Posted on 11/16/2012 8:00:49 AM PST by RatherBiased.com
Most observers of the 2008 presidential campaign -- even including some liberals after the fact -- were shocked and appalled by the media's pro-Barack Obama sycophancy. Unfortunately, the intentional and unintentional advocacy of the media on behalf of Obama was even worse in 2012.
There are many reasons why the conservative movement failed to achieve electoral success this year, but perhaps one of the most significant is the enduring power and influence of the left-dominated "mainstream" media. The 2012 cycle demonstrated that left-wing journalists have far more sway on Americans' opinions than many conservatives have been willing to admit.
While the right's ability to access mass audiences has increased substantially in recent decades with the advent of talk radio, cable television, and the Internet, its audience reach is still tiny compared to the hundreds of millions who consume news generated by the liberal mainstream media.
It is true that the audience share of these supposedly objective outlets has decreased in recent years, but that hardly means they have lost their ability to persuade people, especially with working journalists now ever more willing to throw their self-styled proclamations of objectivity to the wind.
(Excerpt) Read more at spectator.org ...
“seldom thing to become” should be “seldom think to become”
We need to do a mass march on the networks.
We need to buy an over-the-air network and can all the liberals.
I’ve done a lot of reading since the election and I now conclude that Romney lost because of organized massive voter fraud. The voters, poll operators, machines, vote counting agencies, are all corrupt. To let this slip by without widespread investigations is derelict of duty.
ping
I’m with you. Democrats have gotten away with voter fraud for so many years that they’re getting sloppy with it. And obvious....
Obama the other day was talking about how he liked some of Romney's ideas - yeah - that's because Romney HAD ideas. What dems have is 'tactics' and thuggery, and scams ... That what dems are good at - third world type thuggery. But they know and we know they can't buy voters if the productive people of this society don't give them money...
If we let dems 'govern' based on their ideas, they'll fail.
In the meantime our job should be to shore up the vote - keep the creepy little totalitarians from stealing our right to vote and with it, our future.
I always thought that the conservatives (not necessarily the Republicans) should reject and fight back against the straw men arguments set up in interviews, be it the Sunday shows, debates,etc. I thought Romney missed a great opportunity to slam both Schiefer and Candy Crugly about the contect of the questions, much like what Newt did.
Instead of playing nice nice, they need to call out the hypocracy every single change they get.
No way they figure it out before the SS Progressive goes under. No way. They threw all of that hope over the side and it's smart enough to swim back to shore.
I’m not buying the premise. Buckwheat’s win can be explained in two words: Voter fraud.
Republicans and conservatives have huge majorities in states. In 2010, republicans completely controlled 25 states. In 2012, that number grew to 30 states. In state-wide races, rats are being thrown out of office all across the country. Rats have lost 700 state legislative seats since 2008. The propaganda press wasn’t effective in the states.
Goebbels would have envied our MSM.
Sure Republicans won in 2010. But that was only because the Dems did not vote.
See this link for the sad reality of American politics:
http://www.people-press.org/2012/06/01/trend-in-party-identification-1939-2012/
There was only 1 point since 1939 that Republicans have outnumbered Democrats among surveys of adults (note: not voters or likely voters)
Until we admit that we have a huge cultural relevance problem, we will continue to lose.
In the founding era journalism consisted of notoriously independent printers, and newspapers were weeklies. In the middle of the Nineteenth Century, the telegraph network was built up, and the Associated Press united the printers, even tho they remain nominally independent. The crucial independence which printers gave up in joining the AP lies in the assumption - essential to the exploitation of the telegraph - that all reporters within the AP network are objective. If that isn’t taken for granted, the printer has no basis for trusting reports from journalists in distant cities whom he has never even met, let alone vetted and hired. That explains the massive propaganda campaign promoting journalistic objectivity as the default assumption. The public has been subjected to that propaganda barrage since the memory of living man runneth not to the contrary.Whatever happened to that guy who wrote on this site, “soon the networks will be just a few of millions of urls on the web. Shortly after the 08 elections the network newscasts will go dark...” Who was that guy and is he still here?But if you look at all critically at the “journalistic objectivity" assumption, it crumbles of its own weight. The reality of journalistic perspective is quite distant from objectivity. The perspective which inheres in journalism is that the things which happened recently are important, and that the things that changed quickly are more important than those which change slowly, or not at all. Things which happen rarely are important, while things which usually happen are of no significance. And bad things are more important than good things.
The fundamental fact is that nobody can be certain of their own objectivity. That being the case, the most that can be expected is a good-faith effort at objectivity - and any such effort must begin with an open examination of the reasons why one might not be objective. The problem with that, tho, is that openness about the reasons you might not be objective would tend to negate the claim that you actually are objective. Any claim of actual objectivity is incompatible with any good-faith attempt at objectivity. And membership in an organization (e.g., the AP) which you know will claim objectivity for you is tantamount to claiming objectivity for yourself.
abb
“Sure Republicans won in 2010. But that was only because the Dems did not vote.”
Republicans won in 2008 and 2012 when rats allegedly turned out in force. I’m not buying what you’re selling. The numbers of conservatives and republicans in state legislatures speak for themselves.
Instead of throwing a chart at me, try explaining why republicans are dominating state legislative races. I’m on your side and am not picking a fight. I’m simply looking for a reasonable explanation of why conservatives dominate state races and lose national races. My reasoned judgment tells me voter fraud. Many of these ballots have only obuma’s name marked on the ballot. That doesn’t make sense.
He's already got something going. The Blaze TV . It has his show plus The Real News with a cast of younger people discussing the day's news, and several other good shows.
He wants to expand- Give the MSM a run for their money, but it takes finances to get it off the ground, and keep it rolling.
I urge all Freeper's (and especially any Big money Repubs) to read the article here- It's spot on- then go to Glenn Beck's site and sign up for the 14 day free trial. See for yourself what he's up to- It's free- Then please back him him up in what he's trying to do.
He's got the plans, and the ability to get them going. He just needs the support to make it happen. What he's trying to build is exactly what we need now.
We have GOT to get caught up in these areas. It's cost us sooo much to not understand the effects of the MSM and how they operate in our society.
As for the election disaster- IMHO Mitt Romney lost to Big Bird.
The minute he made that statement about not funding Sesame Street at the debate- I knew the MSM was going to take it and run with it. It played into every negative stereotype of our side there is i.e.-mean spirited, cold, greedy ,against-the-children.
If Mitt and his team , had taken the time to understand how the MSM plays this game- in election after election- he would have never given them that advantage.
Still, he might have been able to salvage it, if he had used it to illustrate our cause i.e. -by explaining how much the Sesame Street people make (guy who plays Big Bird gets BIG buks), how much they make in merchandising and so on.. and then tie it to , a small business trying to pay its taxes.
Say that the business has to lay off workers to pay its taxes, in order to give Sesame Street money they don't really need.
Make the point that this is totally unfair to the laid off workers, so, asking Sesame Street to pay for itself is NOT an example of repubs " being mean to BIG BIRD".
( And it would shock most people to know how much they -Sesame Street- do get=big $$$$$$$ on top of the government money.)
He could have used it to MAKE PEOPLE THINK about what each of the parties REALLY stands for and what happens when you give them power i.e.Free Stuff" IS NOT FREE.
(Now we get to learn this lesson the hard way.)
Mitt could also have pointed out the bias of the MSM- how they play on people's emotions -and they do NOT show both sides. (They never WILL either.)
And he said little to nothing about Obama's so called health plan. Not one Republican was for it. They didn't even read it before passing it, and its a total financial and medical nightmare.
He should have been reminding people every day-in detail- about all the things that got the Tea Party started in the first place-the death panels , massive debt, and all the other horrors we had forgotten about (but now will sadly, be subjected to). Little was said about it. Now our health system-the best in the world- is in ruins. Tragic
(I don't even want to say anything about the wide spread voter fraud-been saying it for over 10 years -the repubs have done little to nothing. If they don't fix it- they might as well go home now and wait for the overlord's to tell us all what to do.-uGHHHH!!!).
It's too late for now, but maybe, if there's anything left of this country, after 4 more years of Marxism , maybe the Pubs will grow a spine, and figure out how to win.
God help us.
Good questions.
We now have a Republican supermajority here in the Indiana legistature and a Republican governor.
But Romney ran well ahead of the Republican governor.
So we’re not much of a case study.
Yeh, this is getting SO OLD. The repubs need to insist, next time (if there is a "next time") to ONLY attend debates moderated by both sides. One from theirs (MSM), one from ours (Rush, Mark, Sean).
Each side asks one question, then other side gets to ask the next one, and so on.
This would make the debates interesting and informative, instead of the boring "Got ya" sessions they are now.
Yes, I’m still here, but I don’t spend as much time here as I used to. I spend a lot of time on my own newsblog trying to do what I can to change the complexion of news reporting in my local area.
Everyone here on FRee Republic pretty much is in agreement on what is conservatism and why it is a good thing. It’s really a waste of our time to stay in the echo chamber reinforcing each others worldview.
It’s the rest of the electorate who needs educating.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.