I wonder what would happen if the media treated the Republicans and Libertarians as well as they treated Democrats for one year? Some negative images against the right are very obvious but others are more subtle. For example, I was researching some information about marriage and how some were lasting longer. I ran into this paragraph at the Washington Post:
“The odds of getting divorced are much lower for educated and affluent Americans, the escapades of Schwarzenegger and John Ensign notwithstanding,” Wilcox said, referring to the former governor of California and the former senator from Nevada.
In this story by Carol Morello, she could have just as easily chosen quotes from someone who talked about the marital escapades of Democrats John Edwards or Bill Clinton but she didn’t.
Why not?
Some people may feel that examples like this are not important but the negative obvious and subtle hostility floating around in the culture against those on the right leads to results like this: Despite their sinking employment prospects and the negative direction of the country, “60% of millennials blame Obama’s opponents for his inability to get anything done.” Maybe if they stopped the blame and realized that Obama’s policies are not in their favor, their generation would do better. But it “feels good” to be popular, go along with the media and look cool by agreeing with the propaganda handed out in school, the media and their peers.
What would happen if the media made it “cool” to be a free market capitalist, discussed the virtues of F. A. Hayek or Milton Friedman, or even told those millenials that youth unemployment may possibly be a result of Obama’s failed policies. I know it will never happen but one can dream, can’t they?
How about just one year in which the right was treated with kid gloves the way the left is now as an experiment to see what would happen? Given all the negativity in the press against the right, it’s amazing they do as well as they do.
I registered as a Conservative in 1976. During the ensuing years, I have had my beliefs criticized in language that would have made Jeremiah Wright blush. I often stated my opinion and let it go. If I love you, I don’t care about your politics. We all have the nation’s best interest at heart.
Now, that I am actually publishing articles espousing conservative principles and challenging the liberal establishment, things have changed.
A woman I have introduced as my sister for more years than I can remember, family for 37 years, called me a racist because I said Barack Obama is the worst President this nation has ever seen. She chose to judge me by the color of my skin, and not the content of my character.
Another friend, of 40 years, surprisingly, no longer takes my call, and for the first time in many years didn’t send me a Christmas card with pictures of his absolutely beautiful children.
I have a dream as well. I hope that someday, people of the progressive nature, will not judge me evil, simply because I am a conservative.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/06/racism_injustice_and_the_left.html
You are better for it. You’ve gotten those bigoted, close-minded, hate-filled people out of your life, and your soul is purer as a result.
I’ve also begun taking a careful look at companies and people I do business with. Think of it this way: When I outsource work to a LIberal, they are going to use some of my money to support their Liberal causes. I am in affect funding my own demise.
“A woman I have introduced as my sister for more years than I can remember, family for 37 years, called me a racist”
i would go even further and suggest your friend is the racist one (as most dems are) judging obama by the color of his skin (and all the mulligans and passes he gets as a result of the color of his skin) and not his character (of which there is very little)
Oh, yes, it’s amusing in a grim sort of way to see that the people who toss the “racist” accusation against others at the drop of a hat are the ones who themselves are absolutely obsessed with race and are entirely incapable of seeing anyone else except through the lens of race.
It has been my observation that almost invariably when a friendship is broken over politics, it is the liberal who initiates the severance. The main reason for this should be obvious: Progressives tend to adopt political views as a means of moral exhibitionism, a display of righteousness and virtue. So the political views are tied up with one’s self-identification.
Thus, an attack on the leftist’s political views are viewed–and in a way, properly–on the person himself, not just on his views. It’s seen not as, “I disagree with you,” but “You are a bad person.”
Amen.
When people I know claim the media is not slanted left (which amazingly most people do) I always ask them to name one instance in the last 40 years when the mainstream media has done a profile of a conservative figure except in the context of ‘here’s a conservative who will bash conservatives.’ Conversely I ask them to give an example of a negative profile of a left-wing figure that’s not in the context of ‘his views are too far to the left to win’, that is the leftist is criticized for being too far to the left. So far no one has been able to give me a single example on either score. Of course this doesn’t change their minds.
Why are reporters leftists?
Reporters are not entreprenuers. They are employees. Worse, they are employees of entertainment companies.
Entertainment companies are run by lying, cheating, scumbags. No wonder reporters think all entrepreuers and businessmen are evil, lying, cheating scumbags. They watch TV and go to the movies where are businessmen are portrayed as evil, lying scumbags.
Reporters have never worked for an honest employer. They can’t believe honesty, integrity, loyalty, charity, compassion, or fairness can exist in the private sector unless it is required by law backed up with thorough regulation and heavy penalties.
One doesn’t have to even self-identify as a “conservative”, to be the target of the subtle and not so subtle assaults, Dr. Helen.
If one does not toe the line utterly and completely, the slings and arrows are heaved and slung with similar relish, perhaps more.
The attempts at “subliminal” indoctrination and “softening up” of the holdouts is not an accident.
Moreover, the intentional infusion of words, phrases and slogans into pop culture is all part of the same effort. The use of verbal and visual clues and cues accompanies nearly every report where the “message” can be inserted.
There are studies done on how best to persuade people through repetition and through verbal and visual cues. But…dare to suggest that this is what is taking place…and the swift and hearty denials will most certainly include accusations of paranoia and McCarthyism.
Watch intently, Dr. Helen…in every movie, every article, every pronouncement..and you will see the evidence quite clearly. This is page one in the Manifesto for small c communists. Own the language and the pop culture verbal and visual cues. And…they do.
“I wonder what would happen if the media treated the Republicans and Libertarians as well as they treated Democrats for one year?”
Republicans would be kicked back into the wilderness at the next electoral cycle, and Libertarians would end up disbanding their namesake party. The reasons for both results should be obvious to any good psychologist.
The social hatred of Republicans and Libertarians by media, academia, and pop culture makes us work harder. Not to mention, pointing out such social hatred is fairly profitable (as both Rush Limbaugh and Brent Bozell can attest.
This is a very good point. Looking at the other side of the coin, James Taranto (Best of the Web Today column, WSJ) has posited that the liberal media harms Democrats and liberals by coddling and cheerleading for them. Negative coverage encourages the reconsideration of positions and policies, assuming the voters share the media’s negative characterization of the same. Supine, worshipful coverage encourages entrenchment, even when the voters don’t share the media’s dogma.
Let’s rewind to 2009-10 to see how this played out in the context of ObamaCare. The media worshiped the Democrats for their plan to socialize medicine, and believing the coverage, the Democrats hunkered down and plowed ahead despite most voters’ opposition, which they made loud and clear in the summer of 2009. The media responded to the opposition by demonizing it as regressive, ignorant, and racist … i.e. conservative. Democrats believed that coverage, too, while Republicans regrouped to revisit, clarify and unify behind their position and messaging, thereby presenting the voters with a clear alternative to Democrats. This profited Republicans enormously in the Nov. 2010 mid-term elections. Surviving Democrats seem incapable of processing the voters’ sweeping rebuke, encouraged by the media’s ongoing worship of Democrats and demonization of conservatives to hunker down and plow ahead with Obama’s agenda.
The downside of negative coverage for Republicans is their tendency to become meek and craven instead of revisiting, clarifying and unifying behind their positions and messaging. As the negative coverage ramps up next year – we all know that the media will treat Obama’s vile attacks on the GOP nominee as news to be repeated, validated and affirmed – Republicans must respond as they did to ObamaCare. Cowardice and meekness will be punished at the polls.
Just imagine what the media would have said if Bush had taken a 4 MILLION DOLLARS Hawaii vacation…
Eh eh eh and the idiots of Occupy work for the Hawaii vacationer, poor idiots…
– politicized writing such as you uncovered is learned and is perfected when a writer writes the party line unmindful that it is the party line.
— Oh, and all foods are better with bacon.
Hell yes, all foods are better with bacon!
Fridays at work are donut days. One of the favorites are the apple fritters. I joked one day that the only way those things could be made worse for you would be if they added bacon. And then I thought, “Man, that sounds good!”
Hmmmm, apple fritters with BACON! /Homer
Isn’t this sort of your family version of “Carthago delenda est.” ^_^ ?
Amen!
I’m a believer in pizza, myself.
And, yes, the left-leaning media leans left because they think that’s the upright way to stand. I don’t know how you get them to realize how skewed their perspective is.
I’d rather have that be a year where Obama and the left are treated just as rabidly, virulently, and despicably as the right by the media, Hollywood, and the professoriate. In your dream, the public might learn that the right isn’t so bad, but they would still be under the impression that the left can do no wrong. In mine, they would merely need to tell the truth for a change about the left, and it would make all those dishonest attacks against the right look tame by comparison.
It is never going to happen Dr. Smith. The left panders to people’s weaknesses and the right not so much. Socialist rhetoric about ‘taking’ from the greedy will always win the popular contest over talk of personal responsibility. Stoking people’s feelings of envy will always be more popular than urging them to be ambitious and better themselves. It just isnt going to happen, I am sorry to say.
“Given all the negativity in the press against the right, it’s amazing they do as well as they do.”
I blame the internet.
Amen!! Can I get an Amen!!
With all due respect to bacon, ale is NOT made better with the addition of bacon.
May I recommend the BLT from this place over on Pennsylvania Ave, SE?
How about this idea: to enforce the First Amendment on the media as much as the rights to religion? The liberals insist on keeping a wall between “church and state”, why not one between “media and state”? The media can’t mention the name of anyone in the government or face heavy fines and fees, and the government can’t use any word with the letters “M”, “S”, “N”, “B”, or “C” in it, or any word resembling the word “Fox”.
Or better yet, if they would enforce the wall between “guns and state”…
Dr. Helen is definitely a woman with
the mindset a man might easily dream about.
Glenn H. Reynolds is a very lucky man.
And one thing I’m certain she knows:
a real dream is never prefaced with
the words “I know it will never happen”.
My dream is that the two of them would
begin the serious work of one of them
becoming president of these United States.
Looking forward,
D. Senate, Private Sector
THE INSTAWIFE HAS A DREAM. But while I like to make her dreams come true, this one is beyond me, I’m afraid.
Posted at 6:43 pm by Glenn Reynolds
The link above is to this article by Dr. Helen…
I don’t know, Glenn Reynolds: sometimes the effect is accomplished in a very unexpected way. Water flows but not as we expect it. I thin InstaPundit IS helping to make this dream come true, just not in the overt way Dr. Helen describes.
And I second that emotion: it’s very fatiguing to have to constantly keep up one’s guard when reading the oldMSM — they try to insert anything that will discredit the Right, especially when it isn’t the point of the piece, as in the example Dr. Helen gave. Always the undermining sideswipe. It gets so tedious to have to constantly watch for the sideswipe and then have to nullify the inferences from your mind afterward: “Oh, that’s right, it’s the Leftist liberal press.”
THANK GOD for the internet. Because of the internet, the game has already changed; it’s just that some of the old structures haven’t disappeared yet, and some of the old players are still playing. But we see the man behind the curtain now every day.
– and may I add, hurray for bacon and InstaPundit (is there ANYTHING they can’t do?) and Happy New Year.
I’d personally settle for equal treatment, either way. I doubt if Obama could have handled the scrutiny that was placed on Sarah Palin. I doubt if the Senate could handle the scrutiny that the Repubican led House gets. Just imagine, if every day, Harry Reid had to explain why the House has produced a budget and he’s not bother for 1000 days to put forth a budget. Either way, it’s a dream and it makes little difference because the MSM has lost so much credibility that their ability to affect the upcoming election is minimal.
Pretty much nobody could handle the ‘scrutiny’ given Palin, because it was not scrutiny, it was the gauntlet.
Its one reason I respect W even as I disagreed with some of his policies. He got kicked in the teeth hard enough year after year that it would have made most people have a mental breakdown.
But other than that quibble, yeah, you’re right.
One of the hats I wear is to provide a technical service to creative projects in TV, film, video, etc. I literally cannot say a word about any of this when working with these folks. I’d be blacklisted almost immediately. It is assumed among these groups that everyone is a huge fan of Obama, that Christians are all just like that detestable preacher that holds protests at military funerals and that all Republicans are closeted KKK members.
I just listen and say something noncommittal when the hissing starts about evil Republicans and conservatives. With these people, there is no problem or issue du jour that was not caused by George Bush, Rush Limbaugh, etc., etc.
I don’t think this has a solution, really. I’ve decided that the Left has a different world-view — so completely different that it’s become impossible to communicate with them. Part of the problem is that most of us have internalized our concepts after years, possibly decades of reading the likes of Rand, Bovard, Hayek, Spencer, Sowell, Dalrymple.
They’ve been reading Fisk, Zinn, etc.
What can you do ? Me, I’m dug-in deep — bland and cheerful at work.
The Left has won, in the US. Won everything.
If that were to come true, islands would tip over…like was imagined by the moron Democrat Hank Johnson when he learned that too many Marines might land on Guam.
What makes you think the media is the source of these “decisions”? They are merely transmission lines, not the source, of ideas.
If you examine journalism in search of why that field is so monolithically Leftist, you’ll find that the entiire profession is based on a flawed notion of “objectivity, a flawed concept thereof– tthat objectivity consists in being non-selective (or “fair”) in one’s reporting, which most freshmen realize very easily is an impossible “ideal”. (True objectivity does not consist in being non-selective, but in having objective standards of selectivity.)
Since their false ideal is impractical, they conclude, non-objectivity (“bias”) is inevitable, so they might as well resign themselves to being biased. And what do you know, their instructors stand ready with a substitute, a complete “theory of bias” ready to go: this is the meme known as “narrative”. Often packaged together with the notion of “making a difference”, journalism students are taught that sice they are necessarily biased and executing a narrative anyway — since they are involved with the story — their reporting should be directed towards certain altruistic/political goals.
Of all the predictions in “Atlas Shrugged”, it is Rand’s description of media malfeasance which is the most frighteningly accurate to our modern experience.
Where do you think all of that comes from — all those bad, monolithically Leftist ideas? Why, from those whose job it is to deal with ideas, of course — intellectuals. Both the concepts of “narrative” and the ersatz concept of “objectivity” find their origins in academia.
The irony here is that I came here from a link at Instapundit, where Professor Reynolds laments that while he likes to make his wife’s dreams come true, this one is beyond his powers. Well, if not you, Professor, than whom?
If journalism’s goal is to build a narrative that advances certain altruistic/political causes, then journalists are advocates not reporters. The distinction is very clear to another kind advocate – the trial lawyer. The trial lawyer never simply reports the facts of the case to the jury but rather builds a compelling narrative from them, raising the significance of some facts while suppressing others. If built in line with the law and the jury’s sentiments, the narrative puts the client’s case in the best possible light and on the road to victory.
Journalists who build narratives that raise the significance of some facts while suppressing others to put their favorite altruistic/political causes in the best light and on the road to victory are advocates on behalf of said causes. We see this advocacy blatantly displayed every time we scan a newspaper or watch a news broadcast. Since I can’t believe the advocacy is unconscious or unintentional, then I must conclude that the myth of objectivity is promoted to foreclose the conclusion that journalists intend to waylaydemocracy by preventing voters from obtaining true and complete information and assessing it according to their own terms.
I think there was a time that the media aspired to something resembling objectivity, trying to keep the powerful honest and ‘afflict the comfortable’. I vaguely remember such a time, I think…
…But then did the upper tier journalism schools get snared in the same mushy
academia traps that produce our pols, bureaucrats, and oh yeah, academics?
Around which time ‘our’ journos came to consider themselves ‘agents for social change’ or such. I recall Ben Bradlee saying, “The hell with the news! We’re not interested in the news – We’re interested in causes. We’re not objective and never have been…”
The media is in the business of selling a product and in this case two: pride and envy. The Leftist narrative simply offers more for the media to sell, which also lends itself well to film, music, academia and politics.
By the time she got to the wishing part, the woman was full out, trippin’ on whatever Glenn spiked her Christmas eggnog with.
Hell, a libertarian can’t even get a fair shake at PJMedia.
This is my software: http://www.1st-lotterysystem.com – lottery systems! , Thanks!