Media Serves As A Platform For The Right

Just after the 2010 mid-term elections, Ari Melber published a prophetic piece related to the extent to which reporters leveraged the 2010 “shellacking” into “the language of the midterms.” Melber’s focus was omission of the tea party from those reporting the landslide midterms vs the greater GOP, The GOP tea party infestation had not been sworn-in to the House and Senate, and reporters, within days of the election, set the stage for what has metastasized into a virtual GOP Sunday Morning news show monopoly. And, we sit and wonder why we hear and read reports of the prospect of the GOP gaining seats in the US Senate in 2014.  

Melber wrote for The Nation:

Elections have a way of setting agendas.

While the candidates elected last week will not actually wield power until January, the political world is already adopting the language of the midterms. 

That’s especially true for political reporters, who frame the questions thrown at the White House’s freshly shellacked podium. 

To get a snapshot of the new language, The Nation counted up the most frequent words that reporters used in their questions during three major post-election sessions. 

We used the day-after press conference with President Obama, a similar outing with press secretary Robert Gibbs, and a trio of Sunday talk shows—Meet The Press, State of the Unionand Fox News Sunday.

Below is a snapshot of the New Change created through the website Wordle.

Read more 

Melbers work in now way related to what’s to come in this piece, but retain the details of this cloud for a bit. 

It would be totally fascinating to see a cloud related to political appearances on the Sunday Morning news shows.   Steven Benen, MSNBC, has studied the predominance of the GOP on Sunday Mornings. The data reflects the essence of Melbers Wordle cloud a full three years later. Benen’s data also reflects the very reason I have stopped watching the Sunday shows since well before President Obama’s first election to the presidency.

Benen’s review reflects the 2013 Sunday Morning winners. 

 

As indicated 10 of the top 13 Sunday Morning fixtures are Republican.

Read Benen’s analysis and comment, here. 

It appears electronic media leverages public sentiments in developing news stories, booking guests and slanting stories. While MSNBC, sets on the Left of a political ideology spectrum, we find CNN and Fox News on the opposite point, “the proliferation of Sunday Ideology sharing.” Of course, MSNBC doesn’t present a Sunday Morning show comparable to those in the Benen reviews; NBC is a stand-in. The network serves as a stand-in for MSNBC with one major problem: David Gregory as Meet The Press host. Gregory is as conservative as any major news host and his broadcast also serves as a GOP ideology platform.

You recognize the danger, of course. Both Gallup and Pew Research published studies in 2013 showing people get their news from television.  Linked

If people get the preponderance of their Sunday morning news from television, and the major networks (via Meet The Press, Face The Nation and Sunday Morning, State of the Union, Ans Fox News Sunday) is their any wonder 47 % of the 60% of eligible US voters flocked to the voting booths and cast votes for Mitt Romney/Paul Ryan? How about the prospect of so Americans many finding fault with the Affordable Care Act on general principles well beyond website problems? If you think our absence of inertia on slowing climate change is due the fact no one really cares, think again. When was the last time you saw or heard a report on climate change from either of the networks delineated above? 

 

What do you think of the millions who actually believe the nation has a voter fraud issue? We fall for such because the networks occupy on-camera seats with people who are there to spread an agenda and to spread ideology. Heck, the only cases of fraud that made the media in 2012 from the right and which perpetrator was a white person.

If I may give another much more poignant example.  Let’s visit the bayou bigots, Duck Dynasty, for a few minutes. The Arts and Entertainment Network (AKA A&E LIVS Network) [ LIVS Low Information Voters network], suspended Phil Robertson for bigoted anti-gay and insensitive (and inaccurately/indifferent) comments about the African American experience in the deep south.  

Robertson’s GQ interview set the media ablaze and awakened the nation’s Right comparable to the ACA and Benghazi.

First, Robertson is in his mid to latter 60s. I have read he grew to adulthood in the American South. How could he miss life as depicted to the right?

Robertson has also been reported via the Interent (NOT NEYTWORK NEWS) in the following manner.

Duck Dynasty star: Girls should carry a Bible, cook and marry ‘when they are 15′  (Video embed via this link and scroll down)

Crooks and Liars reports that Robertson is no hypocrite as he was 18 years of age when he started  dating his current wife at age 14. 

As you know A&E (LIVS Network; Low Information Voters) network has reversed the Robertson suspension; he will be full-fledged head of the klan (excuse the pun) starting next week.  

We have commented on Robertson based on the absence of reporting character issues.  If I am not mistaken there are men in prison as you read this convicted of sex with under-aged girls. while there may be no scriptures related to sex with under-aged girls, we find it acutely disturbing Robertson platformed his comments with a version of the Bible in tow. Some, the networks have failed to report the ‘full’ Robertson story, we suspect many people who will ‘thump’ to church this weekend have no idea of his positing on guys getting them at age 15.  

Ultimately, the networks are failing the nation. We realize business is business and some networks are vying for viewership, we suspect others are like Fox News adopting and postulating political positions. The Benen data above illustrates the extent of right-wing monopoly of the Sunday News shows and networks like Fox and CNN are shaping our political paradigms. Their work on behalf of conservative America is as dangerous as it comes. 

When we consider the social mores and economic catastrophe of Republicanism, we have the right to feel media should take on a role of investigation and revelation. What we have today is promulgation of Right-wing punditry and demagoguery with network revenue commensurate with viewer ratings.  As we move farther and father to the Right!

The Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare) And Insurance Company Letters

 

Any rational American has to know Big Insurance was not enamored with the prospect of healthcare reform (Affordable Care Act – ACA).  Despite an appearance of acquiescence in working within the parameters of the ACA, the brilliant capitalist at Big Insurance have found a crack in reform. Low cost and ‘lite’ coverage post enactment of the ACA are subject to cancellation; they fall shy of mandatory levels of coverage.  Well, that is no problem for Big Insurance. ACA requirements actually force carriers to cancel policies if outside coverage parameters of the ACA; and you know the rest. The insurer cancels the ‘lite’ policy and offers a higher cost ACA compliant policy. Certainly nothing illegal, but advantageous to the maximum.  Also quite probably a dynamic that should have been anticipated by the administration and addressed as a development consideration. If the problem was beyond the scope of a fix before  implementation, issue communication and suggestion of a fix should have been available to major stakeholders like the Head of HHS and the president. A fix that goes beyond lower income federal government subsidies to offset expense to the insured. There really is no answer for people who wish to incur exorbitant medical expenses on the back side of low cost, high risk policies that only cover medical basics. But, now we are hindsight speculating, right?

All said problems exist in ACA enrollment. Some problems are being exacerbated for political reasons. Others are reacting and responding to the wishes and funding of uber wealthy plutocrats. Many complaints are legitimate complaints with legitimate answers. Answer that are easily addressed with it of research people will not accomplish research. Thus, media fills the void in 3 to 5 minute segments.   

Relying on media is particularly problematic.  Ratings drive media as surely as low prices drives Wal Mart. We reap the benefit of Wal Mart’s low prices, but hidden behind those prices are unfair and unbalanced work environments.   Additionally, we are in some cases buying products made in foreign factories thus depriving our selves of jobs and healthy communities. Media for the most part is comparable.

When seeking ratings, the network actually seeks faces to view advertisements reflected via media research companies.  Attracting faces to news is most often accomplished only via news that excites, agitates, muck-rakes  or reveals titillating information.  News related to the ACA is coming to us in some cases without media probing their emotional (supposed) victims. Emotion is an effective way to attract viewers; so is misleading or incomplete broadcast information. Media seeks ratings and ratings come best with “muck.”  We all know of one network with a primarily mission of delivering and feeding Obama Derangement Syndrome (ODS) to its viewers. CBS and NBC have broadcast “victim” segments that were (we assume) unintentionally misleading. We cannot write similarly about the such broadcast from Fox News.

Last night Chris Hayes, ALL IN, MSNBC ran a segment that embodies the minimum coverage dynamic as well as any I have witnessed. If you take a few minutes to view the segment, you will come away better informed of the, “my insurance cancel me and now I have to pay more” problem. And, yes there are quite a few other ACA issues that need focused intervention and fixes.

The segment was not a short segment. We offer a link to the LA Times piece written by the ALL IN guest. But, as we always often communicate on the TPI: ” High information people find a way to take the time and expend the effort, thus nourishing the mind.” 

The segment does not address possible recommendations to fix the problem. A fix is not a focus of the media.  However, the segment does a great job of showing how media misinforms and does so in a manner that a basic journalism student would find unacceptable.  A dynamic that causes our concern about intent and motive.

There is no TPI attempt to rationalize problems with the ACA.  A healthcare system that provides service potential for all is common among industrialized nations.  It is important to recognize there are reasons for some glitches, just as there are inexcusable flops (to date) with enrollment tools that involve use of the ACA website.

As a minimum poor project/contractor management was a problem inside HHS and from the White House. We are certain President Obama, in hindsight, feels he should have micromanaged the implementation of the ACA on a more hands-on basis. But, for a President of the United States how realistic is micromanaging of such a huge undertaking.

Misleading the public does little to help solve problems associated with law that will benefit millions.

Fox Reported To Hire "Paid Bloggers" For Positive Comments! Why Not The GOP Did Same!

After then Senator Barack Obama declared his intent to run for the US presidency, Right-wing media operatives and “paid” internet dirty tricksters deluged cyber space with lies, false statements, satire aimed at character assassination and other dirty tricks beyond the scope of human decency. As candidate Obama moved closer to winning the nomination over Hillary Clinton, it became obvious the internet would become a battle-front.  It took little time to realize the everyday and all day AOL message boards were littered with people who worked 24/7 for someone. The screen names were on the boards all day every day. 

As issues become ‘hot’ on the campaign trial, we could literally see flocks of Right-wing message board regulars moving between articles to spew their garbage and vitriol. Each GOP “Paid” Blogger appeared to posses canned talking-points, along with reams of argument-point data, and they maintained a consistent air of bigotry and racism to make their points. Some of the Right-wing message board denizens appeared to use the same screen name while exhibiting various writing styles, uses of lexicon, and various colloquialisms. It is virtually impossible, unless one is an actor or comedian, to completely stay in lexicon and colloquialism character for hours. It was an observation that would have gone completely unnoticed except the changes in lexicon and writing styles would coincide with what appear to be rotating shifts. In different terms, the same screen name would exhibit completely different and varying communications styles over a one hour period.

The dynamic became a running joke among progressive message board denizens as we experienced increasingly  horrid vitriol increase as we drew closer to November 2012. Just after Barack Obama won the nomination the vitriol increased to the point of outright obscene, racist and socially indignant. We begin to recognize that the person arguing an hour ago under a certain screen names became an all-out different personality with associated vulgarity. Vulgarity missing from the argument 30 minutes prior.  I will never forget a comment during a heated exchange.  The comment was from a person who was not actively involved in a point-counter-point: “White people in America will never elect a nigger as president.”  Within the previous hour someone with that same screen name had argued intelligently and almost effectively the salient points of the US Constitution relative to original construct vs evolutionary intent over the centuries. From deep visceral argument about the US Constitution, to (same screen name) use of the “N” word after what appeared a completely change in argument opponent! The paid bloggers reminded of the subterfuge out of times past via the GOP.

The GOP learned much from Richard Nixon’s, Committee to Re-Elect The President-C.R.E.E.P. team. Dirty tricks and subterfuge works. It is particularly effectively when applied in an environment wrought with potential for social discord such as the election of the nation’s first African-American president. The GOP learned much and has literally developed dirty-tricks to the point of effectiveness in restricting the vote via voter suppression. The party on the Right goes about its business and it seems the party’s propaganda network may have adopted the internet “screen-name army”‘ methodology.

Fox News serves well as the broadcast voice of the GOP.  We have clear and repeated evidence of Fox New delivers quasi-political entertainment to sycophant viewers. The network has actually stepped-up the use of outright lies to deliver anti-administration propaganda and appears to one reporter to have established an elaborate internet account “army” to combat negative stories about Fox.

David Folkenflik, NPR reporter, has written about a similar “Internet account army” in his soon to be released book Murdoch’s World. Folkenflik wrote about an elaborate system of dummy internet accounts to fill post comment boxes with positive comments. Either comments to promulgate a positive perception of the associated article or, and probably more prevalent, to counter negative comment from others.

Media Matters and Huffington  Post

In a chapter focusing on how Fox utilized its notoriously ruthless public relations department in the mid-to-late 00’s, Folkenflik reports that Fox’s PR staffers would “post pro-Fox rants” in the comments sections of “negative and even neutral” blog posts written about the network. According to Folkenflik, the staffers used various tactics to cover their tracks, including setting up wireless broadband connections that “could not be traced back” to the network.  

A former staffer told Folkenflik that they had personally used “one hundred” fake accounts to plant Fox-friendly commentary:

On the blogs, the fight was particularly fierce. Fox PR staffers were expected to counter not just negative and even neutral blog postings but the anti-Fox comments beneath them. One former staffer recalled using twenty different aliases to post pro-Fox rants. Another had one hundred. Several employees had to acquire a cell phone thumb drive to provide a wireless broadband connection that could not be traced back to a Fox News or News Corp account. Another used an AOL dial-up connection, even in the age of widespread broadband access, on the rationale it would be harder to pinpoint its origins. Old laptops were distributed for these cyber operations. Even blogs with minor followings were reviewed to ensure no claim went unchecked.  [Murdoch’s World, pg. 67] 

Is there anything the American Right will not do to facilitate development of a an ultra-conservative plutocracy?

Do you watch Fox News?

"I Want My Country Back"; And A View From The Treasury!

Someplace in this piece I used the words, “Low Information.”

We certainly realize for some charts are boring. We also know people prefer short snippet posts as a matter of attention span and the fact, we have grown away from reading extensive amounts of verbiage. Yes, we prefer 140 characters, hash-tags and politically inclined ratings seeking electronic media. Well, those items contribute to “low information “voters. “Low information” voters elect bad candidates, and you and I suffer while the awaiting US oligarchy moves closer to taking over the nation.

Low information and other factors delineated towards the end of this piece contribute to the following.

 “I want my country back!”

They want their country back so they feel better inside. What in the past worthy of reclaiming? Since, we know they are not relishing a return to Bill Clinton,  we can only assume they would settle for more Bush W. than have Barack Obama in the Oval Office. 

As stated “low information” means doomed to reliving a past we should want so badly to place behind us forever. 

Let’s take a look at where we have come and why we feel we do not want “our country back.“

Take special note of the Sub-prime bubble artificially fueled impact on jobs!

Is there any reason to believe GOP economic policy and McCain/Palin would have administer to similar results?

A quick peep back at who caused the nation’s Debt. (Scroll down to Debt)

One more look back. We realize the Right hates these looks back at our past. They often speak as if the US came into existence in January 2009. “The Deficit”, that dreaded set of words the GOP uses as mantra with each passing day. 

The Concord Coalition

A deficit occurs in any year the government spends more money than it takes in. Borrowing to make up the difference is added to the national debt — technically referred to as the gross federal debt. 

The gross debt has two components: 

1) Debt held by the public — money the government borrows on the open market from domestic or foreign investors; and 

2) Intra-governmental debt — money the government owes itself, as in the Social Security trust fund.

The US Debt Clock

Who owns US Debt as of May 2011.

Connect The Dots USA Dot Com drills it down for a precise and more recent review.

 

Deficit Causes

What Are the Four Causes?

1. The biggest cause: Reduced tax payments
2. Second: Automatic increases in unemployment insurance and food stamps, and people starting social security early because they can’t find jobs.
3. Military spending also increased, but is now fading.
4. Bush’s TARP and Obama’s Jobs Stimulus (top layer) account for little of the deficit, and they are temporary.

• The deficit is from the safety-net helping the poor and the unemployed in a terrible recession, and helping all of us (including businesses!) with lower taxes.

_____________________________________

Now, let’s move to the US Treasury.  Of course, the Right will tell you this data is bologna. If the data pointed in the opposite direction we would have it plastered all over CNN and FOX News 24/7. 

The US Treasury

(click on any of these three images for a full size version)

​ Economic Growth

Economic Growth II

Economic Growth III

The Obama Administration with no help from the GOP saved one of our last industry giants form foreign ownership. The Loans to GM and Chrysler have been paid (or are being liquidated as to peripheral loan commitments). GM has marketed an automobile that is considered Car of the Year the 2013 Malibu.

And, a dew economic drivers over the long term….

Huffington Post 

WASHINGTON — The government on Monday reported a $97.6 billion deficit for July but remains on track to post its lowest annual budget gap in five years. 

July’s figure raises the deficit so far for the 2013 budget year to $607.4 billion, the government says. That’s 37.6 percent below the $973.8 billion deficit for the first 10 months of the 2012 budget year. 

The Congressional Budget Office has forecast that the annual deficit will be $670 billion when the budget year ends Sept. 30, far below last year’s $1.09 trillion. It would mark the first year that the gap between spending and revenue has been below $1 trillion since 2008. 

Steady economic growth, higher taxes, lower government spending and increased dividends from mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have helped shrink the deficit.

Read more

We understand politics. We understand the feeble nature and belief systems of the people who live as “low information” denizens of the US. We understand bias, bigotry and racism. 

We do not understand how so many can fall victim to so few. They not only fall victim, they are as if sufferers of the “Stockholm Syndrome.” They vote for candidates like McCain/Palin and Romney/Ryan will each of the those people individually means doom. collectively they are like the ‘black hole” of GOP politics. Once the nation moves into the innards of another GOP “black hole” there is probably no return.

The Daily GOP Ignominious: Fox Cuts Away From Obama Speech!

Fox News is well beyond shameful. The network often cuts away for President Obama’s national appearances and speeches. Today was no exception.

Watch!  FOXPEN (Fox Propaganda and Entertainment Network) opted for ‘breaking (and critical) news about naming a Royal in Britain. When the network returned to their on-air personality, the key story was the disastrous and soon to be related to the past Anthony Weiner.

(Video courtesy Media Matters)

Fox ,oh Fox where art thou? 

While a bit over the top, I offer that Fox would have covered a Bush event even if the event was an Executive Branch Sphincter/Flatulence Distance Shot Contest.

Arrest, No Arrest. The Difference Is Professionalism, Competence and Decency In Reporting (VIDEO)

Gimme Shelter!

       

              

Yesterday I wrote this piece.  I focused on conservative media (print and electronic).  I missed a few media which reported arrest of a phantom Boston Bomber.  It appears ABC, The Boston Globe and Associated Press joined the “feeding frenzy”.  None, however, wallowed so gloriously in ratings shame as CNN’s(John King) “dark-skinned male”. 

                   Reuters                                     NBC
  

                                          MSNBC

I remain excited about the fact that many of my information preferences avoided the frenzy. 

The chart below is the archive item of 2013.  
 

Thank You Upworthy!

Oh, a storm is threat’ning
My very life today
If I don’t get some shelter
Oh yeah, I’m gonna fade away
It’s just a shot away

~ Mick Jagger/Keith Richards

Iraq Re-Construction Study, Dissed By All Major Networks Except MSNBC and NPR

www.willamettelive.com

On March 7h, we published a piece related to the unfathomable waste associated with the reconstruction of post war Iraq.  We remind the Iraq War was a war this nation should not have perpetrated. There is evidence it was a war of desire by George W. Bush and further evidence it was perpetrated via historic levels of malfeasance and hubris (MSNBC video).

www.veteranstoday.com

The Iraq War, war in Afghanistan and Bush Era tax cuts will build the Bush Legacy as surely as this.  More evidence of historical archives here “…… (on bin Laden) And he could be hiding in some cave, we have not heard from him in a long time…“. (Really, he was in a well constructed compound snuggled up with a supposed ally.) Of course, all leading to this, a ‘resilient US economy.

The US was not only ill prepared (budget and rationale) for Bush’s personal crusade, our  leaders (Bush/Cheney/Rice/ Rumsfeld/Tenet) had no plans to remove the nation from the war. Literally, they had no “end-game” strategy. Of course, that should not have surprised anyone, as Bush’s reasons for crusader against Saddam was without serious and contemplative thought, so (end-game) strategy was not possible.

Before we move-on we must state, “Had McCain/Palin won in 2008, we would still be mired in Iraq with all associated deaths, maiming and cost to taxpayers.”  Cost to taxpayers continued well after President Obama withdrew our troops form Iraq, and post-war costs continue today. 

The recently released Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction (SIGIR), released a report (and linked in the first paragraph above) extensively details the extent of wasted funds on Iraq reconstruction.

Two critical points remain related to post war Iraq. First, by listening to Dick Cheney over the past month, I get the impression he would not change a thing about perpetration of the Iraq War. Second, we remain in a sanitized world regarding the war. While most know the nation lost 4,500 plus troops and reports are Iraq suffered over 100,000 dead, most people in the US a know nothing of the SIGIR report and post war cost (that we have born and continue to bare).

Why is that?

The answer is simply: no media coverage of the SIGIR investigation and the subsequent exhaustive report.

Media Matters published a story yesterday that should send shivers down the spines of the American public. Basically, no major news electronic media gave the SIGIR story any appreciable airtime. 

  

Media Matters

BLACKOUT: Networks Ignore Report Finding Massive Waste In Iraq Reconstruction

Take a look at a graph from the Media Matters piece.

We feel that Media Matters charts indicates the power of electronic media. How could media executives so blatantly ignore stories that relate so deeply to all US citizens. We are taxpayers, we are voters, we are still suffering from Bush/Cheney malfeasance, and we are looking at cutting programs for the less “well-off” in part based on the Iraq War.  Is it possible the reconstruction cost from the Iraq War at over $60 billion dollars not newsworthy?  We posit that is not possible!

Do you remember any of the following. (Exhibits only, the video  posted for full viewing)

CNN Breaking News video 

ABC video

NBC video

Fox News video

CBS video

Was “Shock and Awe” so attractive to the nation?  Did it remind us of a ‘fireworks’ display, or did it appeal to a more jingoist paradigm that may infest many of us.  Was the start of the war so exciting, that all after the first few days melts into the “forget it file”.   Shouldn’t all matters related to such a dark time (unparalleled actually) in US history, receive full coverage? If our media is truly about the business of ‘news, current events, and “informing” how could so many networks give the SIGIR research so little air-time. According to Media Matters, CNN gave the SIGIR study “NO” airtime.  CNN covered the opening of the war far more than any network!


The graph above clearly shows the extent to which network news producers and managers influence what we know and when we know it.  One can make the case the media, despite opportunistic angst of “liberal media or mainstream media”, is an information entity that often fails us.  During times of heated and consistent political bickering and child’s play,w have media that does not point to issue of critical importance.

Maybe, one day someone might think, “wait a minute  look back at Viet Nam and Iraq wars, did we accomplish any real mission and at what cost. If we do not have information, will live in a information-ally deprived reality. Information is critical as it educates.   Elections are influenced by information.  Should we not have the full picture on the Bush/Cheney war?

“If we forget our past, we are doomed to relive it”.  Yes, and 47% of voters voted for Mitt Romney.  

Now take a look at the graph above, if you need another look.  I am thankful my news watching is almost exclusively MSNBC, when driving NPR, and other wise articles posted in social media and lined to credible new sources.  Suppose your news source is is CNN, or for that matter Fox News?  

Yet, there is on problem with my premise. I presuppose that you even care about issues left form Bush/Cheney.

Sunday Morning News Show (Big Four plus CNN) the domain of the GOP

In late 2010, I stopped watching the big four Sunday Morning news (related) talk shows. As my interest in early morning the shows waned to nil, I wrote it off as, well, smarting from the November Election Tea Party successes and a general lack of interest in politics (albeit it temporary).   Recent articles and re-circulation of the articles have finally reached my PC.  I now know that I was suffering from “Big Media, Republican, White Man (itis)”  (BMedia-GOP-WMale syndrome)  Before you click off the web page, or utter words (even if non-spoken) of contempt for the writer, allow me a few more minutes and a couple of credible references.

FAIR Fairness and Accuracy Reporting conducted a detailed study of the Sunday Morning shows:

* CBS Face the Nation

* NBC Meet the Press

* ABC The Week

* Fox News Sunday

How have I come to the conclusion and diagnosis delineated above: BMedia-GOP-WMale syndrome?

FAIR.…

Evaluating the guest lists for the eight months from June 2011 through February 2012, FAIR found a distinct conservative skew in both one-on-one interview segments and roundtable discussions. 

 The progressive in me, better yet my LIBERAL paradigm, via my subconscious performed a self-preserving function it may have evolved to perform. When combined with the oversight of the conscious mind and changed the behavior of the host human being (me).  My subconscious signaled an aversion and my conscious mind changed my behavior.

We will get to the FAIR April 2012 and a related Think Progress April 2012 articles in a few minutes, first allow a moment of opine about the matter.

Is should be no surprise to anyone the United States of America has taken a decided move to the social/political Right.  From the birth of the ‘swing’ Right with Richard Nixon’s “LEGAL” political operatives (not the criminal activities of the  Committee to Re-Elect the President squads) through the Reagan Years with full blossom with George W. Bush, the nation moved slowly Right as if led by adroit Pied Pipers.  

As a matter of example… one legal operative Lee Atwater

Political career   Atwater rose during the 1970s and the 1980 election in the South Carolina Republican party, working on the campaigns of Governor Carroll Campbell and Senator Strom Thurmond. During his years in South Carolina, Atwater became well known for running hard-edged campaigns based on emotional wedge issues. []1980 election Atwater’s aggressive tactics were first demonstrated during the 1980 congressional campaigns. He was a campaign consultant to Republican incumbent Floyd Spence in his campaign for Congress against Democratic nominee Tom Turnipseed. Atwater’s tactics in that campaign included push polling in the form of fake surveys by “independent pollsters” to inform white suburbanites that Turnipseed was a member of the NAACP. He also sent out last-minute letters from Sen. Strom Thurmond (R-S.C.) telling voters that Turnipseed would disarm America and turn it over to liberals and communists. At a press briefing, Atwater planted a “reporter” who rose and said, “We understand Turnipseed has had psychotic treatment.” Atwater later told the reporters off the record that Turnipseed “got hooked up to jumper cables”– a reference to electroconvulsive therapy that Turnipseed underwent as a teenager.[4] “Lee seemed to delight in making fun of a suicidal 16-year-old who was treated for depression with electroshock treatments”, Turnipseed recalled. “In fact, my struggle with depression as a student was no secret. I had talked about it in a widely covered news conference as early as 1977, when I was in the South Carolina State Senate. Since then I have often shared with appropriate groups the full story of my recovery to responsible adulthood as a professional, political and civic leader, husband and father. Teenage depression and suicide are major problems in America, and I believe my life offers hope to young people who are suffering with a constant fear of the future.”[4] After the 1980 election, Atwater went to Washington and became an aide in the Ronald Reagan administration, working under political director Ed Rollins. In 1984, Rollins managed Reagan’s re-election campaign, and Atwater became the campaign’s deputy director and political director. Rollins tells several Atwater stories in his 1996 book Bare Knuckles and Back Rooms.[5] He states that Atwater ran a dirty tricks operation against vice-presidential nomineeGeraldine Ferraro including publicizing the fact that Ferraro’s parents had been indicted of numbers running in the 1940s. Rollins also described Atwater as “ruthless”, “Ollie North in civilian clothes”, and someone who “just had to drive in one more stake”. During his years in Washington, Atwater became aligned with Vice President George H.W. Bush, who chose Atwater to run his 1988 presidential campaign.  Atwater on the Southern Strategy As a member of the Reagan administration in 1981, Atwater gave an anonymous interview to political scientist Alexander P. Lamis. Part of this interview was printed in Lamis’ book The Two-Party South, then reprinted in Southern Politics in the 1990s with Atwater’s name revealed. Bob Herbert reported on the interview in the 6 October 2005 edition of the New York Times. Atwater talked about the GOP’s Southern Strategy and Ronald Reagan‘s version of it: Atwater: As to the whole Southern strategy that Harry S. Dent, Sr. and others put together in 1968, opposition to the Voting Rights Act would have been a central part of keeping the South. Now [the new Southern Strategy of Ronald Reagan] doesn’t have to do that. All you have to do to keep the South is for Reagan to run in place on the issues he’s campaigned on since 1964 and that’s fiscal conservatism, balancing the budget, cut taxes, you know, the whole cluster. Questioner: But the fact is, isn’t it, that Reagan does get to the Wallace voter and to the racist side of the Wallace voter by doing away with legal services, by cutting down on food stamps? Atwater: You start out in 1954 by saying, “Nigger, nigger, nigger.” By 1968 you can’t say “nigger” — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states’ rights and all that stuff. You’re getting so abstract now [that] you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I’m not saying that. But I’m saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “Nigger, nigger.”[6][7]

We all know more current GOP movers and shakers (Roger Ailes, Karl Rove) and their ‘well oiled money machine’  fuels organizations like Freedom Works, ALEC, and related groups.

OM another front the GOP very effectively joined with evangelicals, anti-civil rights and anti-human rights groups, a military-industrial complex and (ever-presents today) ‘uber’ wealthy money MEN on crafting the move Right. They want a nation as it existed pre-1955, and they are well on their way to success.  My list did not include alleged ‘fiscal conservatives’ because the GOP has never manifest a true fiscal conservative administration. Ronald Reagan and neither Bush fit the fiscal conservative oasis. 

The final peg in the plank is media. Television and radio networks exist via revenue from advertisers  that pay to have their products or services broadcast via electronic media.  Thus, ratings and viewership are necessary ‘drivers’ of most programming. (That said, I loathe the thought of MSNBC’s Lock-UP programming over the each weekend viewing hours.  Fodder for another piece at another time).  Viewers simply do not watch news for ‘good news’ stories. It is a factual misconception that anyone sits for minutes or hours watching news for information that falls into the realm of  “Oh that was nice, or that is good to see“.  They may very well go there, but only for a quick reaction to a good news segment. They will not sit for hour of such segments.

If my premise has merit,  think of the power of media in shaping our social and political lives. I assert my premise is irrefutable.

The following study pains a revealing picture on my point. My assertion is not to say that the Big Four (and I would include CNN) attempt to shape how we live our lives (Socially and politically), I am asserting for sake of viewers the networks are inadvertently contributing to real danger.  Dangers such as Citizens United born of the nations move to the far-right via the 2010 election, as an example.  Another is the GOP all out “Shock and Awe” against women. I am reticent to use “War on Women” as wars take two to perpetrate.  And, yet another the current and bodacious move to actually win elections via suppression Democratic voting blocs.  There were times in America when neither of the three realities would have manifest without overwhelming uprisings from US citizens. 

FAIR Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting published the results a media study, this past April. The study findings add the labor of reading this piece because there is much to read, but if you have come this far do not deprive yourself of the meat of this screed.

Extra! April 2012  Right and Early Sunday morning shows are GOP TV By Peter Hart

If the Sunday morning TV chat shows seem like a sea of Republican politicians and conservative spinners lately, it’s not your imagination.  While you might expect to see a lot of Republican candidates and their surrogates in the thick of a Republican primary contest, the four Sunday morning talk shows—ABC’s This Week, NBC’s Meet the Press, CBS’s Face the Nation and Fox News Sunday—have been extraordinarily friendly terrain for the right, as a new FAIR study documents.  Evaluating the guest lists for the eight months from June 2011 through February 2012, FAIR found a distinct conservative skew in both one-on-one interview segments and roundtable discussions.  On November 6, Face the Nation host Bob Schieffer introduced his show as featuring a “cross-section of Republicans”—turning the discussion over to surrogates for Republican presidential candidates and various party operatives.  That kind of lineup was hardly unusual. The same day, in fact, ABC This Week’s panel featured three conservatives—George Will, Niall Ferguson and Matthew Dowd—and left-liberal Arianna Huffington. Mean-while, on NBC that Sunday, viewers were treated to a different kind of imbalance: A panel featuring two right-wing guests—Republican political operative Alex Castellanos and Wall Street Journal columnist Kimberly Strassel—paired with two centrist journalists.  These imbalances were indicative of the larger patterns seen over the course of the study period. As one might expect, U.S. government sources—current officials, former lawmakers, political candidates, party-affiliated political operatives and campaign advisers—dominated the Sunday shows overall, accounting for 47 percent of appearances (445 out of 943). Following closely behind were journalists, who, with 406 appearances, were 43 percent of sources. Most were middle-of-the-road Beltway political reporters. One-on-one interviews Single-source interviewssource interviews are the showcase segments on the Sunday shows, which tend to compete for access to guests they consider the top newsmakers—which, in the world of Beltway media, usually means politicians. In the eight-month study period, partisan-affiliated one-on-one interviews were 70 percent Republican—166 guests to Democrats’ 70.  A small number of interviewees (28) were not affiliated with U.S. parties—from corporate representatives to representatives of foreign governments. Some guests, like right-wing anti-tax activist Grover Norquist or feminist Gloria Steinem, would be considered to have a clear ideology. But those guests do not change the overall right-wing dominance in the one-on-one guests.  Men overwhelmingly dominated one-on-one interviews, at 86 percent: 228 male guests compared to 36 women.Meet the Press featured the fewest women, with just six female interviewees—three of whom were Rep. Michele Bachmann (R.-Minn.), the presidential candidate.  Guests were also also ethnically homogeneous, with 242 white interview guests (92 percent of the total), 15 African-Americans (seven of whom were Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain), four Arabs or Arab-Americans, and three Latinos. Roundtable discussions If you buy the assumption that the Sunday shows simply must feature lawmakers in one-on-one interviews, the roundtable debate format could at least give these programs a chance to bring in more diverse voices. But these segments are hard to distinguish from the lopsided interview segments.  Unlike the one-on-one interviews, these roundtable segments include some voices from outside the two parties; partisan sources—who leaned Republican, 180 to 109—accounted for less than half of the guests. But the nonpartisan guests didn’t alter the right’s advantage, with Republicans and/or conservatives making 282 appearances to 164 by Democrats and progressives (categories that are less interchangeable). Middle-of-the-road Beltway journalists made 201 appearances in roundtables, which serves to buttress the argument that corporate media’s idea of a debate is conservative ideologues matched by centrist-oriented journalists.  Women were just 29 percent of roundtable guests. The ethnic diversity was similarly woeful: 85 percent white and 11 percent African-American, with 3 percent Latino. Other ethnicities made up an additional 2 percent of roundtable guests.  And those numbers come with significant qualifications; Fox News Sunday, for instance, featured the greatest number of African-American roundtable guests—but 24 of those 27 were Fox pundit Juan Williams. ABC’s This Week featured 19 African-American debate guests, 13 of whom were Democratic strategist Donna Brazile. Reality check: 2004 The explanation for these wildly imbalanced guestlists might seem simple: There is a highly competitive Republican primary, and that means the Sunday shows will skew Republican/conservative. Given the programs’ obsessive focus on Beltway politics in general and electoral campaigns in particular, it’s unsurprising that they would devote considerable attention to the highly competitive Republican primaries. And Republican presidential contenders were a constant presence. Michele Bachmann made the most appearances (18), followed by Rick Santorum (16) and Newt Gingrich (13).  But does political coverage that focuses heavily on one party have to have such tilted guestlists? Obviously not. In fact, these same networks proved it in a recent, roughly approximate period—in 2003–04—that saw Democratic candidates vying to unseat incumbent Republican George W. Bush. The primary was competitive, and the party base was determined to remove Bush from office. But did Sunday shows from that period look like a mirror image of 2011, heavily tilted to the left?  Not at all, according to a broad survey of the Sunday shows by the left-leaning Media Matters for America (2/14/06). That study—which looked at guestlists from 1997–2005—also isolated interview segments, making partisan and ideological classifications of those guests. In 2003, the Media Matters tally of ideologically identifiable guests, both one-and-one and roundtable, favored Republicans/conservatives (57 percent) over Democrats/progressives (43 percent). The following year the breakdown was again Republican-heavy, 56 percent to 44 percent. Looking at one-on-one interviews, the study likewise found an advantage for Republicans/conservatives over Democrats/progressives in 2003 (44 vs. 35 percent) and 2004 (39 vs. 37 percent). Bias by design? That is bound to happen in a media environment that is so heavily invested in certain right-wing guests.The most frequent overall guest during the eight months was ABC conservative George Will, who appeared 34 times. Neocon Bill Kristol appeared on the Fox roundtable 24 times, while right-wing pundit Liz Cheney made nine appearances on Fox and ABC debates. The most frequent interview guest was Rep. Michele Bachmann, who made 17 one-on-one appearances. Republican Sen. John McCain, a Sunday show fixture, was interviewed eight times. Even when the shows attempted more balance, the Democrats and left-leaning guests tend to be of a more moderate variety than the Republicans (Extra!, 9/10). Juan Williams—who, by the criteria of this study, counts as a left-leaning voice (but see Extra!, 3/12)—was on 24 Fox News Sunday broadcasts. As FAIR has argued (Extra!, 9–10/01), it’s likely that the politically connected corporations who sponsor these shows prefer a center/right spectrum of debate that mostly leaves out strong progressive voices who might raise a critique of corporate power. A piece marking Bob Schieffer’s 20 years hosting Face the Nation (CBSNews.com, 9/21/11) quoted the host’s self-described goal: “Our aim is to going to be very simple here: to find interesting people from all segments of American life who have something to say and give them a chance to say it.” By that standard, he’s been a total failure (FAIR Blog, 9/26/11).  It’s likely that the other networks would never say that they aim to provide a very narrow, very white and male, overwhelmingly conservative view of the world to their viewers every Sunday morning. But that’s precisely what they do.  Research assistance: Josmar Trujillo  About This Study FAIR collected guest lists for the four network Sunday shows: ABC’s This Week, NBC’s Meet the Press, CBS’sFace the Nation and Fox News Sunday. The study tallied interview guests only; brief soundbites in taped, reported segments, which were for a time a regular feature of the ABC show, were not included.  Guests were coded as either appearing in a one-on-one interview or as part of a roundtable—defined here as any segment with more than one guest. Guests with a partisan affiliation—as a congressional representative, an administration official or a party operative—were designated by the party they represented. Guests who did not have a partisan identification but who did have a clear left-of-center or conservative viewpoint were also categorized by ideology (conservative pundit George Will, progressive economist Paul Krugman).  Guests were also categorized by profession. Those in the government category consisted of current and former government officials, politicians, political candidates and party operatives (including campaign consultants). Journalists include centrist reporters as well as talkshow hosts or opinion writers. There was a small number of other guests: Corporate officials and representatives from nonprofit organizations. Sidebar: Push the Boundaries—and the Boundaries Push Back During much of the study period, ABC’s This Week was hosted by Christiane Amanpour. Perhaps due to her long career as a foreign correspondent, the show she hosted took a different approach than its network counterparts, often featuring reported pieces (not included in the study) from around the world. The show also featured guests that rarely make it onto the Sunday shows—feminist icon Gloria Steinem, Palestinian leader Hanan Ashrawi and Occupy Wall Street activist Jesse LaGreca.  But, as the totals indicate, those exceptions to the rule are only that. And Amanpour’s different approach no doubt contributed to her being replaced after less than a year, with more orthodox host George Stephanopoulos returning to the job.  –P.H.  FAIR’s Copyright Policy FAIR publishes its website under a Creative Commons license. Clicking on the Creative Commons license symbol at the bottom of any page will lead you to both an easy-to-read version and a legal-jargon version of the terms. Please note that under the terms of this license, FAIR also requires that you include the URL of the page from which you obtain content. If you wish to use FAIR’s work under any other conditions than those allowed by the license, please contact Jim Naureckas. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-No Derivs 3.0 Unported License.

Think Progress  offers more on the FAIR study. 

Unbalanced media coverage is not a natural evolution of US media’s long and storied past.  The nation has one Ruppert Murdoch owned, Roger Ailes Right-wing public relations network that is allowed to operate with clear evidence it is not an unbiased political entity.  MSNBC on the Left practices with a similar  (Left) model, but MSNBC is does not fit the P/R glove quite as thoroughly as Fox News.

The two cable news polar opposites are one thing.  They actually offer alternatives for people who live in separate social/political camps and that is no problem.  The middle, however, should be the domain of the fair and balanced with some effort of equal reporting, if for no other reason basic to practice journalistic ethics and professionalism.  Yet, the Big Four Sunday news shows and CNN broadcast clear viewer ratings programming that provides platforms for a party that is 92% white in racial demographics.  I assert at the 92% level, it is not a party that represents real and ever-changing America. The fact that my “BMedia-GOP-WMale syndrome” is as all consuming as a case of influenza should not surprise. If one accomplishes a bit of research on the gender make-up of GOP elected representatives, the networks are victim to the party. They have no women spokespeople who attract the Big Four Sunday Shows.   We all saw what happened when the party attempted to play politics via nominating Sarah Plain on the 2008 ticket. 

If the Big Four and CNN do not undertake focused efforts to balance their segments, they contribute to an information base for the Right that will lead to mindset and related voting results that will take the nation back into the jaws of Republican governance.  They do so at a time when we are still reeling from the last episodes of republican governance and concerted obstruction from current republicans. 

Viewers Beware.    

Calling Off the Fox (News) Hunt

Cross posted from www.mediatemetrics.wordpress.com. This post will run here for 48 hours before moving to the Talent’s Page.

November 29, 2011 at 11:18 AM by mmetrics1

My son was one of the most competitive athletes I have ever met, which sometimes made him a difficult to play with. After watching him drill a team-mate during a heated match, I gave him some tough love of my own. “As captain, your role is NOT to say what you feel at the moment it arises,” I told him. “Your job is to say what That’s the way I feel about the latest study on the inadequacy of Fox News viewers, conducted by Fairleigh Dickinson University, along with the deluge of bloggers who delighted in echoing the results ad nauseam. I’m sure the Fox-Hunters temporarily feel justified and superior, but I want to ask each and every one, “How’s that working out for ya’?”

Study after study has shown that when people with deeply entrenched beliefs are confronted with evidence to the contrary, they actually become more convinced of their position. Jonah Lehrer, Wiredcontributing editor and author of the best-selling book, How We Decide,succinctly explains this “backfire effect” on his blog site at:http://scienceblogs.com/cortex/2008/09/cognitive_dissonance_and_polit.php. Like a cornered animal, “believers” fight back most ferociously when cognitive dissonance — the discomfort c aused by holding conflicting ideas simultaneously — has potentially shameful consequences.

Unfortunately, I have uncovered no succinct method for countering this condition.  The best way to avoid extreme cognitive dissonance and the backfire effect seems to consist mainly of avoiding escalation. By most accounts, de-escalation is a difficult and lengthy process, involving awareness of opposing perspectives, acknowledgment common objectives, improvement of communication, and some amount of face-saving compromise. “Compromise” may be a dirty word in today’s political environment, but Scott Pelley of the CBS Nightly News reported an interesting factoid on his November 22 show:

“It seemed to us that in past years it was a lot easier for Congress to get things done. So we did some checking today with our partner in political coverage “National Journal.” For 30 years, the researchers there have been tracking senators to see who is liberal, who is moderate and who is conservative. And look at what`s happened. In 1982, the number of moderate senators in yellow who fell between the most liberal and most conservative totaled 60 … the number of moderates has fallen steadily to 36 in 1994, nine in 2002 and now in the current Senate, the center is d own to zero.”

In summary, the key to better governance lies in meeting in the political middle, not in driving people to the edges.