The obnoxiously vocal minority.
Boehlert points out that the libruls as the root of all evil jive has diminishing rates of return.
Doug Hoffman was, first and foremost, a media candidate (a media creation), which means we are entering a very new and different realm in American politics. We’re entering a sort of Fox News Era where media outlets — where alleged news organizations — essentially co-sponsor political campaigns. We’ve moved well beyond the time when Fox News, for instance, leaned right and gave conservative candidates more air-time and tossed them lots of softball questions. We’re now watching unfold a political reality where Fox News literally selects candidates and then markets them through Election Day.
But alas, time and again they’ve shown that they are unable to influence elections. And the evidence doesn’t end with Hoffman. The right wing media machine was actively opposed to McCain in South Carolina and the results were similar.
Beck, Hannity, Limbaugh, and Malkin, among others, all put their reputations on the line in NY-23, touting the contest as a referendum on the anti-Obama, Tea Party movement in America. And they lost, big time. Not unlike the way the same right-wing media leaders put their reputations on the line in early 2008 and went all-in against McCain in the South Carolina Republican primary. (FYI, McCain wasn’t sufficiently conservative.) Result? McCain won the SC contest in a walk.
The article doesn’t mention any of the other feeble attempts by the right wing media to influence elections. One that springs to mind is Limbaugh’s “Operation Chaos” which, if judged by his stated goals, was a complete failure. During that same time, Limbaugh’s preferred candidates, Romney and Giuliani, fell to pieces so for all of the bluster you hear about “the majority of (real) Americans” the tea-baggers don’t have any successes to point to as the direct product of their efforts. The article goes on to say that a lot of the fringe dead-enders failures are a result of their inability to grapple with realities outside of the right-wing echo chamber, that if what you’re saying doesn’t strictly coincide with the “liberal fascists are trying to socialize the communism” narrative you’re hastily dismissed as an enabler of far left propaganda. I’d also add to that a severe overestimation of the efficacy of their trad rhetoric with the voting public at large. Young and racially diverse voters are never going to be sufficiently moved by invoking Hitler or warning them of the encroaching Red Menace. And telling them that Barack Obama, the candidate that they came out in droves to support, is actually a stealth Muslim bent on sending them to work camps is only going to show them just how low of an opinion the right wing has of their intelligence.
-mg
November 11th, 2009 at 9:14 pm
Once again the Iowa Liberal spews misinformation, this time through ‘outsourcing’ followed by their own parrot talk.
Fox News is indeed considered the most fair and balanced, as evidenced by ratings/polling/studies.
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/372213-Cable_News_Ratings_Fox_News_Tops_Election_Coverage.php
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/30/fox-news-dominates-3q-200_n_304260.html
http://www.cmpa.com/releases/07_12_21_Election_Study.pdf
That Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity and others have failed to influence elections is an absurd notion. Pinning all poo-poo talk on NY-23 is shallow, cherry picked, and ridiculous. Considering the guy (Hoffman) was a complete nobody 30 days out, succeeded in getting the liberal dressed in Republican clothing to drop out and then only lost by 4 percent is an eye-opening achievement.
And contrary to Iowa Liberal lies, Limbaugh’s Operation Chaos was a hit, keeping Hillary in the hunt for much longer that she otherwise would have been. Lastly, Limbaugh’s ‘preferred candidates’ were not Giuliani or Romney. Your claim is false so you are hereby challenged to support your statement. Truth be told, Limbaugh gave them equal time as he did Fred Thompson, and Duncan Hunter for example. He slammed Huckabee and McCain and never endorsed anyone. If you really listened to the show he gave them (Giuliani and Romney) no special preference or treatment. You Iowa Liberal folks need to quit making stuff up.
November 11th, 2009 at 9:16 pm
1994 anyone? Nah, Limbaugh had no influence there whatsoever…… (cough)
November 11th, 2009 at 9:57 pm
Fox News is indeed considered the most fair and balanced, as evidenced by ratings/polling/studies.
So by your logic NBC, CBS and ABC news must be far more fair and balanced than Fox considering that their ratings dwarf all competitors.
And contrary to Iowa Liberal lies, Limbaugh’s Operation Chaos was a hit, keeping Hillary in the hunt for much longer that she otherwise would have been.
Putting aside the fact that you have absolutely no way of substantiating this claim this is a classic logical fallacy on your part; cum hoc ergo propter hoc, or, correlation does not imply causation. Unless you’re a fool, that is.
November 11th, 2009 at 10:20 pm
The comparison was clearly cable news to cable news.
So instead of addressing the substance on that basis, mike goes for manipulation. Broadcast numbers still outgun cable numbers, that’s a fact. But Fox News dwarfs all cable competitors in numbers, and is fast approaching ‘Big Three’ 3rd place CBS in viewers (Bill O’Reilly vs. Couric). This is undeniable.
So what we have here readers, is instead of dealing with the substance of the argument, Iowa Liberal plays games…..
Did Iowa Liberal refute the ratings/polling/studies?
No.
This is what liberals do, they re-direct when confronted with the truth.
They chose a liberal lowroad approach, that is to ignore the very relevent tangible that the free airwaves of broadcast television still outweighs cable television. But that wasn’t the argument being made. They are the ones claiming Fox News personalities had no influence and when provided counter-points to that claim, failed to address the counter-points.
Regarding the truth of Limbaugh impacting the Hillary/Obama primary, check out how far behind Hillary was pre-operation chaos, then look at the status during operation chaos. Iowa Liberal doesn’t want you to see that. It’s not a ‘classic logical fallacy’, it’s reality. Hint: Texas primary anyone?
November 11th, 2009 at 10:37 pm
What are you babbling about? You’re the one that stated that Fox’s ratings prove that they’re more fair and balanced than the competition. That was your “substance”. I’m taking that statement to it’s logical conclusion; that if higher ratings show fairness and balance then network news must be the most fair and balanced of them all. All you’ve done in response is cry foul.
Regarding the truth of Limbaugh impacting the Hillary/Obama primary, check out how far behind Hillary was pre-operation chaos, then look at the status during operation chaos.
I already addressed this. It’s your responsibility to show causation but instead you’ve chosen to repeat yourself and assert a correlation as fact followed by the use of another logical fallacy:
Hint: Texas primary anyone?
…begging the question.
November 11th, 2009 at 11:01 pm
As long as Group is satisfied with losses, I’m satisfied!
Group is subscribing to the theory that as long as Candidate A and Candidate B get the same amount of negative/positive coverage, there is balance.
Of course, reality doesn’t actually work that way. Hillary ran a terrible campaign bereft of ideas and Barack ran a brilliant one. The media had all but coronated Hillary until Barack started winning elections, and allowed her to be considered viable long after the numbers. Wingers tried to propel her because they were afraid of Obama, rightly so.
Btw, Group, ratings don’t mean a damn thing, not by any measure whatsoever. FOX offers constant Republican propaganda, which is an entirely different product.
Oh, and CMPA is a conservative-funded group, so we can toss out that study, right? After all, you dismiss anything from liberals.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A32631-2005Mar13.html
November 12th, 2009 at 10:03 am
Ratings DO matter Sherlock, most people don’t make a habit of watching things they dislike. There’s a REASON Fox News outperforms MSNBC and CNN.
November 12th, 2009 at 11:07 am
There’s a REASON Fox News outperforms MSNBC and CNN.
But not the same reason that network news outperforms Fox’s ratings, right?
November 12th, 2009 at 5:23 pm
Neither mike or jeromy refuted the following with proper cite/reference:
Fox News is indeed considered the most fair and balanced, as evidenced by ratings/polling/studies.
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/372213-Cable_News_Ratings_Fox_News_Tops_Election_Coverage.php
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/30/fox-news-dominates-3q-200_n_304260.html
http://www.cmpa.com/releases/07_12_21_Election_Study.pdf
Simply saying the cmpa is conservative is not proper rebuttal.
November 12th, 2009 at 5:56 pm
Fox offers a service: it allows you to watch all day and stay in your rightwinger dreamland. CNN does a bit of that passively, but they’re active about it. Of course they have a monopoly on that market. Liberals and others divide their interests among the other networks.
I’m sorry, Group, but you write off anybody who’s “liberal” in your book. Pointing out that cmpa is conservative is fair game.
But I did also offer analysis of its study, which you ignored.
November 12th, 2009 at 7:11 pm
jeromy you’re such a liar, and a bad one at that.
1. You can either dismiss the cmpa information as being factual or not, just spewing liberal talking points is not a proper rebuttal. What exactly was factually incorrect or flawed in the cmpa study?
2. YOU did NOT offer analysis of the cmpa study. You thought you were providing a link to some *analysis* done of the study, but you didn’t. Do you even BOTHER to read your own links?
Quit talking out of your ass.
November 12th, 2009 at 7:16 pm
Once again: Group is subscribing to the theory that as long as Candidate A and Candidate B get the same amount of negative/positive coverage, there is balance.
Of course, reality doesn’t actually work that way. Hillary ran a terrible campaign bereft of ideas and Barack ran a brilliant one. The media had all but coronated Hillary until Barack started winning elections, and allowed her to be considered viable long after the numbers. Wingers tried to propel her because they were afraid of Obama, rightly so.
I love it when you prove to our readers that you’re illiterate. I know exactly what I linked to, and I didn’t say at all that it was an analysis of the CMPA study. Did you read it?
“Quit talking out of your ass.”
I’d recommend that you stop projecting your shortcomings onto others.
November 12th, 2009 at 7:16 pm
Meanwhile, the stimulus has failed to keep unemployment under 8% as promised. Another half-million people filed first time unemployment claims last week. So after all his *magic* fixes, Obama has announced he will have a job summit! We’re going to talk more, not take action, we’re going to talk more……. That’s what community organizers do. Talk of hope and change, but provide NONE. Obama has had summits on a dozen things and his ideas have all failed. People need jobs you stupid liberals, not speeches and summits.
Liberal idiocy, liberal ignorance.
November 12th, 2009 at 7:21 pm
jeromy,
Your manipulation is quite transparent.
Can you show the cmpa findings as flawed or not?
You wrote: “I’m sorry, Group, but you write off anybody who’s “liberal” in your book. Pointing out that cmpa is conservative is fair game. But I did also offer analysis of its study, which you ignored.”
Like I said, you’re a bad liar.
November 12th, 2009 at 7:30 pm
jeromy wrote: “Once again: Group is subscribing to the theory that as long as Candidate A and Candidate B get the same amount of negative/positive coverage, there is balance.”
False. This is a classic liberal tactic called re-direct ladies and gentlemen. Instead of directly addressing the substance of an argument, they throw something out there from left field to distract you. I was not ‘subscribing’ as ignorantly claimed by jeromy. I provided a number of links demonstrating how Fox News is indeed considered the most fair and balanced, as evidenced by various (key word ‘various’ ratings/polling/studies. Fox News is considered superior in a number a ways. Note that jeromy didn’t refute any of the informational references with counter references, no, instead he pretended that I subscribe to a theory of HIS imagination.
And you have no clue what you thought you were linking to, as I’ve stated in the past, you are without honor, and you just don’t have the balls to admit when you’re wrong.
jeromy also wrote the following in ignorance: “But I did also offer analysis of its study, which you ignored.”
YOU offered no analysis. Why do you continue to lie like you do? To repeat, saying an outfit is conservative is not proper refutation.
November 12th, 2009 at 7:31 pm
Well, let’s be clear here: people like you are exactly who have been standing in the way of a lot of change.
What was your big idea for the recession? Let all the banks fail and watch the invisible hand give everybody jobs?
When Obama took over from Dear Leader Bush, the economy was in freefall. There was no light at the end of the tunnel. I’d say that while we’re still in the tunnel, we can see where we’re headed. Of course a jobs summit is a good idea. Wall St. is functioning and Congress is drafting regulations to prevent another catastrophe (regulations you’ll probably oppose).
The desired stimulus was $1.2 trillion. We were warned that if we went too small, it wouldn’t be as effective. People like you, of course, fought the stimulus and continue to do so, so we got a much milder one, the best thing Congress would allow while all “loyal” Republicans stood against it.
So, no, it hasn’t been as good as it should have been, but yes, it is believed to have offered some relief from what could have been, and it still has hundreds of billions waiting to kick in over the next two years.
It’s amusing though to be continuously lectured on idiocy and ignorance from somebody who traffics in nothing but. There are people so stupid you simply cannot teach them how stupid they are. You aren’t here to teach or learn, Group. Just to shout.
November 12th, 2009 at 7:33 pm
You don’t seem to understand the CMPA study, which argued that as long as Candidate A received the same positive/negative ratio of coverage as Candidate B, the media outlet was being fair.
That’s the only link of substance you provided, and I challenged it. Your links on Fox’s ratings only indicate how stupid you are. Popularity means squat.
November 12th, 2009 at 7:35 pm
“…you are without honor, and you just don’t have the balls to admit when you’re wrong.”
Again, with the projecting. You just scamper away when you’re wrong and return to cut-and-paste. You haven’t demonstrated a scrap of “honor” or intellectual honesty since you’ve started trolling this site.
November 12th, 2009 at 7:56 pm
http://mediamatters.org/reports/200908120046
Fox News puts on health care opponents 6-1 against proponents.
Fair and balanced! Group, you have a terrible position to argue here. Nobody but people who Fox preaches to all day (you) believe it’s balanced. Hell, even they don’t believe it. You think Roger Ailes really believes it?
November 12th, 2009 at 8:07 pm
jeromy uses mediamatters as a reference…….. Look at the ‘study’ folks, look how they try to manipulate opinion shows to be the same thing as hard news shows……..
jeromy is a cheater, his sources cheat. He re-directs to try and distract, his sources do too.
November 12th, 2009 at 8:11 pm
“jeromy uses mediamatters as a reference”
So you can use conservative sources and I can’t use liberal ones?
November 12th, 2009 at 8:13 pm
Once again you lie. I don’t use just conservative sources.
Shit, that’s what you spew.
November 12th, 2009 at 8:16 pm
Were you going to respond to the charge that Fox News anchors offer far more opinion interspersed into their reporting than the other networks?
November 12th, 2009 at 8:18 pm
I didn’t say you use conservative sources exclusively.
That’s actually you lying there. Do you think by screaming “LIAR” all day it will erase the number of times you’ve been caught with your pants down here?
November 12th, 2009 at 8:21 pm
“Look, I think liberals have reasonable gripes with Fox News. It does lean to the right, primarily in its opinion programming but also in its story selection (which is fine by me) and elsewhere.”
Jonah Goldberg
November 12th, 2009 at 8:47 pm
http://mediamatters.org/research/200904090038?f=h_top
Screen grab included. Fox actively promoted and even lent their brand name to the tea parties. “FNC Tax Day Tea Parties”
The entire network signed onto these inane protests. And Group wants to argue that they’re “balanced.”
November 12th, 2009 at 9:07 pm
More on the CMPA study:
http://www.portfolio.com/views/blogs/mixed-media/2007/12/28/flawed-study-finds-fox-news-fairest-of-all/
November 12th, 2009 at 9:38 pm
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1072
Studying Brit Hume’s Special Report, the imbalance in guests continues.
November 13th, 2009 at 8:32 pm
If Beck and Hannity are so impartial, then what are they doing “influencing elections” at all, as you said? If it is indeed impartial, how could they be so darn influential?
November 14th, 2009 at 12:42 am
Why are you pretending opinion shows = hard news shows? Who said Beck and Hannity were impartial? Neither are Chris Matthews or Keith Olbermann, or Rachel Maddow. All those channels have their share of OPINION shows. Note that liberal attacks against Fox aren’t of Sheppard Smith, who anchors Fox’s hard news show.
November 14th, 2009 at 12:45 am
Both Beck and Hannity are up front and state they’re conservative. They clearly state they’re opinion/news analysis/debate shows.
On the other hand, Matthews, Olbermann and Maddow pretend to be objective, and they’re just not.
That’s the difference in the networks.
November 14th, 2009 at 3:14 am
Yes, conservatives attack Sheppard Smith.
Olbermann and Maddow pretend nothing. Matthews tries to be independent, and if you were ever capable of stepping outside your bubble, you’d know that he’s infuriated the left countless times.
Fox’s opinion shows take up most of their broadcast hours, and as I’ve cited to you before, their anchors inject substantially more opinion into their broadcasts than all the other networks combined. Of course, their anchors also spend much of their time reporting on “controversies” that their opinion wing generates.
You’ve got a lot of material to respond to, LiberalShark/Group2012. Why don’t you quit changing your name and slapping at softballs and respond like the man of “honor” you pretend to be instead of a goddamn fraud.