Even today if one goes to Washington D.C. or any state capital and talks to the elected officials you will find that the vast majority believes in the power of the media. I believe the the only real power the media has is the typical politican's belief that the media does control public opinion. The evidence does not suport that belief.
I grew up in an era when the media hated Democrats and especially Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Harry Truman. Time and Life magazines were a huge power in the political world. They had huge circulations and they hated FDR and HST. Time and Life were owned by Henry Luce. Luce's his wife was a Republican Congresswoman. Harry Truman referred to Mr. and Mrs. Henry Luce as "Arsenic and old Luce!"
The most listened to Broadcast Anchor was H.V. Kaltenborn on NBC. In his 1948 election night coverage, which began when the East coast polls closed, started with the statement that it would be a short night because Dewey was going to have a massive victory. According to Kaltenborn the only thing left in suspense was what President Elect Dewey would say in his acceptance announcement and what Truman would say in his concession speech.
At seven O'Clock the next morning with the election hinging on Illinois, Kaltenborn said there was no doubt that once all the votes in Illinois were counted Dewey would be the new president. The Chicago Tribune was so sure of a Dewey victory that they had their first edition printed up before the first votes in Ill. were counted. Id had the words "DEWEY WINS" in eight inch letters on the front page. But Truman won and by 9:00Am on the day after the election even Kaltenborn had to admit it.
By 1972 the media had a new generation in charge and they were very, very, leftist. From the day to day coverage of the election in the spring and summer of 1972 one would have been certain that Nixon was going down to a massive defeat. The polls showed Nixon in line for a massive victory, but the stories on election day were all about can McGovern pull it out... not that Nixon was going to win a massive victory. If you listened, watched, or read the news on election eve and election day, the question on every reporters lips was will McGovern pull it out. It was intended to create the impression that McGovern could still win. He didn't have a chance.
The 1980 bias was incredible. The economy was in shambles with stagflation.. We were suffering a combination of double digit unemployment and double digit inflation. Plus Iran had kicked our rump with the Iran hostage crisis and still had our hostages. The media covered this failure of leadership by saying the presidency had become way too big a job for just one man.. Even a brilliant man like Jimmy Carter. They told us Jimmy was a Nuclear Scientist and was brilliant. And if Jimmy could not do the job, then no one could. The solution on every Sunday talk show was to divide the presidency into two jobs.. for two men. They also painted a picture of total disaster if Reagan were elected. If it was terrible under Carter things would just be 10 times worse under an the so called leadership of an out of work actor who could only read his handlers lines.
If one looks at the 1988 election the media painted George W. Bush as a wimp. A surviver of 35 missions as a naval torpedo plane pilot, Bush was painted as a wimp.
We experienced how the media treated George W. Bush in 2000 and 2004. In 2000 was presented as a spoiled rich kid, with no brains and little common sense. And in 2004 as the man who had stolen the election of 2000.
My point in this long diatribe is to give examples of when the media has failed. If you examine the elections since 1932 you will see that the media supported candidate has won 7 of the last 20 races. The media candidate has won 3 of the last 10 races.
That would tend to support the proposal that the media is mostly counter productive. I don't think that is true.
But what I learned from my experience is the following. That if I attacked a politician, those that already supported him attacked me and supported him. Those that did not like the politician supported me and joined the attack. Those that did not have an opinion, tended to stay undecided.
Think about it in your own life. If someone says something nasty about someone you like you defend the person being attacked. If someone says something nasty about someone you dislike you tend to agree. If you have no opinion.. an attack leaves you undecided. The usual reaction of the undecideds is "I would like to hear the other side before I make a decision."
If one wants to persuade a majority of the public, one has to reach those undecideds and cause them to decide. Those undecideds have to believe they have heard both sides and that THEY are making the decision.. not the media.
Roger Ailes pretty much understands persuasion in We Report You decide approach for FOX. Many of us are angry when Fox presents the news from the lefts standpoint. Fox does that. They also present the news from the rights standpoint. Fox does that too. It is for that reason, that they are so influential.
But the stupidity of CNN blows my mind. They put a big X over Chaney.. to put him down. What they do is totally unite the Right, and alienate the Center while pleasing the left. Silly tricks like that are counter productive.
Shows like the Rush and Sean radio programs are good for energizing the base. Base turn out is important. But Rush and Sean preach to the choir they do not make converts.
What the right needs is more media that fairly presents both sides. Given the success of capitalism as economic policy and the success of the Reagan-Bush approach to foreign policy, the right should welcome that sort of coverage. In fact it is an essential coverage. It is by far the best way to win the contest for the hearts and minds of a solid majority of voters.
Absolutely stupendous reply to a marvelous initial post. This is a keeper sequence if there ever was one.
You're from my era (I'm 62) and I remember well the historical points you make. In addition, your main point is right on; the 'power of the media' is illusory at best. Oh, sure, the elites both in the media and politics believe that public opinion can be swayed by a constant infusion of rhetoric and managed news. And to some degree this is true. But the large majority of us are fully capable of making up our own minds, acting on our own decisions, and seeing through all the BS. And that is precisely why the left has not been successful in establishing their 'utopia'.
I also agree with your final two paragraphs. Conservative talk radio and television are fine for energizing the base but do little to get the truth out to all Americans. Most people don't listen or watch these broadcasts and aren't exposed to the truth. In addition, many (if not most Americans) don't follow the news whether through newspapers, radio or TV and are clueless about what is really going on in our country. These deficiencies will never be overcome by conservative talk radio/TV. They will only be addressed and rectified by a structural shift in how the MSM views and reports the news. Fox is a start but much more needs happen before we can even begin to see victory ahead.
Again, a wonderful post. My hats off to you.