How Fox News Could Level the Media Playing Field for the GOP
By gamecock Comments (97) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
As we exit the nightmare of campaign 2006, the GOP must directly confront its MSM handicap or it will have no chance at success in 2008.
cross-posted at www.race42008.com
FNC was a breath of fresh air for conservatives when it was founded a little over 10 years ago, and remains more breathable than any other MSM news network on cable or broadcast. The contrast between the way it covered the news and the rest of the MSM was stark in its respect for conservative ideas and its scrutiny of liberal conventional wisdom.
But unlike its critics claim, FNC has never come anywhere close to the advocacy journalism engaged in by the rest of the MSM, unless one considers being patriotically for One's own country as it wages war against Islamo-Facist terrorists and Baathist-Fascist mass murdering terror-sponsoring regimes to be improper "advocacy"?
Fox prides itself on being "fair and balanced," and compared to the MSM, it is, whatever "fair and balanced" means beyond having Combs eat up Hannity's valuable time.
However, given the recent spectacle of the MSM's grossly biased behavior as a 527 adjunct of the Democrat party during the recent campaign and their historical bias for the Democrats in varying degrees since the 1960's, America needs FNC to be the "balance" against the MSM for the sake of Jefferson's imperative that democracy cannot succeed absent an informed electorate.
How could Fox perform a balancing role and maintain their fairness and integrity?
Why not have a program fashioned after Brent Bozell's MRC, Newsbusters and Hot Air, and display the lunacy of the MSM as well as their factual inaccuracies and lack of similar treatment of democrats and republicans in similar situations?
Why not have a program that explores what patriotism meant to our founders and to Americans during previous wars?
Why not have a program that dissects liberal myths such as the Wall of Separation, McCarthyism, the unheroic 60s hippies, the noble cause in Vietnam and the carnage the Dems wrought with their activism, etc.
Why not cover Congress like a campaign commercial with a truth detector review?
Why not provide a regular forum for conservatives to advance their cause without being constantly interrupted by an emotional substanceless Democrat?
Why not occasionally deciding for themselves what is news instead of letting the NYT decide for them?
If this country is going to have a chance to staunch the Slouching Towards Gomorrah, modern day Liberalism, of the kind that Europe is dying from, the Democrat Party is sick with and which has given the GOP a rash, must be fought and weakened if not defeated outright.
We must have a public that hears the truth told in English and not the Orwellian 1984 PC speak of the MSM.
The MSM planned October surprises to divert the attention of the American people from the issues and Fox followed along with its nose up the MSM-Foley butt.
It has got to be tough on conservatives in the beltway. They are surrounded by stupid liberals that they want to be friends with, which makes it harder to call them stupid. But the MSM libs have no problem calling us racists, starvers of the old, the poor and the children, warmongers and religious kooks. And too many conservatives just smile and grit their teeth. This kind of go along get along crap will lead either to the fall of America or a bloody Civil War.
Can anyone doubt after the spectacle on the MSM in campaign 2006 and the behavior of the Dems and the MSM since soon after the invasion of Iraq, that the liberals are a clear and present danger to defeating our enemies abroad and maintaining the values necessary to our domestic strength?
Orwell feared an all powerful State. He had it half right. The Media is imposing 1984 on the State. We must have an ally in the milieu from whence the threat is borne.
Conservatives must own and use television media to combat the MSM political party, so dubbed by Howard Fineman and other honest liberal MSM reporters.
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
our shows will definitely be about SOMETHING! (hope you saw the episodes I refer to...)
http://gamecock.townhall.com and www.race42008.com
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
I seem to fit the Costanza role...lol
I agree with Neil and EPU we'd have more luck creating a Conservative channel than a show to sell the ABC networks.
Total control as well! Would be a hit imo!!!
"The Road To Freedom Is Seldom Traveled By The Multitude" Madhouse Thought
An interesting story caught my attention a few weeks ago - something about conservative groups trying to buy liberal newspaper companies as they decline in readership, etc.
It's an interesting idea that I think is a stroke of genius - we use the free market that we as conservatives protect to advance the conservative cause.
For example, Knight Ridder, who owns the Philly Inquirer and San Jose Mercury News, has recently announced they were possibly interested in selling their company. Can we get a conservative company/owner to purchase these newspapers and begin publishing conservative news in Philadelphia and San Jose? Or at least more balanced news?
Can that model work elsewhere? Can we talk NBC into selling MSNBC to conservatives? As CNN's ratings continue to decline, could we buy that station?
Let's look beyond talk radio and the blogosphere to find our influence. We are currently reaching about 5% of the populace with our blogs. If we had newspapers and other channels, we could continue to bring balance to the force, so to speak.
--------
Sometimes the hardest thing and the right thing are the same. -The Fray, "All At Once"
the media and cultural institutions generally to liberals while we confine ourselves to spiritual and business pursuits outside of TV and Hollywood. Conservatives have to become professors, especially of literature and history, and reporters and editors and film producers and Deans of Colleges. We have to own all types of media and produce pro-American films. We must compete for the culture because the culture is what determines the direction of everything.
http://gamecock.townhall.com and www.race42008.com
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
We must compete for the culture because the culture is what determines the direction of everything.
When I hear that most young people under 30 get their political news, heck, get all of their news, from The Colbert Report and that other idiot on the comedy channel...it scared the living sh*t out of me!
but what we most need to do is learn to govern. Conservatives/Republicans have proven themselves over the last couple of decades to be superbly able to articulate ideas that resonate with the res publica. We have proven ourselves much less able to actually run the machines of government.
In the late, lamented election, the Democrats did not attack our ideas, they adopted them. They ran against us on competence and corruption, and in too many instances; they were right. There is far too much used car saleman karma in the ranks of Republican officeholders and officeseekers. While we will proudly posit that we are for small government, we all know that government is where the easy money is, and we attract far too many people who simply want to get their hooves in the trough.
The fundamentally anti-government thought of most conservatives and Republicans means that most who achieve office don't know where the light switches and restrooms are once they have that office.
From a city or county all the way up to the federal government, no Republican executive could find loyal, competent Republicans to fill all the appointed positions, so we govern with holdover Democrats. Then we wonder why we are leaked, thwarted, and sabotaged.
One of the many things we should do over the next two years is put some serious thought into how governments should be organized so that Republicans can run them. Most emulate the New Deal inspired federal government and have dozens of departments and hundreds of divisions headed by political appointees. We simply do not have the people to run that sort of government. So we put hacks in charge and get FEMA during Katrina. Or, we get elected Governor and have an old friend and contributor who wants a piece of the action, but since we didn't have anyone to appoint as the head of procurement and don't really know how it works, we just give him a contract. Then we wonder why he went to jail and the Governor has approval ratings in the twenties.
We have some work to do.
In Vino Veritas
isn't it mainly the incompetence of communicating our competence followed by the inherent tension between hating government and running it? Results are THE measure of competence and what with the near record economic numbers, improvement of the judiciary, the toppling of two terror regimes, decimation of al Qaida and prevention of any attacks after 911, isn't our ultimate competence unmatched? yes
So, it gets back to communication, incl the communication needed to cure our war ignorance that prevents us from understanding that our work in Iraq is one our finest hours as was the response to Katrina.
It is Bush and the GOP congress's fault on al these counts. We do have work to do.
http://gamecock.townhall.com and www.race42008.com
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
The reason I'm comparing you to Ailes is your timing in addressing this MSM slap back now. I remember reading "Crazy Like A FOX; The Inside Story of How FOX Beat CNN" by Scott Collins. Maybe you read it, too.
Ailes was working at NBC and had pitched his all news cable network to them. The powers there liked his ideas, but didn't like the bombastic Ailes so stole his idea and negotiated the deal behind his back. They launched MSNBC in a TV event saving an open seat for Ailes in case he got wind, they had cover.
But Ailes was broadsided as he watched the announcement on TV and immediately decided to call Murdoch and launch his own network. His way. He came right back at them and CNN, too.
That's what's great about all the ideas being written about here because we are going to have to tackle the Mainstream Misinformation Monster from many fronts. The sooner we get about doing it the better.
Life is not fair, but It's still a Wonderful Life!
but I maintain that we give them enough bad stuff that they can hide the good stuff on page 83.
In Vino Veritas
We certainly did give them enough bad to report on so they never address the good. But if the Republicans cured cancer, they wouldn't give us credit for it.
That's is why we got to come up with bold ideas in programming and ads that immediately counter their characterizations of conservatives. A war room or PR arm of the GOP that operates all the time, not just during campaigns. That way it could become true education of events, history and definition of terms. It's got to be a constant teaching so people don't buy the convoluted stuff the was hammered into the minds of the public this cycle.
Life is not fair, but It's still a Wonderful Life!
But if the Republicans cured cancer, they wouldn't give us credit for it.
If the Republicans cured cancer the headline would be "Republican policy will negatively impact funeral homes!"
We all know it's true. But there's got to be some way around this monster. That's what this brainstorming post is all about.
Life is not fair, but It's still a Wonderful Life!
Given the level of our success despite their massive media advantages coupled with their yellow dawgs, historic advantage and easy sell appeals to envy and free lunches.
Look at what Reagan did despite no alternative media and a dem congress.
This is a 60-65% conservative country. Despite our flaws, the opposition is a FLAW. We have large margins in congress. Only the PR near monopoly keeps this game close.
agree?
http://gamecock.townhall.com and www.race42008.com
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
Redstate News the newspaper several weeks ago.
Hell, I'll even dig up a thousand dollars or so for the cause if anyone else wants to give it a go...
"The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal comfort... has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
--John Stuart Mill
But in North Carolina there is an amazingly successful conservative newspaper, the Rhino Times, which is published in Greensboro and Charlotte. Rush mentioned it this past week on his show as Orson Scott Card writes articles for them (the Gboro edition anyway). Here you have two teams of people who know how to make a conservative newspaper work...
When the only tool you own is a hammer, every problem begins to resemble a nail. -- Abraham Maslow
http://gamecock.townhall.com and www.race42008.com
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
Super in terms of raw material -- kind of brainstorming. I have some ideas myself that I'm a little too busy to organize, but you'll see them soon.
What I intend to present in the next week here at RS is a 'what YOU can do' article -- a large menu of tasks (most are not original) so that a movement conservative can pick a job to get involved, rather than helplessly whine. Several of these tasks involve, in one way or another, taking on the leftist advocacy media.
I like your idea. I'm not sure Fox will abandon the middle-of-the-road tack it has taken, but I wonder if it's not possible to create a cable channel that stands alone and is unapogetically patriotic & conservative (yes, redundant), and features not only these news-magazine type shows (and YES, no left-right screaming matches), but also a slate of sitcoms, soaps, and perhaps dramas that have conservative leanings, family-supporting, etc, perhaps even Christian orientations in some of them. And perhaps even a news organ that unabashedly cheers for the USA and for Conservative political movements.
Needs to have some backing and clout, enough to get such a channel across 70-100% of the cable universe.
My 2-cents brother.
The Dallas Cowboys will make the playoffs and thrive there in spite of dragging around the big smelly dead mackerel which is terrell owens
http://gamecock.townhall.com and www.race42008.com
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
Yes, it'd be nice if they'd actively expose the bias in the rest of the mainstream press, but it'll never happen. Why not? Because the FNC people are the same as the CNN, CBS, NBC, ABC people. FNC actively recruits from the other networks, and particuarly from the traitorous cosmopolitan CNN.
The only difference between FNC and the rest is that FNC waves American flags, and puts some right-wing faces on the air. Under the surface, though, they're the same as the rest.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
spouters of conventional wisdom is to locate the News organization in Spartanburg, SC and have the reporters commute everyday with brown-bag lunches prohibited from hobnobbing in Georgetown. We would also fly lawmakers to our Sunday show in SC before a live audience that hates McCain-like suck-ups and pretend CINCs.
http://gamecock.townhall.com and www.race42008.com
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
I don't know, I see and smell (or imagine that I do) a distinctly less hostile-to-conservatives flavor to the entire news section (Hume, Jim Angle, Cavuto, Shep et al). By no means a branch office of RedState or National Review, but pretty refreshing when contrasted to the blatantly anti-Americanism pumped relentlessly onto the public from the alphabet-soup networks.
I pretty well despise everything on FNC that's after 8pm ET, or before 5pm. Except when Kiran Chetry's wearing something delectible, but then I belabour the obvious.
My opinion, anyway.
The Dallas Cowboys will make the playoffs and thrive there in spite of dragging around the big smelly dead mackerel which is terrell owens
Hume contains himself with a sneer or trying not to blink, while Jim smiles wider. I love it when Brit smacks down Juan and Juan is one the better libs! Hannity is a jewel but he's burnt out. I tape Special report everyday.
http://gamecock.townhall.com and www.race42008.com
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
I disagree that everything on Fox News after 8 PM ET is not worth watching. Bill O'Reilly (8 PM and 11 PM) frequently invites conservatives onto his show, and he's been critical of whether the "San Francisco mentality" (read Pelosi) can be imposed on Middle America. The "Hannity and Colmes" debate show at 9 PM ET gives Sean Hannity the opportunity to ask tough questions of liberals and softball questions to conservatives, who can sometimes get their point across, if not too quickly interrupted by Alan Colmes quoting the New York Times and Washington Post.
The only weak spot in prime-time is the Greta Van Susteren show, which tends to concentrate on the latest missing teenage girl and endless debates over whether alleged criminal XYZ is guilty, innocent, or somewhere in between.
The problem is, even the most popular Fox News shows reach only about 2 to 2.5 million viewers, only a tiny fraction of the American electorate, and those who watch the MSM news.
In order to counteract the relentless leftist MSM spin, the President (or Tony Snow, or GOP leaders) will have to call many press conferences, so that their views can be aired on the major networks. There may also be a need for conservative groups to buy ad time on MSM networks to present opposing views on crucial issues, and be able to condense complex issues into a 30-second ad. This worked to derail Hillarycare, at a time when Democrats controlled the White House and both houses of Congress. When we hear Pelosi talking about "universal health care", it sounds like she's dusting the cobwebs off Hillarycare. Been there, done that!
Also, if Pelosi&Co. start going off the deep end to the left, GOP leaders might get a few sound bites even on the MSM for rebuttal, and help the voters realize who has the more reasonable point of view.
The bad news: Conservatism is hard to sell. The good news is that it works.
He could really combat CBS_NBC_ABC on their turf with an evening news and newsmagazine shows for conservatives.
http://gamecock.townhall.com and www.race42008.com
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
Where did you hear this? Have they been on Redstate today?
Life is not fair, but It's still a Wonderful Life!
but heck, I'm a closet c-span-o-file
family guy
seinfeld
sports, and i like basketball season because there are games on every night - but we live for baseball of course
tcm movies
columbo on hallmark
what a life
http://gamecock.townhall.com and www.race42008.com
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
I remember on the Friday before the election, Shepard Smith had Bob Corker on his show to talk about the Senate race. This was when polls showed Corker had opened up a big lead, and the brouhaha over the 'call me' ad had faded. Yet what does Smith focus the interview on? You guessed it! The 'call me' ad. He basically tried to get Corker to 'admit' that the ad was racist.
Now of course this didn't have anything to do with how Ford managed to close and get back into the race, but it was just bizaree watching the 'right-wing' news channel focus on old news that had most likely hurt Corker's campaign.
And Fox News is generally worthless on immigration just like all the other networks. This is never more evident than when the topic is discussed by the 'All-Stars' on Hume's show, and the panel includes Fred Barnes, Bill Kristol, or Mort Kondracke.
chamber herd mentality with ring in nose, string in Pinch's hand incompetence is that most significant ad that broke Ford's campaign was the ad that illustrated Ford's lack of quantity time in his home state and pampered life in DC. That was the ad that broke Ford's heart and caused him to crash a Corker presser looking like a lost soul. I actually felt sorry for the young guy. But that was the ad that won the election.
http://gamecock.townhall.com and www.race42008.com
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
Fox was a breath of fresh air when they first came on the air. I could finally stop my blue-veined rants at the television while forcing down Crossfire on CNN. Maybe it's the passage of time or my increasing reliance on the internet for news, but Fox just doesn't seem to cut it anymore.
I also agree that there should be an unabashed conservative news channel. It's worked pretty well for Rush. I must have said "I wish there was an actual conservative news channel" at least a hundred times while watching Fox's coverage during this election cycle.
The CNN acronym seems ripe for the taking.
The key is educating the public. It is much easier teaching conservatism at a young age rather than trying to "deprogramming " them after they have been indoctrinated. Conservatism has to become part of our culture from a young age.
Will this happen? Not without a SERIOUS circling of the wagons by conservatives. Even then it might not be enough. Our country is in danger of slipping beyond the liberal point of no return.
I agree that conservatives are starting 10 ft behind the starting blocks for the race all the time. Look at polls that usually bias towards democrats by several points. We are always at a disadvantage when it comes to the main stream media. MSM enjoys the benefits of being rooted in the culture as unbiased. Had they come along recently like Fox they'd be seen as propaganda like Air America. The only reason air america failed is that it has wayy too much liberal competition by MSM.
We definitely need a thrust for conservative education and reporting. How do we go about doing that? Do we have a conservative billionaire to counteract the George Soros' of the world?
Oh yes, their are plenty of repubs with $$$. They need to use it for this instead of golf course #12.
Bork's "Slouching Towards Gomorrah" echos your theme.
http://gamecock.townhall.com and www.race42008.com
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad - "We did not have
a revolution in order to have democracy."
Conservative News and
Views
AIM hinzsightteam2
Get enough wealthy conservatives together into a consortium, and make the owners of the New York Times an big offer, even overpaying if it comes to it.
After buying the times, purge the kooky liberals out of the newsroom and off the opnion pages. Recruit a new corps of commentators that are evenly divided between sane liberals and sane conservatives. Then put new editors in place with specific directives that the news stories (both the choice of story and the content) MUST be as close as possible to politically neutral; and also when a sotry is adversarial to a party, that party is given print space IN THE STORY to respond.
With the Times, you automatically get a big foot in the door because most US media parrots the NYT.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/11/10/122656.shtml?s=ic
http://gamecock.townhall.com and www.race42008.com
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
FOX needs to have a 6:30 broadcast with Brit on ALL FOX affliliates. A mix of news in the first fifteen, then Brit with the panel in the second. This would be a huge help to get more conservative views out to all. And take some of the sting out of ABC, NBC and CBS harsh criticisms of all things conservative. And it might even force them to balance out once they start getting hammered in the ratings.
Some may ask: If the MSM has such liberal bias, how have the Republicans been successful over the years?
Others may ask: If most Americans are to the right of center, believe in smaller government and lower taxes, how is it that the Democrats continue to be successful over the years?
You can answer one question by looking at the other question. The liberal bias in the media is balanced by the fact that Americans are more conservative than liberal.
Conservatives have truth and the masses on their side and liberals have the media, academia and Hollywood on their side. That is the balance. This is how the relative balance of Republicans and Democrats are maintained.
I believe the net effect of MSM liberal bias is to drive both the D’s and R’s to the left. If one day the MSM suddenly became completely objective and fair, initially the Democrats would start to lose elections, then over time they would move to the right. The Republicans would start to win more elections and eventually feel free to be more conservative. It would be a good thing, no doubt. Over time, what is considered “the center” would be more conservative and D’s in R’s would be in balance once again.
The net effect of the more balanced FNC, Rush Limbaugh, and the internet/blogs is to hold those more accountable who are not held accountable by the MSM (including the MSM itself). It does begin to add some counterbalance, but is still not quite as influential as the huge effect of the media, academia and Hollywood.
Hopefully over time as those (mostly older people) who now watch the nightly news on NBCABCCBS begin to die and the internet surfers (mostly younger) begin to come of age the MSM will become less influential (as it gradually has). Also, as these other news outlets have more and more influence, I think this irritates the liberally in the media as they realize they are losing power. They respond by pushing their bias harder and more obviously (as they have in the last couple of elections) and it begins to really be obvious. However, over time, with this high level of bias they lose much of the respect they had in the past and further lose influence (NYT).
I believe much of the anger that Democrats and the MSM have against Bush is not only Florida 2000 and Iraq (although these play a major role) but his decision not to treat the media as a 4th branch of government and let them have the enormous power and influence they have had in the past.
James
Here's another idea:
One of the most important investments that an American family makes in their lifetime is the education of their children. Aside from buying a house, and possibly car(s), paying for college is the single most important expense a family plans for -- and certainly the most consequential for the future well-being of their kids.
What FOX needs to do is to begin pulling the veil back on higher education in this country and really shattering the artifical bubble of protection that leftists and liberals in academia have successfully constructed around themselves. They really need to launch a regular feature and perhaps a completely separate program run by Students for Academic Freedom and advised by David Horowitz. They could bring some folks from the Chronicle of Higher Education in for balance, but the point of the show should be to give the American people a real look at what is being taught at colleges and universities across the country -- as often as not with this new Democrat congress especially, on your taxpayer dime.
As far as I'm concerned, this would be one of the most exciting and important programs FOX could do. If they won't do it, we should find a way to do it ourselves.
After this election, I've gotten a couple of ugly reminders of just how awfully people in this country are being (mis)educated by our University system. The day after the election, a young woman I know who graduated from Georgetown and describes herself as an Independent sent me a link to the following video, explaining that it symbolized the need for "transparency in government."
Watch the video. This is Orson Welles' 1971 anti-Vietnam war, pro-immigration cartoon "River of Freedom." She was utterly unaware until I told her of Welles' views on the war and his status as a lifetime Socialist. Nothing in her education had ever informed her about the antiwar movement -- and two days ago she was using a 70's antiwar parable as a shining example of how this election should be good for "transparency in our government."
Georgetown is a pretty expensive school, from what I understand. I don't think she got her money's worth.
For anyone who doubts that the playbook for the Democrats in this election inre: Iraq was cribbed almost wholesale from the Vietnam War protest movement, all you need to do is watch that video. It's a formula that works!
And there's a reason why it works: The author of the screenplay for that "parable" was a man named Warren H. Schmidt, Ph.D., who is a Member Emeritus of the NTL Institute, which publishes the Journal of Applied Behavioral Science.
NTL began shortly after WWII but was co-opted during the late sixties and early 70's to serve the revolutionary ideals of the antiwar movement. In other words, all of the behavioral science research that was done throughout the 50's was turned and used for the purposes of attacking the society that built it. That effort continues unabated today.
at Emory University in Atlanta in 2004 and he signed my copies of "Left Illusions" and "Radical Son." His Left Illusions has a great chapter on how to beat democrats which argues that we must confront them aggressively in moral terms.
http://gamecock.townhall.com and www.race42008.com
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
Has anyone ever noticed that the media where conservatism succeeds are the non-visual ones? Like radio and print (opinion journals and the internet)?
Have you ever met anyone who heard the 1960 Nixon-Kennedy debates on the radio? People who did generally were more impressed by Nixon, who presented clearer, better-reasoned arguments. People who saw them on television thought Kennedy was a handsome golden boy, obviously better suited for the Presidency.
Image-based media like television and the movies seem to work by engaging our affects rather than our intellect. People automatically fall in love with anyone, even a villain, who shares her deepest feelings with us (facial closeups in the movies achieve this effect without even using words). At this level, there's not much bandwidth to convey anything like a reasoned argument.
The political message which is most likely to resonate in this setting is the liberal mantra: "I care about you!" And the obvious policy corollaries are things like "the government needs to do more for your children, and the eeeeeee-vil Republicans won't pay their fair share in taxes to make all those good things happen." I won't even get into the advocacy contained in movies like "The Cider-House Rules," one of the most insidious pieces of propaganda of all time.
A problem for conservatives is that our message is based on our understanding that caring only goes so far. There are limits on what social actions can do to solve problems. This is partly because no bureaucrat, actor, news broadcaster or politician, no matter how well-intentioned and personally-attractive, has enough insight or knowledge to solve problems faced by millions. It's also because the very fact that our perception of what constitutes society's "problems" is distorted by the images we see on television and the movies. How many people are entirely willing to sacrifice domestic manufacturing because they saw "Erin Brockovich"? How many people are convinced that the Earth will soon be killed by SUVs because they saw the recent Al Gore movie? How many people are convinced that George Bush likes to fart loudly in the presence of guests because they saw one of Michael Moore's timeless classics? How many people are convinced that the Muslim Americans we share our communities with have bought into our liberal, tolerant ideals, just because Katie Couric and Hillary Clinton say they have?
And let's talk about the academy for a moment. People become university professors because they're book-smart. By definition, they are attracted to theoretical solutions to large perceived problems. This kind of synthetic thinking is what they do for a living. And tenure makes it possible for them to indulge their big-thinking without ever being challenged by practical reality. Of course they see only ignorance and narrow-mindedness among those of us who work in business and see every day that the world is both in better shape and harder to change than they think.
Our problems are not what most people think they are. The real reason liberal "solutions" are so wasteful is because they're aimed at chimeras. Communicating this on television will be hard for us to do. We may need to look at other media. Newspapers are doomed because the economic model underlying them (local advertising) will soon wither away. I really would like to see a vigorous, accredited academy populated with conservative professors, hopefully with real-world experience.
A final point: I'm really starting to believe in strict term limits for federal legislators. I know the standard argument is that experience counts and we'll lose our best people to term limits just as the liberals will. But I think the argument changes in a world where people can and are so easily swayed by images rather than ideas. And if we can bring back the idea that public service is a civic duty rather than a career, we may be able go back to the older ideal of electing leading citizens to Congress and the Senate. There is plenty of experience and balance among people who have been successful in real life rather than media or politics. Give such people one term in the Senate or three terms in the House to take advantage of their experience and probity, then let them go home in honor to go back to their real lives.
You forgot Michael Moore. His style of "documentary filmmaking" is particularly well-suited to propaganda and he knows it. I know several licensed clinical psychologists who counsel children who use his videotapes as resource material, Bowling for Columbine in particular.
By the time I got to that sentence I had understood the point of the examples in that paragraph and skipped into the next one. :)
Bill Clinton would have never been able to win the Presidency except for his innate ability to 'feel your pain'. His quirky grin, biting lip, well polished manner of speaking, etc. endeared him to the American public as his actual accomplishments never could have done. And it would have been ineffective in any venue except television.
I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful 100 percent.
Many of the movies in Hollywood's golden era (see TCM!) exalt judeo-christian values, personal responsibility, etc. We can show visuals of people that suffer due to government excess, failure to pre-empt gather threats and denial of free speech, incl religious speech. We can show the lunatic visuals on MSM "news" and ridicule them with visuals showing the truth. We can have our own "60 Minutes", our own MTP, and control the visuals.
Watching old movies after my divorce in 1999 helped cause my conservative epiphany, but as you say, it was mainly radio, internet websites and books.
http://gamecock.townhall.com and www.race42008.com
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
"Why not have a program fashioned after Brent Bozell's MRC, Newsbusters and Hot Air, and display the lunacy of the MSM as well as their factual inaccuracies and lack of similar treatment of democrats and republicans in similar situations?"
I love this idea - this alone would be an outstanding way for Fox to expose the biases of the MSM while promting its own brand as the only "fair and balanced" channel. I'm concerned that by itself it would be a ratings dog, though, so maybe it's best to make it a nightly segment in someone else's show.
That said, I'm tired of the media pretending to be objective - probably the greatest fraud it has ever foisted upon the American public. I'd much rather see a media outlet that didn't apologize for its conservative viewpoint.
"I am afraid that even after the American people will elect those who promise to leave Iraq, the U.S. will not do so." - Hamas leader Abu Abdullah
Liberals, moderates, and conservatives alike, Fox News is already recognized as a conservative voice, therefore is completely tuned out by certain areas of the populace. We all know that much of the remainder of the MSM is biased toward liberal reporting. But, somehow moderates (and especially libs) continue to believe that it is not. Or they recognize that CNN might be left-of-center, but Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, Katie Couric, etc are not.
I don't think Fox is going to draw more viewers than it already has by veering right. Those types of shows will certainly educate the right, but they'll more or less be preaching to the choir.
I think the GOP needs to fix the issues that they are talking about. We will have to battle the MSM, but getting conservative messages to the American people requires us to sell individual freedoms and responsibility more, and return to fiscal discipline, with QUANTIFIABLE results to show the public.
Fox is a part of the answer, I suppose, but I think they've been marginalized with certain voters thanks to the MSM and the Dems.
Fix the content of the message. Not the medium through which it is sent. That's my opinion.
www.fairtax.org
Sick of Government Expansion? Liberty-Minded Republican? Check This Out... Republican Liberty Caucus!!!
www.rlc.org http://www.republicanliberty.org/
Support Congressional Republicans
www.nrcc.org
We could always buy the NYT at the bankruptcy sale. As marginal as they are, they are still gospel to many on the other side.
I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful 100 percent.
Objectivity alone would put us over the top. We must figure out how to target young people and the only way I see doing that is targeting colleges, entertainment and media industries. The first thing we need to do is figure out why MTV, Rolling Stone etc, are automatically liberal. Why are colleges so predominantly liberal. What part of the conservative agenda causes such gnashing of teeth among the young left? If I hadn't sat my young son down and explained the differences between conservative and liberalism, he would have voted democrat in his first election just based on exposure to media and entertainment. Why, Why, Why. Then we can target solutions.
The longer we dwell on our misfortunes the greater is their power to harm us - Voltaire
That's the liberal message. If you combine that with blind faith in the ability of well-intentioned experts to fix everything that is wrong with everyone's life and save us all from death by global warming, then you can see that it's plainly immoral to be anything but a left-wing liberal.
That's the message that resonates with the young.
The conservative message is more like: "Concentrate on becoming a better person and you'll find fulfillment. The government can't solve your problems for you."
Which do you think is the more attractive message?
With this country is extended adolescence. We've made an industry out of keeping people in a state of extended adolescence well into adulthood. In my mind the most important indicator of that is the large cohort of women who wait until they're 40+ to have children, but it's much more than that.
It doesn't matter that all of the liberal messages are candycoated fairytales -- because that's what they're intended to be. Liberalism is nothing other than a secular religion promising salvation and freedom and peace and love *here on earth*. There are lots of different branches of this secular religion: the human-rights branch, the feminist branch, the radical egalitarian branch, and of course the Socialist branch, which is actually the trunk.
It always, always, always ends badly. Conservatism tries to encourage people to grow up and take care of themselves and their families before they try to escape to the government for relief and redress. You can see it on college campuses whenever anyone gets offended -- the first thing they do is run to mommy, who is a Democrat.
http://gamecock.townhall.com and www.race42008.com
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
Really not too many people have investigated that but it is true, in my mind. The reason liberals are so keen to make sure the power of traditional religious beliefs continues to wane is that ultimately it's a contest between what they consider to be their new religion and the more established ones.
Liberalism opens its arms and legs to atheists and agnostics precisely because it keeps the field clear -- you don't want anyone believing in Christianity when you have radical feminism to teach them, or that gay marriage is perfectly OK, or for that matter Kurzweil futurism in which all of us will be augmented by endogenous nanobots. You have to get those traditional religions marginalized, take them right off the playing field so to speak. And that is what is happening, through very conscious effort. Start 'em young.
Outside of a few important areas, I don't think liberalism has really made anyone's life any better or more fulfilling. What it has done is made it more complex and difficult and endlessly trying. Everyone in a liberal family is on endless trial, because by definition everyone is equal and there is no hierarchy.
My -ex girlfriend is a woman who will never marry, never bear children, and live the rest of her life chasing whatever the flavor of the moment liberal thinking is, while struggling to continue to "find herself." It's such a fool's errand, and she was led into that hook line and sinker by RadiFems. Orthodox Jewish women live more fulfilling lives than she does, but she will never surrender her atheism and radical liberal beliefs because she's been indoctrinated to believe that they represent salvation if only enough people believed in them.
We treat 16 year olds like kids, we treat 25 year olds like adolescents, then they have a brief phase of adulthood before we treat 60 year olds like kids again.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
but what does this have to do with the power of the media? And by the way, secular religion is an oxymoron, it doesn't exist.
Blaming the media for the midterm election losses is silly.
Fox News is one of the most unbiased news outlets in existence. To make a move away from that, towards either direction of the political spectrum, will only marginalize the network, ala Drudge or WorldNetDaily. I think Mr. Murdorch is far too smart a businessman to let that ever happen.
As a voter myself, I blame the voters. There are people here on RedState who have said: "Don't blame the voters" but frankly I am basically a nobody with absolutely no control over the media and no real influence on anyone's campaign in this election -- and so I DO blame the voters. At least the Republican voters who sat at home in crucial districts.
And Drudge is not marginalized: everyone at every single newsroom around the country reads the Drudge Report, and he has one of the largest followings of anyone in the media around the country. Certainly he's a lot more powerful right now than Mike Wallace or anyone at CBS News on a minute-to-minute basis.
I kind of understand why you say that -- it's a legacy from the days when Drudge was truly marginal and mainstream journalists hated his guts and called him things like "Sludgie" and "Sludge Report." That's not the case today. Matt Drudge is a player, at least as important to Americans who get their news from the Internet as any of the older, established operations.
If Murdoch isn't interested in taking a look and letting the public decide about higher education in America, I think we're all going to have no choice but to do it ourselves. I hope that he realizes it's a great television prospect. There's nothing more important to people in America, after all, than their children's education.
In my mind the most important indicator of that is the large cohort of women who wait until they're 40+ to have children, but it's much more than that.
A large cohort?
From the NCHS, re: age of first birth (births per 1,000 women):
40-49: up from 0.8 in 1960 to 1.8 in 2001
35-39: up from 3.2 to 9.1
30-34: up from 8.6 to 26.6
25-29: up from 26.6 to 40.4
20-24: down from 87.9 to 48.9
15-19: down from 61.4 to 35.7
Now I don't know about you but it doesn't appear to me that a "large cohort" of women above 40 are having kids versus 1960, and in fact the link shows adjusted numbers back to 1940 that aren't any lower than 1960 was. In fact, the number of women over 40 having their first child is remarkably miniscule compared with their younger counterparts, so I think you've very much overstated the situation. It is fair to say families are waiting longer to have their first child - many fewer doing it before age 24, many more doing it after age 24.
While I agree with your basic point that the constant growth of the nanny state has promoted a sense in people that personal responsibility matters less, and reliance on the government to solve their problems matters more, I suspect age of first child is hardly the "most important indicator", although you don't really say why you think this is so.
Seeing a family wait until they're out of their teens, and over 24 (i.e. well past their college years), is perhaps a sign that people take the act of raising a child far more seriously than they might have before, not to mention the importance of preparing themselves for the rest of their own life before willingly accepting the responsibility for a brand new life. As the cost of raising children increases, it makes a great deal of sense, if you want to give your child the best possible upbringing facilitated by the maximum amount of resources, to wait until your familiy is established. If we think 17, 18, 19 year olds are in the best position, financially and experience-wise, to raise children than their 25-34 year old counterparts then maybe we should be concerned by the actual trend the data shows.
But generally, I see no correlation between age of first birth and an extended state of adolescence brought on by the nanny state. What do you think the evidence is that points to a connection between the two?
You're posting statistics that show that I'm correct. The age of first birth is increasing and that's precisely because of what I've said. The trend is toward older and older birth, when the health problems get worse and the ability to have grandchildren as part of an extended family disappears.
How is someone who is 40 years old and has a child ever going to think that their children will produce grandchildren while they're still young enough to help them? By your own data, the number of women that are doing that and continuing to have children at advancing ages increases, and meanwhile we're pouring money into trying to help them do it. Unless you think that people's best childbearing years are between 30-50, this trend is amazingly disturbing.
Unless, that is, you can tell me about the Fountain of Youth that is going to allow all of these older parents to still be functional when their grandchildren arrive.
We've made an industry out of keeping people in a state of extended adolescence well into adulthood. In my mind the most important indicator of that is the large cohort of women who wait until they're 40+ to have children
That's your statement. Defend it.
The numbers I found indicate that there isn't a large cohort of women who wait until they're 40+ to have children, in fact it's an extremely small number showing a minimal increase over 40 years. So you're just way overstating your point on that one.
And you didn't provide any evidence to support connecting an "extended adolescense well into adulthood" with "women who wait until they're 40+ to have children". I already gave you a handicap on that by allowing consideration of simply seeing families wait longer to have kids (the predominant range shifting from 15-24 year olds to 20-29 year olds), perhaps considering 30+ instead of the negligible 40+ category. But you're still providing no evidence or rationale to back up the connection you made.
The age of first birth is increasing and that's precisely because of what I've said.
We agree that families are waiting longer to have their first child. That really isn't the issue at odds here. You havn't said anything to connect the increased age with "keeping people in a state of extended adolescence well into adulthood". I offered some common sense reasons to explain why a couple may opt to wait until they feel financially capable and stable enough to take responsibility for a new life. To be honest, if people were determining how early they should have a child primarily on a belief that the government will take care of them (and the child), then they ought to trend toward having children earlier rather than later, shouldn't they? If they're reliying on the nanny state, then trying to ensure their own financial stability and career success wouldn't matter at all. They'd just have a child, send them off to nanny state day care, and keep pursuing their own selfish wants.
So I think you're not making a very good case for what you stated.
We've made an industry out of keeping people in a state of extended adolescence well into adulthood. In my mind the most important indicator of that is the large cohort of women who wait until they're 40+ to have children
That's your statement. Defend it.
I can only tell you about what I know in my own family. My aunt, who lives in Washington and is/was a radical feminist put off having children until she was almost 50, then decided at the last minute that she wanted to have them. It didn't work, and it was a horrible experience. But she knows Gloria personally and was instrumental in influencing lots of other women she knew to follow the same path.
I think the connection that I made is very strong by virtue of your own data which shows an increasing trend toward later and later birth and motherhood. If we wanted to phrase it in the terms of the media, we could say that the number of women who are choosing to have babies over the age of 40 has doubled, and all of the rest of the data you cite incontrovertibly shows that the age of birth is getting older, and older. The only reason there aren't more of them is that 40 is becoming the outside age at which women are comfortable trusting medicine to give birth.
You don't need to believe me. Believe the BBC.
It's the career, stupid. And in exchange for that career freedom we are seeing a radical restructuring of the family and the demographics.
As far as your assertion:
I offered some common sense reasons to explain why a couple may opt to wait until they feel financially capable and stable enough to take responsibility for a new life.
The government would adjust to whatever the demographic conditions of the society were assuming it was still a democratic government. That's not what I'm talking about. What everyone in Western societies is seeing is an increasing willingness to postpone fertility until the last minute until it is acceptable in terms of their "careers." And that's a terrible strategy for survival.
Comes from a very different definition of what it means in our minds to become "an adult human being". I see being an adult human being as being a member of a pairbonded heterosexual relationship that produces a child.
You might see an "adult human being" as something different, perhaps related to their careers or their titles. Like a "power couple" that kind of thing.
I have always felt that an adult is a person that takes responsibility for and accepts the consequences of their actions.
I would argue that your definition includes many people that are not in any sense of the word adult. If you don't know them from personal experience, an episode of springer will provide all the examples you may need.
But its not that bad. The most serious threat we face as a nation is our own success. I'll take that over the alternatives.
Let me try to respond to you everything else you've posted at once here.
if you get married as a man and a woman and have a child and children, those children are not just a financial and time responsibility but they are also a defining moment in your life as a couple
I can't think of anything more adolescent than viewing the conception of a child in such romantic and magical terms, as opposed to seeing it as the very realistic commitment to devote your primary focus on the current and future well being of a new life. I find the idea that people should treat children as a means to an end (continuity of a bloodline, self-fulfillment) as opposed to an end in and of itself that requires a dedicated combination of time, money, and good parenting skills to be very dangerous.
Your point about definition is well taken. I reject your definition that "being an adult human being" equates with "being a member of a pairbonded heterosexual relationship that produces a child", not just because there are a tremendous number of adults who fit that definition but who are supremely irresponsible both in the conduct of their own lives and in the parenting of their child.
I can only tell you about what I know in my own family.
A wonderful but pointless anecdote. Except where it points to how our personal opinions about motive are shaped by our own experiences. In this respect, you're certainly free to express an opinion you've adopted based on the families and/or women you know, but your key assertion remains unbolstered by any real facts, neither by common sense - in my opinion.
More people are pushing that decision off until the last possible minute, and then trying to find ways around it
We agree that people are waiting to have children. Your assertion has been that the reason for this is that we are "keeping people in a state of extended adolescence well into adulthood". But really, if people are so enthralled to these adolescent tendencies, why would they even have children at all? And again, why the rate of births isn't increasing for younger people when they actually stand to receive far more direct welfare aid from the nanny state by having children at 17 than they do at 27, or 33.
To conclude, I think a far more accurate indicator of adolescent adulthood is found in the recent example of the college fraternity members suing over the Borat movie. Two of the guys who made provocative and crude statements that were likely to bring themselves shame apparently, rather than accepting responsibility for what they said, prefer to shift the blame to the movie's producers. While I wouldn't want to prejudge the merits of their claim, I find it to be a very typical scenario and a much more obvious indicator of the trend away from personal responsibility and towards blaming other people for your own mistakes (i.e. adolescent behaviour by adults) than families who opt to have children later.
You said:
We agree that families are waiting longer to have their first child. That really isn't the issue at odds here. You havn't said anything to connect the increased age with "keeping people in a state of extended adolescence well into adulthood". I offered some common sense reasons to explain why a couple may opt to wait until they feel financially capable and stable enough to take responsibility for a new life.
And I have offered some common-sense reasons why that is ultimately a chimera and something that people have done on a whim, as a matter of social fashion.
Defended this statement adequately:
You havn't said anything to connect the increased age with "keeping people in a state of extended adolescence well into adulthood".
The connection is as plain as the nose on your face. If you get married as a man and a woman and have a child and children, those children are not just a financial and time responsibility but they are also a defining moment in your life as a couple because they constitute the building of a family, the establishment of a continuity between parents and grandparents and great-grandparents, and an ethical and moral obligation of profound importance.
More people are pushing that decision off until the last possible minute, and then trying to find ways around it, and I think that's going to cause a tremendous disruption in the way human beings live their lives on Earth. How much more plain could that connection be?
What do you think is so terribly complicated about having a child and raising that child is so difficult that it seems to be taking people so much longer to decide to do so? Having a child and raising that child well is a comparatively simple task in human evolution, or at least we should think so. It's only very recently that people have become "problematized" around the prospect of raising a family.
Than it was in the early 1970's. What has happened is that it's become fashionable for the boomers to have children later and later in life. But all of the good medical care, the excellent pediatricians, and the ability to raise a child well haven't changed much since the 1970's. People today act as though childcare in the 1970's was some antiquarian backwater but frankly it was very, very good. I know, because my pediatrician was one of the foremost female pediatricians at Johns Hopkins back in 1970.
What has changed is women's attitudes toward having children. And men have gone along with that becuase frankly, what choice do they have? And as a result we have complicated the family enormously with larger and larger numbers of women (and men) with health problems having children at later and later years for the sake of their career.
We could reverse the trend in having children later if we truly valued a young and vibrant society, but we don't. Instead we are valuing "reproductive choice" over survival, chasing after the false idol of personal success, and that's pretty consistent with every other advanced Western democracy in the world.
But all of the good medical care, the excellent pediatricians, and the ability to raise a child well haven't changed much since the 1970's.
Again, this is just incorrect. For example, from NCHS statistics, infant mortality in the first year per 1,000 has plummeted from 20 to 7 between 1970 and 2002.
Now come on... if you're going to try and argue that there havn't been extremely significant advances in post-natal and early child care over the past 35 years, then I'm going to find it hard to take the other declarations you make (without backup) on this subject very seriously.
For African Americans?
One of the amazing things about these statistics that I find hard to follow is that they never talk about the people who are actually dying according to the ethnic group, because that would be "racist."
In that timespan is that the same quality of medical care that used to cost a lot of money back in 1970 has been provided to more minorities since then. What has happened to lead to the decreasing numbers of dead infants is that the better care has been spread around to more places and made available to more people, and there has been a concerted effort to make people aware of it.
The increases in birth mortality were primarily attributed to the following:
Disorders related to short gestation and low birth weight, not elsewhere classified; and Newborn affected by maternal complications of pregnancy (table 3).
Neither of those happen after birth. Short gestation means that the baby is a preemie who for one reason or another was having big problems growing inside the mother's womb. A newborn affected by maternal complications of Pregnancy can mean a whole lot of things, as table 3 shows. Certainly having overage mothers will increase this number of problems.
a good data point for why families may want to have children earlier than later. It does nothing to support your assertion that waiting to have children is "the most important indicator" that adults and families who do are "in a state of extended adolescence".
I'll find it very hard to take you seriously unless you can come up with a dollar figure to tell me what the cost of that advanced care is for women past normal childbearing years? Who pays for that, zroxx?
Now come on... if you're going to try and argue that there havn't been extremely significant advances in post-natal and early child care over the past 35 years, then I'm going to find it hard to take the other declarations you make (without backup) on this subject very seriously.
Then people who smoke, drink, and eat bacon are just as much an indicator of an "extended adolescence" as families who have children later, since both end up "costing more". So I think you're still making a very poor argument and really stretching for a rationale.
And I realize you'd clearly prefer families to have children earlier, but using "cost to society" as part of your argument suggests that you'd rate not having children at all as preferable to either circumstance on that point...
Further, there's really no reason I can see that a family that waits isn't in a better position to absorb more of the cost. They'd be more likely to have a very good insurance plan, as well as their own funds, than the 17-24 year olds you seem to prefer as child bearers. A large chunk of those may be uninsured, and aren't even paying premiums and a deductable; those that are insured will have paid many fewer dollars in premiums into their insurance plans than families in their late twenties and early thirties. So who pays for that, Kowalski?
Because in the middle of the last century, if you were smart, one of the things you planned for at 25 years old was how you were going to raise and support a family. The increasing age trend in first births is giving lots of people a perfect excuse: "I can wait until I'm 35."
When you're 18 years old and going off to College one of the things you used to plan for was how you were going to get a family started in the next five-ten years. That's not the case any longer: the concern doesn't even exist.
Is that fatherhood has been systematically undermined in this country and the traditional family led by a male with his wife as a coequal partner has been horrendously undermined. In today's world, the woman rules the house completely and the male is almost always portrayed as feckless, irresponsible, and somewhat dim.
What that has done is diminished the ability of men to tell their children: "You may like being able to run to mommy, but I'm telling you to get the hell out and make yourself a life, because I'm not supporting you any more."
It's been a terrible influence on men everywhere in this country, and the greatest effect has been in the Black community.
I really hesitated to get into this exchange, but I seem to fit many parts of it and maybe can give some hope.
I was married at 22 and had five kids by 29. Our kids are all in their thirties now and we have a population explosion going on in our family -- nine granchildren under four! (four 2 1/2 year olds, set of twins) one eight year old and another due in May. That's eleven and I don't think they're done.
I don't think the old strident feminist agenda has the broad appeal it once did. Why? Because most girls now assume they'll get a degree in pretty much any field they choose and will pursue it. Back in Gloria's glory days, the strident feminists resented men because they blamed men for holding them down. Men became beasts in their eyes. I couldn't stand it. I admit it's still out there and runs part of the Dem party, but even then, I think it loses it's appeal over time.
I have four daughters and a daughter-in-law who have more job flexibility and seek to use this particular time in their lives have their family and to devote to early childhood issues, but later will work other paths in and around their family lives. From what I see, they enjoy it and don't want to miss any part of anything.
I totally agree with you that the TV model of fatherhood today undermines the role of men. The Desperate Housewives stuff is bull. The biggest harm, though, was when single motherhood was subsidized if the father was out of home. I don't know if we as a society will ever really recover from that.
Our family wasn't the Cleaver's, so ours know how the sausage is made. No one you live with is delightful all the time. What people need to know is that all the effort is worth it.
And think of this: All this activity keeps you young and slim!
Life is not fair, but It's still a Wonderful Life!
Kossacks when they read it. It took only one day after the election before one of the DailyKOs recommended diaries was about bringing back the Fairness Doctrine. LOL- They are not content with the GOP being a miserable failure in getting a a conservative message out- they think they must regulate those few conservative media outlets that are successful!
_________________________________________________________
Thou art the Great Cat, the avenger of the Gods, and the judge of words...-Inscription on the Royal Tombs at Thebes
I want an immediate suit against the "Daily Show" and the "Colbert Report" and "Saterday Night Live" and, for that matter any re-runs of "The West Wing". Those are political views, and they need to present a balanced view...or go off the air.
(presently holding breath!)
But I think a counter humorous programming information front should be considered.
Life is not fair, but It's still a Wonderful Life!
Count me in.
I don't think Fox News can really be considered mainstream media thought until it starts producing programming that airs on its broadcast affiliates. Brit straight up against Katie. And it needs a news staff that can produce programming for its broadcast network with gravitas similar to 60 Minutes and 20/20, covering issues like Kowalski's liberals in academia. WHat if they invested in a Daley show equivalent, from the opposite perspective, to be aired on network. One might have good reason to expect that these would be money makers for Murdoc. How does this stuff happen? Producers and investors? Looks like there are some investors here and a grass roots sales force.
John E.
Would be awesome. The sheer amount of material to draw from would be infinite. You could have daily comedic snippets on some of the left's more ludicrous/inane/hypocritical moments.
That would be a good place to show The longer we dwell on our misfortunes the greater is their power to harm us - Voltaire
there needs to be an element of truth for humor to actually be funny.
the problem with a conservative Daily Show, is who would actually believe the things the Dems do?
The GOP has long suffered from a PR problem, and the fact is, I don't see any type of short-term answer.
My first thought has been that the GOP needs to set up a PR Department with a concerted affort to put out press releases that get our point of view into the news cycle
But this does not work in today's environment. When the DNC puts out a TalkingPoints™ Memo, it is immediately picked up by the MSM as fact and echoed throughout the news cycle. A perfect case in point is Hillary's famous "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy" statement from the last decade.
It was a throwaway line. Conservatives heard it and said to themselves, "WTF?" Journalists heard it and immediately ran out to conservatives and asked, "Are you a member of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy?"
It was not even questioned that the VRWC existed. There was NO critical analysis of her statement or the validity of same. It was merely assumed to be correct because it came down from on high!
On the other hand, if the RNC or any Republican puts out a statement, if the MSM deigns to even mention it, it is noted to be TalkingPoints™ from the Republican Party.
Again, there is no critical analysis of the validity of the statement. There is no indepth study to see if the RNC claim (note it is a claim and not a statement) is infact correct.
AND that is another problem with MSM coverage of any debate. Democrats state facts, while Republicans make claims. Subtle wording of press accounts make a huge impact on the way the public perceives the message.
A GOOD reporter is aware of this subconscious wording message, and takes pains NOT to interject his own prejudices into the debate. Unfortunately, there are few GOOD reporters left in this country!
I could write a book!
VRWC remark; the notion has been ingrained in education for half a century at least. Even in ultra-conservative Jim Crow Georgia in the mid-sixties, I was being assigned to read "Seven Days in May," "Advice and Consent," and "Strangers on a Bridge" in HS Government classess, all with a liberal bent and all attrubuting to the Right a propensity for anti-democratic conspiracy. It is ingrained in the culture and the VWRC remark resonates like programming cues to a Manchurian Candidate.
Read the Italian communist thinker Gramsci, and then look at the world around us. The Left has gained control of education and the media just as he prescribed.
There are ways to combat it, but conciliatory, consensus oriented, Main Street, go to Rotary Republicans are not constitutionally equipped for it; they need too much to be liked. We need to organize our political activity the way a good executive organizes a government; the elected executive can be hail fellow well met and the Chief of Staff is a real SOB, but you never see him or her. The RNC needs to organize a storm trooper wing to the hard right and operating at the state and local level first. It would be their job to cut the Left absolutely no slack on editorial pages, local talk shows, and local political activities. The unions and the "non-profits" do this very effectively for the Ds these days so they can run appropriately "moderate" candidates to carry out their left wing agenda. We just saw this done to us nationally; the subterranean campaign was relentlessly lefty and nasty while the visible campaign was moderate and concilliatory. It works!
In Vino Veritas
http://gamecock.townhall.com and www.race42008.com
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
"It is ingrained in the culture and the VRWC remark resonates like programming cues to the Manchurian candidate."
WOW! Perfectly describes how we've all been programmed to some extent.
Your observations of what just happened to us are right on. Great organizational ideas.
Life is not fair, but It's still a Wonderful Life!
Of course it exists, it controlled two thirds of the government till last Tuesday, and you are probably a member. It was and is called the Republican Party. Theres a vast left wing conspiracy as well. The whole amplitude that story gained was because the press was clutching at anything to deflect from the Clintons.
We should produce, write and pitch this show to Fox! I know some people there who might be able to get us a meeting!
"The Road To Freedom Is Seldom Traveled By The Multitude" Madhouse Thought