>>TV news? You mean you asked the dinosaur's brains their opinion? So?
>>>they certainly know more than most about effective media strategy
 |
Yes. Of course they do. That is why the network news is so successful. |
Posted on 01/20/2007 2:32:19 PM PST by MindBender26
As many FReepers know, I’m spent many years in TV network news. I polled old friends and acquaintances today and with one exception, all agreed that Hillary Clinton’s announcement today that she is running for President (yawn) is a HUGE misstep.
First, she did it at a time guaranteed to get her minimum television exposure. The Saturday HUT (Homes Using Television) numbers are miniscule. When was the last time the Saturday Noon News was a “must see” for anyone?
In addition, anyone watching TV today or tomorrow is probably a man and he is tuned into sports. Not Hillary’s target audience!
She should have announced on 4:00 P.M on Thursday, after appearing earlier in the day on GMA, Today, CBSMN, and especially “The View” to coyly announce that she just might have something importance to announce “soon.”
By announcing at 4:00 on a Thursday, she would have been the lead story on all that evening’s newscasts. Thursday is often the second highest rated show of the week. Then she would have been topic #1 that night and all day Friday. She could have been back on the AM shows and The View on Friday, perhaps even a quick Oprah appearance. Friday night’s national news shows would have been all reaction stories, a visit to her hometown, yada yada yada, etc. She would have owned 36 hours of prime TV.
As it is, she chose the absolutely worst time. The Sunday AM shows will be all over it, but no undecided voters watch those shows. She will get no mojo or movement from them. By Monday, it’s old news.
Next her method of announcement. She posted it as a statement on her website.
Idiotic.
She could have gathered 2000 screaming, sigh waving supporters on the Capitol steps, balloons, a band, etc. Could have been a huge hoop de do! CNN, FNC and others would have covered it live, etc. As it was, nothing! In the words of one senior editor, “She mailed it in!”
Next, she has based her campaign on “Stopping Bush.” That’s got about 30 days worth of legs. In addition, everything she says for the next 20 months will be seen as “political.” She just threw away any chance she had of being seen as a healer or “statesman” like. Politically, she just painted a huge target on her back. Every time she says word one on any issue, an “independent” third party spokesperson can rake her over the coals, and the Republicans can stay above it all.
Finally, everyone sees it for what it is. She panicked over Obama.
He is a 60 day flash in the pan, this year’s Weasley Clark or Howard Dean. America is not about to elect a Black, Muslim-trained, admitted cocaine-using man President, no matter how good he looks on TV… this month.
The media loves him…. this month. The media that loves him now will fill the air with “investigative stories” about him next month. By April at the latest, he will be very old news
Bottom line on that issue; Hillary stood eye to eye against a totally non-electable presidential candidate…. from her own party…. and she blinked!
Mark Halperin at ABC is gushing over her announcement, but everyone else is saying “Huh?”
Another said, "She has been planning this for 20 or 30 years, and this is her best shot!?!?" "What's next, shooting Santa Claus on Christmas Eve?"
I will make no brief for Howard Dean or any other national Democratic candidate - but Howard Dean's candidacy didn't fall of its own weight any more than the Soviet Union did - it was pushed! (The USSR was pushed by Ronald Reagan).What is the Dean scream? Nothing - just a moment of cheerleading by the candidate! Made to look kooky by the way it was played back in a loop, over and over. Just as if you televised someone dancing, and didn't play the audio.
The "Dean Scream" is exactly the analog of "Finally, sir, have you no shame?" in the Army-McCarthy hearings. What was that guy whining about, anyway? Unless you read Ann Coulter's Treason, you don't know what it was about. You are not supposed to know - or care - what it was about. You are supposed to just take for granted that it was an important, and justified, cry of the heart by someone who had been heartlessly abused.
All it was actually about was McCarthy responding to a heckling challenge to name some Communist - any Communist! And McCarthy pointed out that a member of the challenger's own law firm had strong connections to the Communist Party. But McCarthy was not making an unsubstantiated claim, or even a new public revelation. He was merely repeating something his challenger himself had already publicly said.
IOW, "Finally, sir, have you no shame?" was nothing but a sniveling whine, presented to the public as if it were of cosmic importance.
The idea around which liberalism coheres is that NOTHING actually matters except PR.
I totally agree with this analysis. What really ticks me off is when I hear Republican pundits on TV stating that she can win.
|
Yes. Of course they do. That is why the network news is so successful. |
The paper's gotten a little yellow since '57, but otherwise....
LOL
...which is an idea that accurately capsulizes what represents reality to the mass audience. And that's why the conservative movement's unwillingness to embrace and effectively apply the principles of PR is its greatest failing.
The idea around which liberalism coheres is that NOTHING actually matters except PR...which is an idea that accurately capsulizes what represents reality to the mass audience. And that's why the conservative movement's unwillingness to embrace and effectively apply the principles of PR is its greatest failing.
I repeat - the idea around which liberalism coheres is that nothing actually matters except PR. Nothing.That means that a conservative cannot compete on equal terms with a liberal on the PR front - to be conservative is, ipso facto, to care about other things as well as PR.
The very term "liberal" is (in American terms) a virtue, and journalists apply the term only to those who agree with themselves, rather than to those who actually favor liberty. Journalists apply any virtue as a label only to those who agree with themselves. Progress is another American virtue, and journalists label those who agree with journalism "progressive." Moderation is a classical virtue, and centrism is a similar word - and no journalist calls any conservative "moderate" or "centrist." The virtue of objectivity journalists reserve to journalists alone - but no conservative can become an "objective journalist," and any liberal, moderate, progressive, or centrist can get a job as a journalist and instantly be "objective."
Can you say that again, but in English this time?
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.