MyDD :: Low Information Elites and Fox News

Low Information Elites and Fox News

by Matt Stoller, Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 01:56:42 AM EST

Chris has noted that voters who pay a lot of attention to politics are different than voters who don't. That's true. There's also a subtle and less well-understood difference between leaders who understand and pay attention to the dynamics of political media and those who don't. If you're a policymaker, or if you pay attention to elite discourse such as that in the New York Times while living in a high information culture, it's easy to ignore television and/or cable news. It's even easier to pretend that the televised propaganda coming at most Americans every day isn't important or relevant, or even that it does not exist.

Journalists themselves, many of whom often tell me that they don't consider Fox News 'news' or that they are 'print' with a dismissive nod towards what's on TV, are the worst offenders. But many within the Democratic Party are similarly unaware of the full news environment. They don't for instance get that Fox News is a partisan Republican outlet, as opposed to MSNBC or CNN which aren't, even though they have mostly partisan shows hosted by Tucker Carlson, Joe Scarborough, and Glenn Beck. It's not that these low information elites particularly like or respect cable news, it's that the marginal difference between cable news channels are not necessarily noticeable. One is basically as good as the other, or maybe, broadcast is better than cable, or perhaps Sunday shows are highly prestigious.

Anyway, one specific way that bloggers and activists differ from elites in the party is that we notice and take Fox News and the right-wing radio circuit seriously as a part of public discourse. We believe that people watch and listen to these outlets, and believe what these outlets say. We recognize these outlets as affirmative carriers of diseased misinformation, not as market suppliers for a conservative public. Roger Ailes and Fox News aren't just an inevitable part of the news environment; they are adversaries, as much as Mitch McConnell if not more so. They are powerful purveyors of Republican propaganda, but it's both possible and important to damage their capacity to deliver information to the public branded as newsworthy. Even if journalists refuse to distinguish between what they do and what Fox News does, we believe that this distinction is important.

Low information elites don't see any of this. They haven't been educated as to the purpose of Fox News, and often believe that the public can simply see through Fox News or any of the other cable news channels. After all, it's obvious to these elites what is and isn't true, because they have access to the newsmakers or elite information streams themselves. Many of them hope to get onto Fox News, because they don't realize that Democrats don't gain from going on a Republican propaganda outlet. They do not distinguish between Fox News and MSNBC, and they do not understand why and how right-wing media works. There's just a lot less media and communications literacy among these low information elites than there is among bloggers and activists, mostly because we are at the receiving end of the propaganda and being insulted, lied to, marginalized and then blamed for the poor state of the party and the country gets old after awhile.

Anyway, it's just something I've noticed throughout this scuffle. There's just a lot less awareness of the media landscape within the party and within the journalistic establishment than I expected.

Tags: Fox News, Presidential debate, debate, 2008, netroots, Roger Ailes (all tags)

Permalink :: 72 Comments :: Post a Comment

I'm thinking it's willful ignorance (3.00 / 1)

Everybody must know by now that Fox News has an agenda. But in certain circles it's been like some sort of faux pas to mention it.

The Great Keith Olbermann started to change that, however, and now Fox is really screwing itself with these comments by its big-wigs that bear no resemblance to how a genuine news organization would present itself.

John Edwards 2008

by MeanBoneII on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 02:29:09 AM EST

Re: I'm thinking it's willful ignorance (none / 0)

I was amused to see some of the talking heads on cable make comments like "There are some on the left who think Fox news is biased..." It is important for Democrats to make these patently false statements sound stupid, since they are.

The Nevada debate cancellation gives me real hope.

by anothergreenbus on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 07:08:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

A nice pet (3.00 / 1)

project would be to launch a public shaming campaign of Juan Williams, Alan Colmes, Mara Liason and the other "liberals" and mainstream journalists who give FOX the illusion of balance. Mara Lisason works for NPR and sits there silently while Krauthammer suggests bombing Iran or some shit. And it's not as if Fox doesn't pick their useful idiots carefully; I mean, Colmes and Williams are some serious lightweights.

As for Matt's larger point, I think the Democratic Establishment is basically aware of Fox's bias but in their time honored tradition of running scared, they're intimidated by Fox's ratings and imagine that they might alienate a chunk of the "middle" if they took on Fox. Thankfully, with the developments of the last few days, the netroots seems to be leading the party in another direction.

by david mizner on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 08:51:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A nice pet (3.00 / 2)

Juan Williams is a liberal like Joe Lieberman is a Democrat.

by BlueinColorado on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 11:51:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A nice pet (3.00 / 1)

Juan Williams is the "Clarence Thomas" of public radio.

African-American, right-wing tool, had an extensive history of sexual harassment charges against him when he worked at the Washington Post.

I suppose I should be more grateful that Juan was "promoted" to his new, more seldom-heard role as a "senior news analyst" or whatever. But 'm still a little bitter after being subjected to the guy for months on end during his notorious role as the Talk of The Nation host as well as on of the lead reporters for NPR covering the Florida elections.

On Talk of the Nation or his post-elections "special report", Williams always had a cabel of ultra-conservatives on hand like John "Torture" Yoo who insisted Americans didn't want or need silly, trivial little nicities like actually counting the ballots or making sure registered voters could actually vote. No, what we Americans needed, according to Juan and company, was a blessed sense of "closure" which would allow us to "rally around the new president."

Juan Williams is on my A-list of Republican media whores.

by midwestmeg on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 01:11:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Not Only A History of Sexual Harrassment (3.00 / 1)

Williams also defended Clarence Thomas at the same time he was fighting a sexual harrassment lawsuit, and was given a prominent media platform to do so.

Fairness and Accuracy in Media notes:

Juan Williams

False Feathers: Formerly a regular "left" substitute host on Crossfire , the former Washington Post writer now appears on Fox News as "balance" to the likes of Tony Snow, Brit Hume, Fred Barnes and Morton Kondracke.

True Colors: Williams proclaimed that "liberals have become monsters" (Washington Post , 10/10/91), because the "so-called champions of fairness: liberal politicians, unions, civil rights groups and women's organizations," were attacking his friend Clarence Thomas.

In his search for a black alternative to Jesse Jackson, Williams wrote a Washington Post Magazine piece (6/9/91) praising Virginia Gov. Douglas Wilder, a fiscally conservative Democrat, as "arguably the most important black American politician of the 20th Century." Months later, Wilder entered the race for president, only to withdraw before the New Hampshire primary.

by Paul Rosenberg on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 02:17:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A nice pet (none / 0)

None of them are liberals; they just play them on TV.

FOX hires people like alan colmes to play straight man/straw man for their actual pundits. Their most important function is to display wishy-washy behavior so that even conservatives look macho by comparison.

by admiralnaismith on Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 10:43:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'm thinking it's willful ignorance (3.00 / 1)

No, everyone doesn't know. For one thing, Fox SAYS it is "fair and balanced." It's about how marketing works, which is about how the mind works. As the world gets more complex people need a handle - a shorthand - to hang onto for them to be able to understand things. "Fair and balanced" is a branding statement, repeated in many of the places where a lot of people get their information - Limbaugh, Drudge, etc - and the way it works is that people get that set in their mind that THIS is the "fair and balanced" one, while the rest are not. And until now there was little information reaching most people saying this isn't the case. It just works that way.

Branding is very powerful. You make your statement, and it forms in people's minds that you are THIS one... Once you have done that it is very hard to knock it out - to harm the brand. It can happen.

Pepsi IS for the new generation.

-- Seeing the Forest

by davej on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 11:13:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'm thinking it's willful ignorance (none / 0)

"fair and balanced".

The same way the Third Reich called itself "National Socialist" and communist china called itself a "People's Democratic Republic".

Tyrants love to brand themselves as their opposite. Orwell told us that.

by admiralnaismith on Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 10:46:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Here's a GREAT headline from a non-Fox source: (3.00 / 2)

ABC News:

Family Values? Three Republicans, Eight Wives

John Edwards 2008

by MeanBoneII on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 02:54:49 AM EST

They Love Families. Just Couldn't Get Enough! (3.00 / 1)

It's simple, really, and there's no hypocritical mess!

Wine lovers drink lots of wine.

Family values lovers have lots of families.

What could be simpler?

by Paul Rosenberg on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 07:15:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: They Love Families. Just Couldn't Get Enough! (none / 0)

And wine tasters spit it back out...

by Bob Brigham on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 10:40:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Now! Now! (none / 0)

No reason to go all reality-based on us!

by Paul Rosenberg on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 01:58:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

a line from the Giuliani article there (3.00 / 1)

Here's a line from an article on ABC News about Giuliani:

He has also marched in gay pride parades, dressed up in drag and lived temporarily with a gay couple and their Shih Tzu.

What's with the Shih Tzu? Is that supposed to be a "gay dog" or something? Would they have mentioned it if it were a Bluetick Coonhound named Buford?

That whole article is pretty obviously an oppo article from other Republicans designed to put Rudy in the most gay-friendly, anti-family, New Yorker light.

Fun stuff over there on the other side ...

by BriVT on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 07:48:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: a line from the Giuliani article there (none / 0)

Would they have mentioned it if it were a Bluetick Coonhound named Buford?

hahahahahahahaha

by Laurin from SC on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 05:11:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 3 Republicans, 8 wives (3.00 / 1)

Ever notice how the only leading GOP contender who's only been married once...is the Mormon?

by admiralnaismith on Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 10:47:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Low Information Elites and Fox News (none / 0)

What MyDD?

by vanni on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 03:34:06 AM EST

Re: Low Information Elites and Fox News (3.00 / 1)

Has anyone already commented that now we see why Reid was dragging his feet? He did not want to appear to be "in thrall the the left-wing extremists". I guess that is a bad play anyway because it was an opportunity for Reid to show that this part of the Democratic party is not exteme but mainstream. Ah well, better luck next time.

by pwax on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 07:14:50 AM EST

Re: Low Information Elites and Fox News (none / 0)

Everyone keep in mind that without the setup by MyDD and Edwards' decisive action this would not have happened. MyDD + Edwards brought the debate to a boiling point for Dems. People like Reid couldn't back down once Fox made an asinine remark, as they are always want to do.

If it had not been set up this way and Edwards had not pulled out, Obama would have participated because he couldn't let an Edwards/Clinton debate go on without him. The net roots would have looked like ineffectual losers. The mechanics are important if this kind of action is going to be replicated on other issues.

Clinton's motivations and silence in this little battle have not been scrutinized yet. Has Hillary asked Fox to cut the crap?

by anothergreenbus on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 10:40:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Low Information Elites and Fox News (none / 0)

Kos played a role as well.

"And so in the place of the palace of privilege, we seek to build a temple out of faith and hope and charity."-FDR

by jallen on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 03:17:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Low Information Elites and Fox News (none / 0)

Right you are.

by anothergreenbus on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 03:25:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Low Information Elites and Fox News (none / 0)

yeah so did skippy.

as to jonathan's original piece:

affirmative carriers of diseased misinformation

as opposed to healthy misinformation?

"blogtopia - yes, i coined that phrase!"

by skippy on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 08:18:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Low Information Elites and Fox News (3.00 / 2)

Having been an early benefactor of the netroots and grassroots efforts during his 2004 run for the presidency, Howard Dean ignored the their concerns and his better judgement to endorse the FOX debate. Congrats to Edwards.

by fafnir on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 07:30:18 AM EST

I'm Not A Deaniac, But Let's Be Fair (none / 0)

We don't know enough about this whole process even now that we've gotten what we wanted. It seems very likely that this was a state-level decision--perhaps a joint decision of several western state parties. And, given Dean's committment to empowering state parties, if that's the case then Dean's support ought to be seen in that light.

From that analysis, the conclusion is obvious: don't target Dean. Set your sights on taking over state parties.

It's Ideological, Folks--But In A Nuanced Way

I've heard a number of folks say that the state chair is a non-ideological position. I think this struggle shows once and for all that's simply a lie.

It's not ideological in an advocacy sense--that is undeniably true. The state chair's committment is to strengthen and grow the party as a whole. But how they set about doing that is inevitably a reflection of their ideological perspective. One need not be a left-liberal to take an oppositional (vs. an accomodationist) approach to politics, but OTOH, a conservative Dem will almost always see things from an accomodationist (if not an outright GOP-lite) perspective.

So let's be clear. While we need not hold party activists to an issues-based litmus test--there's bound to be wide diversity in the Democratic Party, there always has been--we need to start seriously addressing a perceptual/attitudinal test to identify those who are truly opposed to the GOP, as opposed to merely being envious. Or whatever.

p.s. I should also be clear that I'm not advocating for a total, 100%, knee-jerk oppositional stance. If there's a flood, you don't ask people their party affiliation before you help them into your boat. That should go without saying. I'm talking about the basic political orientation that recognizes how the game is played, and strives to win because our values, ideas and the people we represent deserve it--rather than merely trying to survive by sucking up any which way we can.

by Paul Rosenberg on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 02:37:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'm Not A Deaniac, But Let's Be Fair (none / 0)

I was a "Deanic" who helped canvas some fairly regressive areas in the commonwealth of Virginia to get the 10,000 signatures required to place Howard Dean's name of the Democratic primary ballot.

My earlier comment was not intended to target Dean; however, I believe my observation of his lapse in judgement is fair and reasonable.

This unique situation regarding Fox News and the Nevada Democratic Party required high-level intervention to avoid a catastrophic outcome. Barring Roger Ailes sticking his big foot in his fat mouth to help kill the deal, adding Dean's voice to the pressure already applied by the netroots and grassroots would've been indispensable in avoiding a disastrous train wreck.

My point, metaphorically, is that when you have misguided family members ready to leap into the conservative abyss, you don't give them a shove; you help pull them back to safety.

by fafnir on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 09:03:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Agreed, But... (none / 0)

my bottom line is simply that we don't know what happened.

Dean obviously gave public cover to the state-level people, whom he had pledged to help when he ran for DNC chair.

But for all we know, he could have been lobbying behind the opposite way behind the scenes, saying, "Look, I gave you guys cover, but this is really a bad idea, you need to find a graceful way out."

My point here is not to defend him, but to highlight the continuing back-room-deal process that leaves all of us in the dark. As long as decision-making remains so opaque, we just won't know. So we should be focused on taking over state party organizations, and making them more progressive, more transparent and more accountable.

In short, the real problem for me, so far as Dean is concerned, is not that he supported the debate, but that he hasn't done enough to bring transparency to the process, so that we could actually tell what was going on.

by Paul Rosenberg on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 11:56:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Low Information Elites and Fox News (3.00 / 1)

it's obvious to these elites what is and isn't true, because they have access to the newsmakers or elite information streams themselves.

I think this is a key point. In my experiences being on the inside of information streams, a lot of the information publicly available looks pretty incomplete. In that situation, you have access to so much more information that it all looks slightly off, and the differences between outlets is generally smaller than the difference between what you know and what any of them portray.

Also, the "news media" is far more personalized when you are in that situation. News networks and outlets matter less than individual reporters. There are some good reporters at bad outlets and vice versa. And, since you only tend to notice stories that are directly related to your campaign/issue/boss, it's harder to get a sense of the overall slant of outlets.

However, this is not to say that there aren't a lot of folks on the inside who have a very, very good understanding of what Fox News is all about. Just that if your normal job doesn't involve communications, it is possible to miss the overall milieu of a Fox News. Or at least miss the severity of their bias.

by BriVT on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 07:40:19 AM EST

No, They're Just Insular and Stupid Like Marie (3.00 / 1)

Antoinette.

I understand what you're trying to say here, Matt, but "low information voters" are folks who really don't pay much attention to politics. These folks pay a great deal of attention to politics--it's just extremely skewed attention, in more ways than one.

I had a classic experience of this back during the Iran-Contra hearings. The Dems had Oliver North testify on national TV, and they just let him walk all over them, saying whatever he wanted. He went on and on praising them as akin to the founding fathers, or whatever. It was really sickening.

So I called up my congressman's office, and spoke to an aide there, who patiently informed me, that of course they knew North was lying about the Contras, but that that wasn't really the focus of the hearings, so he wouldn't be challenged on that.

They would, of course, challenge him, I was patiently assured, as if I had the IQ of a cucumber sandwich. But they would do this later, when all those pesky TV cameras went away.

The congressman's name was Mel Levine. And it was hardly the only act of extreme stupidity to come out of his office. In fact, he styled himself as Reagan's harshest critic on Latin American affairs. In the insular and stupid world inside the Beltway, he may really have believed that about himself. But back home, activists were always clashing with him, because his criticism was always so well circumscribed.

That was 1987. In 1992, he ran for US Senate. Lincoln Blvd. is a major thoroughfare running north/south through his district. In early 1992, you could drive for miles down Lincoln Blvd. in either direction without seeing a single sign for him. All the available space was plastered with signs for Barbara Boxer. He lost badly in his own district, coming in third, if memory serves me well. Just as he did statewide.

I have two points, both simple:

(1) Their media stupidity cannot be unpacked from their over-all insularity, or contempt for the people they supposedly represent. While it certainly produces a somewhat similar phenomena to that of low-information voters in the ways you outline, the context it comes out of is entirely different.

(2) They are much more easily replaced than re-educated. Just stop voting for the stupid ones. Find candidates to run against them, and support the hell out of them.

by Paul Rosenberg on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 07:47:17 AM EST

Re: No, They're Just Insular and Stupid Like Marie (none / 0)

Try living with Lieberman as your representative! I did't vote for him. I would like him impeached.

by orion1 on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 08:02:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

At Least You've Got Outside Recognition (none / 0)

Back in the 1980s, it was not so easy to build national recognition for the shenanigans of a "mere" representative.

In 1988, a progressive activist decided to file to run against Levine. I gave him $50, only to discover that I was his #2 campaign contributor. (Casey Kasem was #1.) Even the activists in his district didnt' devote themselves to trying to oust him, absent an effective means to organize substantial out-of-district support. He made a pretty decent showing, however, which indicated that folks in the district were not all that happy with Levine.

So, be glad that folks across the country know the score on Lieberman. And keep working to make sure he doesn't even try to run for re-election next time around.

by Paul Rosenberg on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 02:43:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No, They're Just Insular and Stupid Like Marie (none / 0)

i would like him impeached.

what's the procedure for recalling a senator in connecticut?

"blogtopia - yes, i coined that phrase!"

by skippy on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 08:20:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No, They're Just Insular and Stupid Like Marie (none / 0)

This is something I think should be investigated. Point me in the right direction on where to start.

by orion1 on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 09:16:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No, They're Just Insular and Stupid Like Marie (none / 0)

You can't do it.

"And so in the place of the palace of privilege, we seek to build a temple out of faith and hope and charity."-FDR

by jallen on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 10:28:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No, They're Just Insular and Stupid Like Marie (none / 0)

Believe me that's my intention. It's called working together.

by orion1 on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 11:14:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No, They're Just Insular and Stupid Like Marie (none / 0)

No, I mean it legally cannot be done.

"And so in the place of the palace of privilege, we seek to build a temple out of faith and hope and charity."-FDR

by jallen on Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 12:47:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No, They're Just Insular and Stupid Like Marie (none / 0)

senators are officers under the federal Constitution, and there is no way for states (voters) to get rid of them once they're in. They can only be expelled by a vote in the Senate (maybe if convicted of a crime, which would lead to expulsion anyway, if anybody had the nerve to brazen out indictment/trial)> the only way to get rid of Lieberman is if he quits or gets kicked upstairs or to an embassy.

by BlueinColorado on Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 03:03:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No, They're Just Insular and Stupid Like Marie (none / 0)

Well that's the flip side. Many of these people are just insular weaklings who have contempt for the public, which is why they don't care about what's on TV. It's only the plebes that watch TV.

Journalists are the worst on this.

by Matt Stoller on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 10:23:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Low Information Elites and Fox News (none / 0)

This was a great analysis. I just started reading the blogs about a year ago. I have told anyone who will listen "watch the faux news then read a fews blogs tell me where you are finding the story." Living here in Connecticut we had a unique experience. I would love if the blogs had a place you could send a Tip on a story. I am a better investigator than writer.

by orion1 on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 07:54:36 AM EST

Re: Low Information Elites and Fox News (none / 0)

You can send email to the blogger, usually.

by Matt Stoller on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 10:22:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Low Information Elites and Fox News (3.00 / 2)

Matt wrote:

Anyway, one specific way that bloggers and activists differ from elites in the party is that we notice and take Fox News and the right-wing radio circuit seriously as a part of public discourse. We believe that people watch and listen to these outlets, and believe what these outlets say.

Yes, exactly. Which is why once again I am going to advocate that Bowers and Stoller hire a media consultant (preferably a former radio producer) to help you rewrite some of your posts into radio essays for NPR.
Recently, someone over at Firedoglake was decrying that NPR seems to run radio essays almost exclusively from rightwing think tanks. That's because the wingers have people willing to step up and do those essays. We need the same.
I don't think it would be that expensive for you guys to hire a radio producer and rent a little time in a studio to practice doing some good NPR radio essays.
And nobody is saying you have to go on to become multimedia superstars, just do some radio essays so we can get our ideas back up into the NPR ether.

by johnalive on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 07:55:52 AM EST

Re: Low Information Elites and Fox News (3.00 / 2)

In fact, I'll put my money where my mouth is: I pledge to donate $500 if you guys will commit to doing some radio essays with the help of a radio producer.
You are already great communciators, you just need to have your material revised for spoken-word radio format, and get a little practice at the studio.

by johnalive on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 09:04:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Low Information Elites and Fox News (3.00 / 1)

great idea! it's easy to distribute audio these days.

by mightymouse on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 12:47:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Low Information Elites and Fox News (none / 0)

This idea to expand your reach is a good one, as the skills would be useful beyond essays on NPR. Is there enough coming in from the recurring donations to support this project in addition to the blogsite awards you've made?

by Books Alive on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 11:16:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Low Information Elites and Fox News (none / 0)

Absolutely right on the money. Most bloggers, diarists and lurkers like me, do not have the research tools that you do - that's why we come here.
But that's not why I am posting this comment::
Here's something that is so richly deserving of a RODINO committee, that it may take a year to sort it out. But the puzzle is already in place; the elephants are done drinking, and now, all that we need to do is find the elephants!!
GO HERE::: it's worth its words in GOLD!!!
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/3/10/ 21556/5045

"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens, etc., etc...." -M.Meade "I, on the other hand, am not so sanguine." -ezdidit

by ezdidit on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 08:26:56 AM EST

How do we make this stick? (none / 0)

The cancellation of the Fox Nevada debate was an excellent instance of shifting the Overton window regarding public (and elite) perceptions of Fox, but we need to make sure the Democrats don't backslide. And to do that we need to make sure that Democratic leaders internalize the view of Fox as nothing but right-wing propaganda. This can't be seen as a one-time instance of a bone thrown to the pesky netroots.

I just shake my head that so many Dem political leaders can't see Fox for what it is, when it's so mind-numbingly obvious to anyone who watches them for ten minutes. We need new leaders.

by Master Jack on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 08:41:35 AM EST

Re: How do we make this stick? (3.00 / 0)

They get mesmerized by a microphone in their face and a bimbette asking them questions. It is an occupational hazard.

by billybob on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 04:49:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Low Information Elites and Fox News (none / 0)

There's just a lot less awareness of the media landscape within the party and within the journalistic establishment than I expected.

preach it brother

it is clear none of our vaunted leaders have been reading The Daily Howler, Somerby should required reading for every Democrat, especially elected ones.

and Vastar books should print that book he never wrote about the 2000 election.

by Alice Marshall on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 08:44:29 AM EST

Re: Low Fox News (none / 0)

Congratulations, Matt. I think you started this campaign by saying WTF. Following through, you were joined by others. It is a significant beginning that (astoundingly) no one has had the courage for until now.
Thank you for standing up and starting it off.
Like Rosa Parks refusing to move to the back of the bus, it is a most significant beginning for the struggle ahead.

by syolles on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 10:03:05 AM EST

It's their JOB to know, but they don't know anyway (3.00 / 1)

Which is the really disgusting thing. Journalists and op-ed writers covering or pontificating about national politics - it's quite literally their job to understand the forces in play in the national political landscape, whether it's the blogosphere, AM talk radio, or the politics of TV evangelists.

And while it may not be in the specific job descriptions of Dem politicians to understand such things, how are they going to fight for what they believe in, strongly and intelligently, unless they understand the forces arrayed against them?

Makes my head spin.

by RT on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 10:27:37 AM EST

They try, but... (none / 0)

Sometimes, they do try to find out, but for them, it's like a zoologist studying an animal.

That's why Brian Williams from NBC listens to Rush Limbaugh -- not because Williams is a conservative, but because he wants to find out what grassroots conservatives are thinking.

But he approaches it in such a detached, divested way that the slander he hears doesn't affect or bother him the way it should, because he views it as separate and apart from him.

I think this is true of a lot of media elites who occasionally venture into the partisan media world. They see it as something different and apart from them -- as something that doesn't affect them. And therefore, they don't see it as being as powerful as it really is.

TAKE BACK OUR PARTY: Democracy Bonds

by LiberalFromPA on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 12:28:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Low Information Elites and Fox News (3.00 / 2)

Matt's musings remind me that until recently I was a "low-info elite" myself. Only w/in the last couple years after getting broadband and reading blogs did I take the green pill and wake up.

I have a recollection of hearing Rush all over the place in the early '90's. What is this blather? It was everywhere. Low info elites just were in a bubble about this cancerous, effective spread of wingnut propaganda.

Most working people don't read much and they don't even watch much news tv, beyond the bigger or local shows which is very little news indeed beyond weather and sports. They are exhausted by work and complexities of family needs. But boy, do they ever listen to radio, I mean all day! One can listen to radio and work, it really helps pass the time.

When I was ran a woodshop, it got pretty boring. I'd go back and forth between NPR Jazz and Top 40. But I'd go home and read NYT, Atlantic, Harpers, New Yorker, etc. No tv except for videos. I still didn't "get" NAFTA or corporate takeover of gov't.

Radio is still the key, until everyone has affordable broadband. High Info or Low Info, elite or not, the results are the same.... underestimation of the power of verbal propaganda and it's results. But I think Fox is on the defensive now...

by meadows on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 10:33:20 AM EST

Bubble (3.00 / 2)

A friend of mine listens to NPR, reads the New Yorker and the NY Times, etc. Those are his information sources.

A couple years ago he was getting his attic finished, and there were construction people up there working. I had stopped by and he took me up there to show me the work. Even before we reached the top of the stairs, I heard it: the sound of a radio blaring Rush Limbaugh's outrage of the day. It was just there, his voice, ever-present in the background of these people's work environment.

I asked my friend about it, and he said, "Yeah, they always listen to that stuff," as if it didn't matter.

That day has stuck with me since then -- the huge divide between where educated people and working class people get their information. And that, more than anything else, seems to drive how we think and vote in this country.

TAKE BACK OUR PARTY: Democracy Bonds

by LiberalFromPA on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 12:22:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bubble (3.00 / 1)

I work out of my home. About eight years ago, I walked into my own house,carrying a load of groceries and my young kids only to hear a James Dobson diatribe about how feminists and liberals were destroying the American family and destroying this country. I said to the painting crew, "Hello? I'm a feminist and liberal, does it look like I'm destroying my family.....I can't have this kind of hateful garbage playing in my house, thank you very much."

After that, the crew always switched stations upon my arrival. I remember hearing some fundy preacher screaming as I drove into the driveway, only to have it abruptly switch to rock 'n roll as I got out of the car.

I also complain to stores who play Rush or other right-wingers on the radio at work. I tell the manager that this stuff is offensive and I prefer not to shop in places that broadcast hate and contempt for the majority of Americans. Most of the time, they switch stations.

Lately, a lot of doctor's offices inthe Twin Cities areas have, unfortunately, added televisions in the reception room. If Fox is playing, I change the channel myself. If for some reason I can't switch stations, I go to the receptionist and ask her to please switch stations because I find it offensive to be forced to hear Republican propaganda while getting medical attention.

And then I tell the doctor the same thing when I get in to see him or her.

I really encourage folks out there to not take this stuff passively. Every small encounter builds awarness. People in the trades, sales and medical profession need to know that Fox or right-wing radio is not a neutral entertainment source. If they choose to play it, they are choosing to offend plenty of many customers. Honest to God, by telling them this, you're probably doing 'em a favor.

I've only had one place get in my face and refuse to switch stations.. It was a sporting goods store broadcasting Rush. The guy said, I don't care if you find it offensive, I like it. Fine. I e-mailed a bunch of pals, let 'em know about the store and its policies. About 18 months later, that store went out of business----just a coincidence, I'm sure. I live in a solidly-Democratic area (Minneapolis!) so I think having this on the air showed the owner's contempt for his customers, which I'm sure came through in a thousand other ways which contributed to his store's demise.

In short, every time you're in a situation where a business is playing right-wing stuff, tell 'em you don't like it. Ask 'em to change. If they don't, stop patronizing them.

by midwestmeg on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 01:42:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bubble (none / 0)

I've done the same in airport lounges and car rental offices. Some of the TVs have only one channel--FOX-- but I always register my complaint. CNN also makes me crazy at the airport.

by anothergreenbus on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 03:23:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Deals (none / 0)

The networks usually have deals with the airports to exclusive rights. It's all a money game, on either end.

TAKE BACK OUR PARTY: Democracy Bonds

by LiberalFromPA on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 06:27:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Irony: first amendment award bites Roger Ailes n/t (none / 0)

by Books Alive on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 11:09:24 AM EST

The dieseased bull horn that is Fox News (3.00 / 1)

You are as always spot on Matt. Inside the beltway Democratic Machinery - party bosses, polticians, and talking heads - have lost sight that we give fox news legitimacy each time we appear on their racist, xenophobic, gender discriminating, backwater, 'faggot' bashing, war mongering, christian fascist cable news channel shows.

That was a mouthful. Did I forget something?

by optimusprime on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 12:00:12 PM EST

MSNBC and FOX (3.00 / 1)

They do not distinguish between Fox News and MSNBC

I don't draw much of a distinction myself between Fox and the various NBCs (Olbermann of couse being a lonely exception).

From my point of view, Fox leads the whole media pack. What they read directly from Rove's faxes and talking points is presented by Monsignor Russert within the frame of "serious questions". Blitzer, Couric, Stephanopolous parrot their Alpha Male. Then the print media, by and large, starts its stories with that frame. When they do get around to some "balance", it's after six or seven paragraphs of Russertese. Next, David Broder writes his "a pox on both their houses" column, which all the respectable pundits parrot.
Finally, Candy Crowley, Howard Fineman and whichever animated department store mannequin is currently covering DC for NBC says "In response to the President's assertion that the Sun sets in the North, Democrats, with an eye on '08 and trying turn the West a little bluer, are charging that the Sun sets in the West. We'll see how this plays out in the polls, Wolf".

by BlueinColorado on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 12:01:16 PM EST

Even You Admit There's A Difference (none / 0)

FOX is an outright propaganda outfit, run by GOP operatives. Others are heavily influenced, but they're not totally in the tank. So you start by cutting off the total propaganda outfit.

Once you've done that, you've then got a foothold for taking on the others--"You know, that was a very FOX News sort of thing you just did."

by Paul Rosenberg on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 02:51:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Even You Admit There's A Difference (none / 0)

"much of a distinction", I said. Sure there's a difference. I think Russert is an ever so slightly more subtle and respectable version of Brit Hume, myself, and his round tables are frequently slightly more subtle and respectable version of the "FoxNews Allstars". Not long ago, he had David Broder, William Safire, Robert Novak, and Doris Kearns Goodwin. There were three people saying that Iraq was the Democrats' fault, and one charming anecdote about Lincoln hosting his feuding cabinet members for lunch.

by BlueinColorado on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 03:06:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Look, It's Versailles (none / 0)

these folks are never going to say that ~~the French Revolution~~ not invading Iraq was the right call.

But if you want to change things, you need a strategy. And making an example of Fox is a way to do that.

Don't forget, Fox viewers were demonstrably more disinformed about Iraq than any others, according to the polling done by the Program on International Policy Alternatives (pipa.org). Democrats watching Fox were as badly informed as Republicans watching PBS/listening to NPR. And Democrats watching PBS/listening to NPR believed none of the bad information they tracked.

Which is not to say that PBS/NPR is great. They're clearly not. (I heard a segment on Walter Reed the other day. Not one word about its privatization. It was just some sort of mysterious problem that military health care systems are afflicted with.) But the difference is striking, and it's something we can take advantage of.

by Paul Rosenberg on Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 12:06:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Look, It's Versailles (none / 0)

>>But if you want to change things, you need a strategy. And making an example of Fox is a way to do that.

I agree. But it's important what the strategy is. Killing the debate on Fox (I assume some other outlet will cover it) was great because it makes an example of Fox.

On the other hand, I oppose the idea that no Democrat should ever appear on Fox. It should be a tactical decision and every Dem who does go on Fox should do so without illusion; He/she should expect a fight and be prepared to kick ass and take names in response.

by sTiVo on Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 01:24:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: MSNBC and FOX (none / 0)

Also on MSNBC, and somewhat amazingly, Scarborough turns out to be fairly even-handed for a conservative Republican. It's the one place I know of where you see actual debate between rightwingers like Pat Buchanan and Scarborough himself and people like Katrina van den Heuvel of the Nation and Joan Walsh from Salon. Where else do these lefties even get on TV? It's not perfect (I could do with less of the sexual predator stings) but frankly there's more interesting debate there than even on Olbermann. Olbermann is not that interesting to me except for his "special comments" which are great.

by sTiVo on Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 01:20:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

This is the Crux of the Media Debate (none / 0)

Fox News is a virus and its spreading. Not because they are conservative but are misinforming the public with slander and vile using no factual based reporting methodology. Its like a drunken improv troope 24/7...

Ok I need a liberal politican, a place, and the situation...

Edwards...CPAC...Ann Coulter yells faggot.

Example:

Transcript of Fox News with Dennis Miller and Orielly:

O'REILLY: Ann Coulter calling Edwards the "F" word. Your thoughts?

MILLER: Well, listen. I think Ann is making a lot of money. And I think she's morphed more from a Phyllis Schlafly thing over to a Vince McMahon from Worldwide Wrestling.

O'REILLY: Smack down.

MILLER: I think she understands that, you know, she's Pavlov's dog. She gets the corn kernel if she hits that drum once in a while.

But the thing is I'm no Edwards fan. I think he is the emptiest of suits. What he did with Cheney vis-a-vis his lesbian daughter in those debates I thought was one of the most vapid political gestures I've ever seen.

So I don't like Edwards, but I think Ann should have split the difference and called him a maggot. This way you get five sixths of the word and you get none of the headaches.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,2577 20,00.html

by optimusprime on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 12:08:24 PM EST

Fox News (none / 0)

My 82-year old Mother out in the Midwest has FOX on all day long. She doesn't have access to the blogs, or even the NY Times. She gets a steady dose of lies and spin, and hasn't got a clue that she is being duped.

by global yokel on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 02:14:57 PM EST

So help her change.... (3.00 / 1)

If she reads, give her a gift subscription to a progressive magazine that she'd enjoy.....The American Prospect.....Jim Hightower's newletter (it's short and snappy) or The Nation.

If she listens on the radio, turn her dials to Air America station. Program Air America into her car radio push buttons.

If you can afford it, get her a computer and show her how to get access to the blogs. Make a progressive blog the opening page that her browser starts on. Send her cheerful, family news via e-mail---photos of the grandkids, etc, and paste in an interesting post along with it.

If you're visiting, tell her to change the channel, that Fox news is bad for the country.

Women in their 80s vote in droves. Your mom could me more influential than you think. And meanwhile, you've just opened up a couple of new ways to talk to her, get her thinking and deepened your own relationship with her by talking about your own values.

Of course, I don't know your mom.......so much of this could be totally wrong for her.

Bottom line: don't give up. All of us can use our own circle of influence to get people to see the media differently.

by midwestmeg on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 05:22:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Fox News (none / 0)

Limbaugh and Coulter and Fox have widespread appeal because they appeal to the most base instincts of the population (anger, fear, homophobia, nationalism.) It's not difficult to push the anger button of the working class, given that they have been screwed every which way.
The amazing accomplishment of FOX is that they have been able to direct that anger at the Left, when it ought to be focused on the elitist policies of the Right.

by global yokel on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 02:30:10 PM EST

Re: Low Information Elites and Fox News (none / 0)

They don't for instance get that Fox News is a partisan Republican outlet, as opposed to MSNBC or CNN which aren't...

You're right: MSNBC & CNN aren't Republican outlets, they're Democrat outlets. As are ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, The New York Time, The Washington Post (along with the vast majority of major newspapers), Time, Newsweek and at least another half-dozen or so that I've probably forgotten. But Fox News and AM radio strike fear into your hearts. God (am I allowed to say that here?) forbid that the Left doesn't have total control over the information that gets out!

Anyway, one specific way that bloggers and activists differ from elites in the party is that we notice and take Fox News and the right-wing radio circuit seriously...

Thank you for admitting that the only outlets that Conservatives have are Fox News and "right-wing" radio". Most Leftists like to lie about that fact.

Cheers!

by Exile From Hillarys Village on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 07:59:54 PM EST

Re: Low Information Elites and Fox News (none / 0)

The word is Democratic, Not Democrat.

And we thank you for posting your 'faux' news talking points here.

by benjamink on Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 12:02:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Great concept - "Low Information Elites" (none / 0)

I think the old phrase we commies used was "Ivory Tower," but yours is a useful modernization of that somewhat musty (if still conceptually relevant) phrase.

by baked potato on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 11:07:47 PM EST

Re: Low Information Elites and Fox News (none / 0)

I'm late to the party, but I'll give my opinion. I don't think our Democratic leaders are unaware of the Fox slant, it's just that they haven't come to grips that they can do something about it. Recall that Fox News is the #1 Cable News Channel and for years it had the Republican Congressional Majority, and a then popular President Bush as its idols. Between 2000-2005 (Pre-Nancy) the Democrats seemed to be lost and would do anything to be part of the Fox News Program, hell any news program. CNN was busy(still is) trying to be Fox News, and the Democrats were just not in, so they weren't trying to give Democrats face time either. Democrats were therefore happy to be invited to the #1 Network, much like uncool kids relish an invite to the popular kids' party. The problem was that the Democrats kept accepting those invitations even after it was clear that they were there as the entertainment for the party, and not part of the party. Now Democrats are in the majority, the President is unpopular, Republicans aren't in right now, so the power has shifted. As a result of that power shift, Fox now wants to invite the Democrats to be part of the party. The Democrats have to realize that they can make their own party and make Fox News the has beens, especially since CNN and MSNBC is now calling. That is really hard for politicians to do though, because at heart they are all publicity hounds, and the thought of national attention makes them salivate.

by Kingstongirl on Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 10:17:45 PM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.