more I think John Dean could be right!

[Lex]

11. A fair, impartial, and free press is crucial to maintaining our democracy.

That's so that the citizens can make informed decisions about the direction of the country.

We no longer have a fair and impartial press. We have news organizations and AM hate radio pushing a political agenda, and it is undeniably corrupting the ability of our citizens to make informed and rational decisions about our democracy and country.

And our press is no longer "free" but takes its cues from calls from the White House and political pressure from the corporate CEOs who own them.


It's depressing.

[AndyTiedye]

12. I Had a Bunch of these Bumper Stickers Made Up

kicking and recommending this thread.

[Road Scholar]

13. Maybe what we need to do is beat them at their own game. Maybe

we should flood the media with clever "catchy" rhymes and sayings.It seems to appeal to those folks.
I have discovered that most believe that Fox "News" channel is actually a news channel.
I know it sounds crazy but I wish Keith Olbermann would change the name of his show to the "Olbermann News Hour".

[onenote]

16. I'm curious about the basis for your premise

that "the republican party base seems to be made up of citizenry who are around average or below average intelligence".

Have anything to back that up?

I think its foolish for Democrats to assume that repubs are just "stupid people". I know some repubs that are very intelligent. They just happen to have different views on certain things, whether they be social issues such as abortion or economic issues such as taxation. They aren't stupid and it would be a mistake to dismiss them as such. Not every person I know that identifies him/herself as a repub is a chimpy supporter or a supporter of the war either.


edited to fix brain fart in original post (typed Democrat instead of repub).

[Road Scholar]

20. I'm just speaking from my own experience. Certainly it can't

be all inclusive, but generally speaking, rational thinking people are democratic. Red neck "my way or the highway" average or below IQ's are repubs. Again just my own observation.

[DangerDave921]

31. rational people

I think you're engaging in a self-fulfilling endeavor. You talk to a RW'er, disagree with that person's view, and then conclude that that person is not rational. You know what? He/she is probably concluding the same about you! That's why I try to analyze arguments rather than demonize opponents. There are plenty of bright, rational people who are RW'ers. They may be wrong and misguided, but they're not irrational.

[Lex]

22. It seems that gullible people appear to cling to right-wing

propaganda and to the republican party.

I don't know if gullibility and 'smarts' have anything to do with each other. I tend to think so.

[UnyieldingHierophant]

21. you could look at it 180 degrees from the other side and it'd be true also...just sayin'

I'm just trying to understand here.

Generally speaking, the *democratic* base seems to be made up of citizenry who are around average or below average intelligence which would constitute about 1/2 the population. They are controlled by a very small percentage of the wealthiest people in the world such as *Soros* etc. etc. Their instructions and talking points are conveyed to them through the media such as *"NBC"* *NPR*, etc.
These simpletons have been drinking the *left* wing "Kool-Aid" for years and somehow feel knowledgeable and therefore as voters,they are empowered. The voting base have been made immune to any logic and most believe that things are going really well in this country and if there are any problems, it is caused by those "filthy *beer* *gulping* low life *gun-totin', blood thirsty conservatives"*. It is impossible to have a rational logical discussion with any of them.

It is my conclusion that the head of the snake is the *left* wing media and until the media has the special interest removed we are in a struggle that we cannot win. We always wind up fighting the symptoms and not the problem. I hear very little discussion about solving this. I think it's more of a crisis than most people realize.

Here's my question: Is it fair to conclude that until the media is required to actually be "fair and balanced" that we are like the dog who is chasing his tail? Is it ever discussed?

I would appreciate any comments regarding this.

[Road Scholar]

23. If you can reverse what I said then there is no doubt that you

are proof of what I am saying. You are totally be blinded by the kool aid.
Really, you make my case. Thank you very much. :shrug:

[UnyieldingHierophant]

27. I don't know what proof you see that brings you to that conclusion...maybe I'm below average

intelligence??

:shrug:

[Road Scholar]

28. Of course, I don't know, maybe you are, I wouldn't rule it out.

[Lex]

24. NBC and NPR are left wing? No, sorry.

LOL.

[IsItJustMe]

25. I think you have hit the nail on the head. Until there is an honest shif in our media, I don't see

any hope. That's where it is at. I don't know why the liberal segments in our society are not, in any meaningful way, starting their own media outlets.

Those who control the information, control the power.

[Road Scholar]

26. Thank you. Very well said. My point exactly.

[JuniperLea]

29. Our forefathers agreed that "the press" was so important to our freedom

That they wrote freedom of the press into our Constitution. Call it media, or press, it's all the same, and it's a crucial form of oversight. What we need are laws about truthfulness in the press!!

In addition to your comments about how 50% of the population are technically at or below average, you might also consider how many highly educated people are Dems v Repubs... and how many of our greatest minds, those who are now instructing others in institutions of higher learning, are mostly liberals! I would say, the smarter a person, the more liberal... but like with anything else, there are always exceptions. I know from experience that Mensa has a few staunch RW nutjobs in their membership:) Nothing is absolute, except that water is wet and air is lighter than water:)

[DangerDave921]

30. self-congratulatory

I think it's a dangerous mindset to automatically assume you are smarter than your opponent. I prefer to analyze ideas and policy on their own merits, not simply assume that I am a more evolved person intellectually.