sarah palin's endorsement of joe miller FAILS and the media loves her

[spanone]

instead of asking sarah palin why alaska voters rejected her choice for senator

the media is asking if she can beat Barack Obama for the 2012 presidency.

i suspect with the media wholly behind her, she could win.

[RZM]

1. Do you really think the media is 'wholly behind her?'

I guess it depends on the meaning of 'behind.' I imagine very few in the media actually want a Sarah Palin presidency. Though if you mean 'behind' as hyping the Sarah Palin 'phenomenon' because people pay attention and it grabs eyeballs, then I can see that.

[spanone]

2. i mean 'wholly behind her'

[RZM]

6. LOL, that wasn't very helpful

I'll repeat the question. Do you mean 'behind' as in wanting her to win, or 'behind' as in wanting to keep her name in the headlines because people pay attention to her?

[spanone]

7. absolutely no difference in the two.

[RZM]

8. Oh but there is . . .

Surely you must see that keeping Sarah Palin in the news because you want her to win the presidency and keeping her there because she is a divisive figure that gets people to pay attention are very different things.

[spanone]

9. no i surely don't.

[RZM]

10. I don't get posting a comment and then acting that it's beneath you to explain what you meant

Take an editor at a major metropolitan daily who votes Democratic. That person, like most Dems, probably doesn't want to see a Palin presidency. But on the other hand, they want people to read their newspaper so they can keep their job. That person might not like Sarah Palin very much, but they also know that Palin can bring in attention, so they run Palin stories for that reason. That scenario doesn't seem to fit into your black and white framework here.

[spanone]

12. i made a statement. you disagree. no big deal. now i have a black & white framework...whatever

[RZM]

13. It's not a big deal

But you just won't explain why you think they are the same thing. I'm intrigued as to why you think hyping Palin to grab eyeballs is the same as wanting her to be president. But it looks like I'm never gong to know . . . too bad ;)

[RaleighNCDUer]

14. The thing is, they are keeping her there because she is a divisive figure that gets

people to pay attention, who they want to win.

It's not an either/or.

[RZM]

16. Obviously if you like Palin and are in journalism you have both goals

But plenty of people in journalism vote Democratic and even many who don't aren't too keen on Palin. For them, it is an either/or.

[RaleighNCDUer]

17. OK, pay close attention. "The Media" is NOT journalists.

The Media is the people who OWN the journalists. Got it? When people talk about 'the media' pushing a point of view, they are not talking about the talking heads, or even about the few real journalists who remain. They are talking corporate.

Palin is a dimbulb who the media knows they can manipulate, who is corporate friendly, who is anti-democratic (that is small 'd', as well as big 'd') who can be counted on to do good things for corporations. The media wants her. She is their perfect tool.

What the journalists may or may not want matters as little to The Media as what you or I want.

[RZM]

18. Well that's one defintion, but certainly not the only plausible one

I tend to lump writers and editors into 'the media.' They don't make all of the decisions, but they aren't mindless automatons who simply write what their corporate masters command them, especially on the editorial page (witness the breakdown of presidential endorsements among major metropolitan dailies). The idea of the 'right wing media' is a meme on par with the 'left wing media.' The media is a variegated group comprised of all types and tends to balance out toward the center.

[RaleighNCDUer]

20. No. It isn't.

You make it sound "fair and balanced".

Where, exactly, is the balance point between 'moderate' and 'right'? Please, show me ANY left wing media. ANY left wing network. ANY left wing newspaper conglomerate.

Only the right pushes the idea that there are equivalent 'left' and 'right' wing media. Those of us living in the real world know better.

[RZM]

21. But you're operating under your own definition of 'media'

Which is far from agreed-upon since it doesn't include most of the people in the trade. I think you believe anyone to the right of YOU is 'right wing.' That's a common mistake people make across the political spectrum, hence the Republican idea that Obama is a 'left wing socialist.' If you think that journalists and editors, even those who work for companies owned by right wing families, only push right wing stories and agendas, I think it's you that's not living in the real world.

[RaleighNCDUer]

23. You really don't know what you are talking about.

People work IN the media. The media is the profession in which they work. And editor is an editor, not 'the media'. A newspaper is 'the media'. The reporter for that paper is not 'the media', he is 'the reporter'.

When a person talks to a reporter they are not talking to that reporter - they are talking to the organization that reporter represents. Everything that reporter says will be filtered upward - depending on the amount of controversy from one editor or through several editors, and the higher it gets kicked the more consideration is given to the organization's image; and if the story goes south, such as Rather's 'W deserter' story, it will not be just the reporter who gets canned, but several layers of editors as well. THAT is 'the media'.

You can't make up your own definitions.

Also, I would never claim that anyone to the right of me is right wing. I am a democratic socialist and therefore exemplify the left side of the left wing. But the simple fact is that most the media - from boardroom to editorial page - is barely moderate at best and predominately right wing. I damn near NEVER see anything approaching democratic socialist principles in the media - even in editorial pages where individuals have far more say (subject to their owners' approval, of course) than in general editorial content. Is Obama right wing? Of course not. No more than he is a socialist. He wavers between slightly left center to considerably more right center, and that is clearly evidenced by his stands, his appointments, his choice of issues.

And journalists and editors 'push' those stories they are allow to push. Nothing more, nothing less. That's called 'doing their jobs'. And if they want to keep their jobs, they don't push. THAT is the real world.

[RZM]

24. Have you worked in the industry?

Because I have. I'm familiar with how it operates. Granted, I never worked in television or radio, but I have a decent grasp of the print business. I don't disagree with a whole lot of what you are saying here -- though you have changed your own definition as we've been going back and forth. First the 'media' was corporations, now it's the actual product (I imagine the latter is probably the correct technical definition). But when most people refer to 'the media,' they are talking about all of it. The publications, the corporations that own them, and the employees who staff them.

Though you have taken issue with my supposition that perhaps you view people to the right of you as right wing, you still don't seem to account for the broad range of opinion between yourself and the center, which is where I suspect many journalists and editors lie. Instead they are 'barely moderate at best and predominantly right wing.' That's suspiciously close to validating what I said, since it does not account for the broad range of 'center-left' views prevalent in the media. Those are apparently relegated to 'barely moderate and predominantly right wing' status. I would probably agree that there aren't a whole lot of democratic socialists in the media and that said principles don't often take center stage. Perhaps you think that is because such beliefs are purposefully neglected. But couldn't it also be because there aren't that many democratic socialists in the United States at large? Remember, the media has to keep their audience in mind as well. Perhaps promoting democratic socialism isn't the best way to sell papers.

[RaleighNCDUer]

25. And what, specifically, are these 'center left' views prevelent in the media?

BTW, the corporations and the products they produce are one and the same thing. Is 'Time' magazine the media, or is the corporation that determines what appears in 'Time' the media? Can you really draw a line between the two?

Certainly, many editors and I believe most journalists tend to be liberal - that is what the 4th estate is all about. But if you work in the "industry" (and doesn't that word alone say a lot about it?) you certainly know that journalists only have free rein when the media they work for is very, very small, or when they are very, very big - the guy working on the local independent rag is going to have a lot more freedom of content than his equal working in the major metropolitan newspaper - just as the news head on a local TV station is going to have a lot less say about his subject matter than Dan Rather did.

The purpose of the corporation is not to tell the news - it is to make money. To do so they take the most cautious, conservative stance they can so as to not piss off any corporate sponsors. Heaven forbid they ever say anything that will lose them any advertising. Of course they are going to trend to the right. How could it possibly be otherwise?

'The Media' is not the news, or the entertainment for that matter. 'The Media' is the people who make the decisions about what the news, or entertainment, is. And the people who make those decisions are not out on the street - they are in the boardrooms.

Of course, there are exceptions - Rolling Stone can be said to have a lefty slant, and a few others, but do they really equally balance Murdoch or Scaife? Or even Gannet's USA Today - the epitome of journalistic blandness? Where is the left wing network that counterbalances Fox or CNN? Don't say MSNBC - a few hours in the evening of moderate-left viewpoints barely balances its own daytime programming.

You cannot produce any argument that the media, overall, is not heavily slanted to the right. It's just not there. Even CNN, which once was solidly centrist and impartial, began skewing right because of competition from Fox, so that now you can hardly tell the difference. The 'left wing' New York Times was one of the primary cheerleaders for war, and despite the occasional editorial is still hardly any beacon to anyone trying to find a non-conservative viewpoint.

And the more media consolidation there is, the more right wing it becomes. I must say, if you haven't noticed that, you can't be much of a journalist.

[RZM]

31. You're drowning in cynicism here

'The purpose of the corporation is not to tell the news -- it is to make money' . . . for many news organizations, I think it's to do both at the same time. Granted, the two goals inevitably influence one another. Murdoch and Ailes knew there was a lot of money that could be made by presenting the news from a conservative perspective. And they were right. Same thing with MSNBC now, as Fox's rightness and CNN's lukewarm centrism left a lot of viewers hungry for left-wing content, particularly during the key evening time slots. BTW, Tweety is the only evening personality on there that's 'moderate-left.' The other three are reliably left and O'Donnell is apparently a socialist, or at least he believes himself to be one. During the day it's more like CNN than it is like Fox and I would say that their evening content DOES more than balance out their daytime programming, especially because much more people watch TV from 8-11 than they do in the middle of the day.

In terms of magazines, there are quite a few besides Rolling Stone. Just of off the top of my head, there's Mother Jones, The Nation, Harper's, The New Republic, Slate etc . . . you get the point. I don't think most of these would pass your democratic socialist muster, but they certainly all trend more towards the left than they do towards the right -- actually Mother Jones and the Nation are very reliably left.

I don't think either of us can be convinced to come over to the other side here, so perhaps we should leave it at that -- and for the record, I no longer work in the news business.

[RaleighNCDUer]

27. Here's your 'center-left' media, for you.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9585501

[RaleighNCDUer]

28. Care for another helping?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9585565

[RaleighNCDUer]

29. Dessert?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9585027

[notadmblnd]

3. Oh, c'mon. Sarah Palin is thier running joke,

they see her as their court jester. She's their entertainment and nothing more.

[RZM]

5. That's how I see it

She's a media goldmine since people of all political stripes love to pay attention to her. But that doesn't mean very many in the media like her or want to see her succeed. They want to keep her around because she's a well to which they can go back to, over and over.

[cap]

4. sarah manipulated this

she released this statement knowing that it would distract the media and not focus attention on getting beat in her own state.

Typical drama queen. Distracting from real issues at hand.

[Blue_In_AK]

22. We don't like her here.

She should have that message by now.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

26. Would Palin carry the state in a presidential election?(n/m)

[Blue_In_AK]

30. Doubtful.

Even people who worked hard to get her elected governor back in 2006 are mad at her. After all, she QUIT. How in the world could she handle being president when she couldn't even handle being governor of this small state? Mainstream Republicans can't stand her -- thus, the Murkowski write-in success -- and I can't imagine any Democrat in the state voting for her. She'd have to get her support from the Indies, and they're just not that into her.

[cap]

32. she is playing the national media

she could care less what happens in Alaska media. She just didn't want the big story to be how Sarah lost influence in her own state.

[OHdem10]

11. Could it be something as aimple as Palin gets eyeballs(ratings)???

[LynneSin]

15. Miller not only lost to a write in but someone with an 8 letter funny spelling last name

Think about it.

[gratuitous]

19. Murkowski has 9 letters

And her name is as familiar to Alaskans as Kennedy is to folks in Massachusetts. But still, it points out the limited magic of the Palin charm. She can rally a plurality of Republicans to her cause, but getting a real, live majority of all voters, Republicans, Independents and Democrats? Something else entirely.

But indeed, don't look for the popular media to spit out their delicious flavor of the month just because she's political poison. She draws viewers/listeners/readers, and that's all that matters. Any analysis or critical review of her vapidity is strictly off limits.

[Marr]

33. Personally, I think the GOP's corporate wing is trying to put her on the sacrificial alter.

If they can get her to run in 2012, and win the nomination, she will be destroyed in the election. After that, she can be completely marginalized if she tries to get involved in 2016.

Maybe it's more of the establishment in general, but they're pretty difficult to separate from their GOP butlers.