The Ramparts Begin to Crumble

The Reality Check ^ | 13 July 2004 | Randall H. Nunn

[Lando Lincoln]

As the presidential campaign rolls on, it is becoming more obvious every day that the media has virtually abandoned any pretense of objectivity and has become a partisan participant in the political battle. If Bush wins re-election, the media’s power will be greatly diminished and it is fighting desperately to prevent that. Since only about 18% of the voters in this country consider themselves liberal and about 41% consider themselves conservative, liberals can continue to hold power only so long as they can continue to monopolize the dissemination of news, education and opinion and gain more time to both refine their propaganda and intensify their message in hopes of indoctrinating the young, the confused and the disaffected.

The 2004 election will be the high-water mark of the liberal media. The media has apparently decided to throw everything into this fight, holding back nothing in reserve. They are willing to risk whatever “goodwill” they have with some of the remaining readers and viewers who are less ideologically committed and who have not tuned them out as yet. Whether conservatives agree 100% with President Bush’s policies or not, this fight must be won in order to regain some semblance of balance in our culture and prevent the “nanny state” from taking greater control of our lives.

A recent Wall Street Journal article gives some indication of the media’s predicament. According to figures from Nielsen Media Research, viewership in the latest season (September 2003 to July 2004) among adults 25 to 54 years old is down for all three networks. The largest decline (15%) was for NBC Nightly News, with CBS Evening News, having the smallest share of the 3 networks, almost holding even. The thing that struck me in looking at the Nielsen numbers was that the combined total viewership in this important 25 to 54 year old group was 9.2 million. When you consider that Rush Limbaugh’s audience is about 20 million and Sean Hannity’s audience is about 12 million (admittedly containing some outside of these age groups), it shows that conservative ideas are on the ascendancy and liberals are fighting a rearguard action while the networks try to figure out a strategy to grab “mindshare” and audience from the conservatives. They obviously have not come up with a solution and their desperation is growing along with the realization that their forces are dwindling and their message of anti-Americanism and elitism is losing its appeal, except among die-hard leftists and rebellious youth trying to emulate the anti-war crowd of the 70’s, thinking that such activism is still cool and hip.

With the availability of talk radio, the Internet and outlets like FOX News, the liberal elitists are losing control of the message. There are many sources today and the once powerful role of “anchorman” is losing its clout and its appeal. Is there anyone left in America who doesn’t realize that Peter Jennings and Dan Rather have a liberal agenda? Tom Brokaw strives to appear a little more mainstream, but who among us would classify him as a conservative? The president of CBS News opines that viewers of the evening news are “making choices based on content, not just the anchors.” I have a news flash for him—to change content, one must go somewhere other than the three networks. And this probably explains why the news audiences of all three networks are declining. Intelligent viewers are going to FOX News, the Internet or are simply turning off the television and turning on the radio. From a content perspective, the choice between Dan Rather and Peter Jennings is rather like the choice between “The Simpsons” and “South Park”—we know what we are going to hear, even though the main characters may look a little different.

Gloomy as the evening news numbers look for the major networks, they may have more bad news on the horizon. If all those Hollywood types and “opinion leaders” who promised to leave the country if Bush is re-elected make good on their promises, the networks will have that many fewer watching their nightly hokum.

[Lando Lincoln]

Whether conservatives agree 100% with President Bush’s policies or not, this fight must be won in order to regain some semblance of balance in our culture and prevent the “nanny state” from taking greater control of our lives.

Lando

[Minuteman23]

Good article. But the opening sentence, As the presidential campaign rolls on, it is becoming more obvious every day that the media has virtually abandoned any pretense of objectivity and has become a partisan participant in the political battle, could have been the opening sentence of any election-year article since 1960.

[Peach]

The mainstream media have been AWOL for years.

Consider what they don't report as a sign of bias, as well as what they do report.

The Senate Intelligence Committee report says that Al Qaeda was training with Iraq on chemical, biological and nuclear materials.

The same Report says that they received 78 individual reports that Iraq was planning to attack the United States. The reports go back to 1998 to the year 2003.

Say those last few sentences a few times and ask yourself...have you ever heard that reported anywhere????

FNC reported it once; I heard it. But that is the only place it's been reported to my knowledge.

[cripplecreek]

Take a look at Lou Dobbs. Rarely were the words "illegal imigrant" uttered by him during the clinton administration. Now that Bush is president immigration issues have become a fairly regular issue on his show.

[the Real fifi]

But the misnamed Campaign Finance Reform Act will--in the 60 days before the election--block independent organizations from responding to their lies, and give them more power than ever.

[Piquaboy]

I wonder what the percentage is of those who still watch the big three?

[G.Mason]

"They obviously have not come up with a solution and their desperation is growing along with the realization that their forces are dwindling and their message of anti-Americanism and elitism is losing its appeal, except among die-hard leftists and rebellious youth trying to emulate the anti-war crowd of the 70’s, thinking that such activism is still cool and hip."

Ah ... but they have!

They see the writing on the proverbial wall.

Win or lose, the Democrat Party and their enablers, will pursue an equal, or more than equal representation of leftist programing. They will be in Congress demanding this, (though the facts are bogus, considering all media outlets) and the Republicans, wishing to be "good guys & gals", will acceede.

JMHO ;)

[LibKill]

Good post, as always.

[Uncle Hal]

Very interesting article. He is right the liberal media has thrown away all since of objectivity and is openly rooting for the Democrats and tearing down the GOP. The NY Times and the LA Times are the worst. These newspapers do not even try to hide their biases.

[hemogoblin]

The 2004 election will be the high-water mark of the liberal media.

A misused phrase; I'd say their high-water mark -- their period of greatest stature -- was when we were pulling out of Vietnam. Maybe he meant "last stand," which is what I'm hoping it'll be.

[hershey]

That's true. Lou Dobbs has been way out front on the illegal alien invasion problem. And thank God he's hammered away at it. People watch him who might not tune in Fox, because they think of themselves as Libs. So Lou might convert some on the other side. Let's hope so.

[cripplecreek]

I tend to think that men like Dan Rather look at this election as their last chance at a big score. A lot of the people in leadership roles at the networks and papers made their careers on vietnam and watergate as young reporters.

They feel the need for a big score before they retire or die.

[nothingnew]

Since only about 18% of the voters in this country consider themselves liberal and about 41% consider themselves conservative...

Interesting. Where do these figures come from?

FMCDH(BITS)

[WHBates]

The point was, I think, that is only a temporary issue based on what would hurt the president??? Not that he (Dobbs) cares two hoots about it.

[Richard Kimball]

The watershed for me was David Brinkley's pronouncement in the '92 election. For the weeks running up to the election, Ross Perot had been proclaiming that the Bush Administration was hiding the fact that the economy was on the brink of total collapse, and that after the election, they would admit it. The networks reported this information without commentary. After the polls had closed across the country, David Brinkley said, "Well, one thing the new President will have going for him is a rebounding economy. We've just received the 3rd quarter reports, and ...". Of course, they'd had these reports for over a week, but all the major media outlets sat on them until after the election.

[megatherium]

I'm a little skeptical about these numbers too. Maybe only 18% of the public self-identifies as liberal, liberal being a bad word since the Carter years; but if you look at the sorts of things people believe in, they start looking pretty liberal. My impression is that 40% of the public can be counted on to vote Kerry, 40% can be counted on to vote Bush, and the remaining 20% are the swing voters that both campaigns are fighting for.

[76834]

Not me fer sure.
I have a TV but havnt turned it on in months.
Just cannot stomach the biased media.

Really, the only reason I let the TV take up room is if a major attack takes place it will be on all channels anyway.

[Spok]

"the Democrat Party and their enablers, will pursue an equal, or more than equal representation of leftist
programing."

Absolutely. What the Democrats clearly want is the ability to censor political dissent by way of prior restaint. With help from activist courts, the First Amendment is being used to repress Christianity, and free speech protects only smut.

[Criminal Number 18F]

I think talk radio is less significant than the net. I didn't fire my TV for radio, I fired it because I can get the most important headlines, as well as information of specific interest to me, much more rapidly and more in depth on the net.

In broadcast media you are at the mercy of their schedule (how many times have we heard a Fox junkie's agony when they cut away from something important to report breathlessly on routine procedural lawyering in some local-news court case? Do the names JonBenet and Laci ring a bell? I mean, who gives a damn?) On the net if your favourite news source is having an all-Laci-all-the-time meltdown, information you care about is only a click away.

You can also find commentary that addresses your issues. If you are a homeschooler, there are people on the net who talk to you; the media thinks you're a weirdo and probably a member of some weird cult... like those ones that worship the dead guy on a stick, what's his name? If you are concerned about gun rights, there are people here who do not assume you are a drooling, racist moron with your own cousins in your ancestry; the national media has a meme that they replay where guns are concerned. Et cetera.

In fact, the three networks, the big dailies, the news magazines have marginalized themselves. They write as if the only people that count are flouncing down Castro Street or sipping latte in TriBeCa. For them, it may be true, but it also means that those are the only people who are interested in their stories. And as they are finding out, you reach a tipping point where only your own echo chamber listens to you anymore.

I can't even get factual science information in popular magazines any more, because everything is seen through their lens of negativity and political shibboleths. An example is Howard Gardner's theory of "Multiple Intelligences." You will have a hard time finding a news magazine writer who doesn't believe it's proven science. You will have a harder time finding a scientist who doesn't believe it's nonsense.

d.o.l.

Criminal Number 18F