If the top of the Democratic Party really was in touch with the bottom of the Democratic Party there is no way in a hundred years that Hillary Clinton would celebrate the 10th anniversary of FOX News and accept cash from Murdoch. There is no way that Harry Reid would choose FOX News to carry the Nevada debate. Prior experience should show them that FOX News doesn't give Democrats a fair shake.... ...Reid, Hillary, and Murdoch probably all 'respect' each other and see each other as 'peers'. And that might be fine and understandable, seeing as they are all wealthy, successful, and powerful people. Nothing wrong with that. Except Murdoch runs a media empire that is ostensibly out to destroy Hillary and Reid, take away their power, and relegate them to the dustpin of history. Sorry...I'm not buying it. What we have here is as obvious as the disconnect between the family values trumpeted in FOX shows like The Simpsons and The Family Guy and the values espoused by loudmouths Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly. It's a bait and switch. So...don't get me wrong...if we actually succeed in getting Nevada to drop FOX News from the debate it would be a huge move in the correct direction. It would be fantastic. It's worth trying...I guess. But sometimes it's better to choose your battles a little more carefully. If we get the higher echelons of the Democratic Party to suddenly declare FOX News a worthless propaganda outfit and to shun it...well...then I guess I've totally misjudged the state of American politics. As far as I can see, when we get up to Reid and Hillary, the distance between the parties is about as broad as the distance on the couch between James Carville and Mary Matalin.
- Booman Tribune.
Rupert Owes Bill A Big One... Clinton signed away on the Telecommunications Act that allowed all this consolidation to the point where we have 5 communications companies. It was a sweet symbiotic deal that left the people tuned into OJ all the time and Clear Channel preaching 24-7. Big money matters. Party doesn't.
Um, fact-check here: OJ was in 1993-4. The Telecommunications Act didn't pass until 1996. I guess your point is still valid, even if your facts aren't.You're right! We already had OJ all the time. In 1996 though, the Clintons made sure Americans would have less of a chance to tune them out. My bad.
The Clinton(s) of 7-14 years ago are not the Clintons of today. And Murdoch is a significant player. Murdoch is all about business, he's never been a rabid Clinton hater. If the Clintons see HIS way, then he will help them on the way. The UK has a longer history with Murdoch, but it's worth exploring how Blair's style, politics and FORTUNE changed after he got on-board with this news and power broker. Hillary is CLEARLY shunning us, our pro-diplomacy stance in the ME, our push for universal health care, fair trade policies -- same as Blair.
Jeez, and just a day after I donated to the DNC, what a letdown. We need to get Governor Dean in line on this. I mean, why should Democrats donate to our party when they are enabling the other parties propaganda wing? I seriously doubt Republicans would donate to the RNC if they began consorting with Dailykos or Mother Jones in an effort to do "outreach to liberals." What a joke.
I really think it could be effective if Chris or Matt next started a campaign to get everyone to communicate with all the candidates that debating on Fox News is unacceptable. If a few of the candidates don't debate, it will be a huge story and seriously hinder the credibility of the event.
Don't forget, Fox is the news programming delivered to our military overseas. All Fox, all the time, with all its bias...another example of Bush stacking the deck.
Something every campaign already knew even before Karl Rove reminded us of it was that you had to go after your opponent's greatest strength. Does anyone want to make the argument that having Fox News Channel to amplify their messages isn't one of the greatest strengths of Republicans? Why, then, should we not go after it and make it our own, get our messages on it, filtered or otherwise? So you think Democrats can win elections while ignoring the cable news channel with the most viewers? Rationalize it any way you want, but that attitude is just childish and unserious. Not every Fox viewer is inclined to vote Republican, and not every Fox viewer is swayed by the messages that they may not even be media-savvy enough to be aware are being foisted on them. These viewers can be persuaded to vote Democratic, and to ignore them is to say you don't want their votes. Good luck with that strategy. It's a strategy for losers. I thought we were over that.
This is a debate in a Democratic primary, so its goal isn't to persuade viewers to vote for Democrats -- only Democrats will be voting. This isn't about failing to reach out to geographic areas. It's about not being foolish enough to expect our enemies' propaganda channel to help us get a Democratic president.
No comments:
Post a Comment