|
In 2011, the college Republicans at University of Wyoming somehow managed to get enough money together (I think someone donated it to them) to have Ann Coulter come and give a talk in probably the most blood red state in the union that I call home. She ended up being really, really late. Turbulence is a common enough problem in the Rockies that flights get delayed or delay landing quite often. When she finally was able to get in to Laramie, she was only present for the last 20 minutes of what I think was supposed to be a two hour long discussion with a Q&A. Then she got the hell out when she was scheduled to be gone, all at the expense of someone else and all she did was slam on liberals as much as she could in that small amount of time. And the people that wanted to go ate up every second of it.
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2012 09:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 16:57 |
|
|
I agree with the person who said earlier that right wing media plays to the fears, prejudices and ignorance people already have to rake in the cash. After all, there wouldn't have been a market for this poo poo in the first place if boomers and their ilk weren't clamoring for it. FOX just gives a giant blow-horn to the stupidity that already exists in America, and its not likely that that mouthpiece is going to be taken away anytime soon seeing how far it has seeped into US politics. And I hate to make another "things will be better when the boomers die" comment, but this does seem like a case where the market for extreme idiocy will die down following their passing, little by little.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2012 09:53
|
|
|
SWITCH HITLER posted:Load up on guns, bring your friends, It's fun to lose and to pretend... It already fits! This is not funny. Even in passing, listening to Rush Limbaugh gives me horrible flashbacks to Radio Novi Sad in late 80s Yugoslavia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Role_of_the_media_in_the_Yugoslav_wars Soon enough, Croatians used the same idea in the early 90s and by then it just snowballed into something very, very bad. And this was country where an average man could only get a WW2 era pistol or rifle on the black market.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2012 10:35
|
|
|
I don't think enough can be said for how awful Mark Levin really is. I usually flip over to hear him on the way home from band practice each week, and he's just frightening. Rapid-fire switching between shouting in that weenie little voice of his, and quiet fireside chat voice. His broadcasts are complete with childish namecalling of people he doesn't like, making little baby voices to parody them (something I've now heard Limbaugh doing as well), and wholly made-up claims with zero anything to back them up. He'd be hilarious if it wasn't for the fact that I think his listeners must actually buy what he's selling. Just a nasty, nasty little man. And that nasal, high pitched voice of his. When he starts yelling, the weenie factor just goes through the roof. Hollis posted:I'm really of the opinion that overall we've lost. I mean it's literally a beast that cannot be stopped now. These people apply to the worst of human nature, fear, racism. Basically of the other. Their audiences are just fanatical. I find the whole thing sad overall, just if there is any decline it truly is because of the propaganda machine that's been in works for 20 years. Rupert Murdoch being the key figure for this, I mean I don't know what the agenda is other than to make so much money but still die and leave a legacy. I don't think the battle has been lost, but there are definitely people out there who are listening (and believing) this stuff who you would maybe expect better of. My bassist is a smart guy (seemingly, anyway) but he sucks up all that Limbaugh / Hannity poo poo. I listened to him unironically refer to Obama as a communist the other day. The facilities dude in the office next to mine is another Limbaugh fan, parrots back some of his stuff to me once in a while. He knows I disagree with him, we still get along. I corrected him once the other day, but in general, I just let it slide off my back. It's wasted effort, you can't change people's minds. Once they're listening to Limbaugh and his ilk unironically, they're lost. And I have better things to do than argue with people about their politics.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2012 10:42
|
|
|
Mercury_Storm posted:I agree with the person who said earlier that right wing media plays to the fears, prejudices and ignorance people already have to rake in the cash. After all, there wouldn't have been a market for this poo poo in the first place if boomers and their ilk weren't clamoring for it. FOX just gives a giant blow-horn to the stupidity that already exists in America, and its not likely that that mouthpiece is going to be taken away anytime soon seeing how far it has seeped into US politics. I think the effect has been more gradual. When Limbaugh fist started out, everyone I spoke to believed he was a complete nut and a joke, but a few people would interject that "he makes a good point every once in a while." I'm not certain as to the degrees of cause and effect and the chicken and the egg, but I do think that over time, the repetition of this madness becomes "normalized" and more mainstream - to the point that now O'Reilly is viewed as sane and reasonable. People weren't predisposed to thinking Obama isn't a U.S. citizen, a christian or that Saddam had WMD's, ACORN rigs elections and Planned Parenthood is an abortion factory. They're taught it. And they're taught it by the things they listen to and watch. They think Obama has raised taxes. It's tangentally related, but I remember a TV host named Morten Downey who came out in the late 80's and was seen as outrageously over the top, rude and barbaric. He was sort of the original Mike Savage in a way. I remember when a fistfight broke out on Geraldo's show and it was a huge loving news story. Now we have fights on Jerry Springer every day and rude talk show hosts all over the place. What these people do has a way of achieving a normality to it as people become desensitized and used to hearing it. THEN it becomes a part of the listeners vernacular and mindset.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2012 13:06
|
|
|
Here's a nice little piece from someone who spent a week on the dark side: My Embed in Red.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2012 14:33
|
|
|
Walter posted:I don't think enough can be said for how awful Mark Levin really is. I usually flip over to hear him on the way home from band practice each week, and he's just frightening. Rapid-fire switching between shouting in that weenie little voice of his, and quiet fireside chat voice. I didn't know who this is and just realized a former coworker of mine brought this guy up in a FB post last week and considers him a "constitutional scholar" 
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2012 14:53
|
|
|
Mercury_Storm posted:I agree with the person who said earlier that right wing media plays to the fears, prejudices and ignorance people already have to rake in the cash. After all, there wouldn't have been a market for this poo poo in the first place if boomers and their ilk weren't clamoring for it. FOX just gives a giant blow-horn to the stupidity that already exists in America, and its not likely that that mouthpiece is going to be taken away anytime soon seeing how far it has seeped into US politics. U.S. CITIZEN EXECUTED IN OVERSEAS DRONE STRIKE, SAID TO HAVE SPOKEN OUT AGAINST WESTERN IMPERIALISM... Developing...  BIAS ALERT Maddow goes easy on Obama over lack of single payer provision in Republican-authored healthcare bill. e: Ugh, we really do eat our own in a way the Right never does. unlimited shrimp fucked around with this message at 15:07 on Oct 18, 2012 |
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2012 14:59
|
|
|
SpaceMost posted:I wonder what a hard left version of Fox would be like, and if I would get suckered in. Not some trifling liberal network like MSNBC, but a fullblown Leftist Fox News. A lefty Drudge clone would be the easiest loving thing in the world to make, I would love to contribute to something like this
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2012 15:06
|
|
|
I have literally never heard him support a single statement he's made. And the statements that I have heard are pretty obviously willfully, intentionally deceptive, either through repeating previously debunked falsehoods, or through massive omissions. I listened to him the other night going on and on about how the government wasn't the source of innovation, and how if they would just get out of the way, private companies would produce more innovation "than we can possibly imagine" (which he proceeded to not follow up on with any kind of example / support). And of course, he leaves out the long-standing federal grant programs (NSF, NIH, etc.) that are responsible for providing massive amounts of research money that private companies have then capitalized upon. I wonder - if you took out federal dollars spent on research, how much fully-private (i.e., no federal money involved at any step of the way) industry innovation has there actually been? My guess would be, "not much." "We built this." Right. Walter fucked around with this message at 15:19 on Oct 18, 2012 |
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2012 15:13
|
|
|
nachos posted:A lefty Drudge clone would be the easiest loving thing in the world to make, I would love to contribute to something like this I hate to admit it, but yeah, I would unashamedly love something like that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2012 15:13
|
|
|
The fun part would be getting Limbaugh and company to run with it as if it were real news, kinda like when people take The Onion seriously.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2012 15:17
|
|
|
Bob Nudd posted:Here's a nice little piece from someone who spent a week on the dark side: My Embed in Red. Everybody should read this article; it's a good one. Frank Rich used to be the theater critic for the NY Times ("the butcher of Broadway"); later became an op-ed writer. He's definitely a lefty, but I think he does a pretty good job of trying to understand what "the other side" is hollering about.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2012 15:39
|
|
|
Mercury_Storm posted:I agree with the person who said earlier that right wing media plays to the fears, prejudices and ignorance people already have to rake in the cash. After all, there wouldn't have been a market for this poo poo in the first place if boomers and their ilk weren't clamoring for it. FOX just gives a giant blow-horn to the stupidity that already exists in America, and its not likely that that mouthpiece is going to be taken away anytime soon seeing how far it has seeped into US politics. The future of right wing media is entirely dependent on maintaining a base of terrified whites who are quite sure they're under siege from the UN/commies/gays/racial hordes. If GenX is as worried about the perpetually upcoming race war as our current elderly generation, then Fox News and hate radio will still be here.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2012 15:43
|
|
|
ChaosSamusX posted:I hate to admit it, but yeah, I would unashamedly love something like that. Just make the page refresh every 3 seconds so you can claim billions of hits each month.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2012 15:54
|
|
|
Dr. Quigley posted:Ah, I had totally forgot about that thread. Thanks! I don't want him to feel like I'm in this to convert him or anything. I don't know if I ever want to get to the point of being condescending since all that does is reinforce the insular mentality I would think. I don't know for sure if the moon landing occurred. All my knowledge of it is secondhand. Nonetheless, it is highly unlikely that the US government, at the height of the cold war, executed and then kept secret the world's most elaborate hoax. People who believe the president is a secret Muslim, or climate change is a big hoax, are guilty of asking themselves "could a person like me believe this?" rather than "do I have good reason to believe this?" A lot of people look at a proposition as a choice between two stances whose only difference is political- I think this is a mistake. Not all propositions are equal candidates for truth. I think this approach is good for reacquainting people with reality, although it doesn't work with arguments about ideology where reasonable people can disagree. e:clarity Dilkington fucked around with this message at 16:56 on Oct 18, 2012 |
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2012 16:52
|
|
|
Dilkington posted:I don't know for sure if the moon landing occurred. All my knowledge of it is secondhand. I can give you more than enough evidence we did it. I have piles of Apollo technical manuals. The list of things I don't have is shorter than the list of things I do have.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2012 17:02
|
|
|
SpaceMost posted:I wonder what a hard left version of Fox would be like, and if I would get suckered in. Not some trifling liberal network like MSNBC, but a fullblown Leftist Fox News. I know you're dreaming or joking, but I think instead of just complaining about the right wing and how delusional they are, this thread is a good place to examine the messaging of the right, how it has gone forward almost unimpeded since Reagan, and why the real left in America can't (or, in my opinion, won't) adopt the methods, techniques, or rhetoric of the right. I get real tired of hearing people complain, because the American right has one of the most effective propaganda/rhetorical machines in recent history and the left seems content in their discontent. If the left has moral qualms about lying, or propagandizing, or pandering, then we deserve to lie in the grave that's being dug by the right.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2012 17:02
|
|
|
deptstoremook posted:I get real tired of hearing people complain, because the American right has one of the most effective propaganda/rhetorical machines in recent history and the left seems content in their discontent. If the Left played by the same rules, it might rock the boat too hard. Think about it: one side uses mostly half-truths to sum up their arguments while the other plays a damage-control/defensive game. For example: all the examples of right wing voter fraud go by without a peep on rightwing radio/tv news, but suddenly it's a problem because immigrants. The right relies on people who are out of touch, stuck in the past, whatever. Conservatism historically has this problem because it is so frequently anachronism. If the left and right both adopted the same tactics of "we'll make these facts true later" the media machine would collapse and profits would plummet. Leftwing media makes their money steadily by promoting slow change, while the right is reactionary. It fits in with our rigged political system nicely, since both sides are (conveniently) diametrically opposed on almost every issue.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2012 17:09
|
|
|
deptstoremook posted:I know you're dreaming or joking, but I think instead of just complaining about the right wing and how delusional they are, this thread is a good place to examine the messaging of the right, how it has gone forward almost unimpeded since Reagan, and why the real left in America can't (or, in my opinion, won't) adopt the methods, techniques, or rhetoric of the right.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2012 17:25
|
|
|
Tibeerius posted:The right-wing messaging machine works because it preys on fear and cognitive dissonance; things that (justifiably) repel most leftists. I think there's also a certain amount of willingness to be "preached at" among a lot of conservatives. I don't get that as much with the left-leaning folks I know. I always felt like Air America came off as shrill and preachy.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2012 17:32
|
|
|
al Dajjal posted:If the Left played by the same rules, it might rock the boat too hard. Think about it: one side uses mostly half-truths to sum up their arguments while the other plays a damage-control/defensive game. For example: all the examples of right wing voter fraud go by without a peep on rightwing radio/tv news, but suddenly it's a problem because immigrants. The right relies on people who are out of touch, stuck in the past, whatever. Conservatism historically has this problem because it is so frequently anachronism. The Left could do this too, without resorting to the Othering of entire groups (a la "illegals") or the tabloid gossip nonsense like with Obama's birth certificate. I'm sure there are lots of outlets that do do this, I'm just not aware of them. As an aside, I'm sure many on the Left could find common ground with the some on the Libertarian wing of the GOP, particularly when it comes to foreign policy and keeping the government out of peoples' personal lives. Obviously they won't see eye to eye on the details of most issues, but that's not really necessary in terms of reshaping the broader political climate.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2012 17:37
|
|
|
Tibeerius posted:The right-wing messaging machine works because it preys on fear and cognitive dissonance; things that (justifiably) repel most leftists. How is "society is unsustainable and if we don't do something now the end of humanity is upon us" (a statement I have heard from many leftists) not preying on fear? e: I mean, it might be *true*, but that doesn't mean you're still not using an emotional appeal. computer parts fucked around with this message at 18:08 on Oct 18, 2012 |
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2012 17:45
|
|
|
SpaceMost posted:I think the Left could deploy similar tactics without resorting to conscious lies and half-truths. One thing the right wing media seems to do is effectively use language that makes an issue seem immediate and personal, or use wording that appeals to typically conservative -isms like nationalism or Christianism. It also breaks concepts down into easily digestible soundbytes and ideas that Joe Sixpack can understand and regurgitate. And it does all this aggressively and with confidence. I disagree. It's easier to pitch to Joe Six-Pack and below because they don't mine for information and generally get their news from a limited number of sources (which are usually mainstream). To make an issue palatable you have to simplify it into a black and white, right vs. wrong struggle. The Left often tries to do this by saying that humans are humans and deserve human rights, but the right merely deflects this with a "media bias" here and a "gay agenda" there and pretty soon every coherent argument is swallowed in uproar. Neither side is trustworthy now, so if the Left adopted a method too close to what the Right does, it would sound too similar and nobody would know who to listen to. At least that's my take. Not saying it can't be done, but I think there's a reason it hasn't.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2012 17:49
|
|
|
ZobarStyl posted:He'd swap sides in a heartbeat if he thought he could bilk liberal retirees out of their savings with ads for LifeLock and gold coins. I've seen this come up a couple of times and these ads aren't exclusive to conservative shows. Lifelock and gold are staples on Al Gore's channel also and all over the left wing talk shows. Glen Beck's ad even ran on Stephanie Miller's show for a long time.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2012 18:07
|
|
|
Grand Prize Winner posted:Doesn't our supposedly left-wing media deserve some share of the blame for not fighting the Fox News bandwagon? I mean, who's the leftest person on national TV right now? Maddow? Olberman? As far as I can tell they're both capitalists.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2012 18:09
|
|
|
deptstoremook posted:If the left has moral qualms about lying, or propagandizing, or pandering, then we deserve to lie in the grave that's being dug by the right. No, that's what makes us "the left" - valuing things like truth, honesty, sourcing, verification, confirmation and facts in news reporting. Adopting the tactics of the opposition would be a huge mistake and destroy whatever credibility we have. If I understand you correctly, you're saying that unless the left becomes dis-honest lying scumbags, then we deserve what we get. I think that's absurd and counter-productive on nearly ever level. If we want to maybe get a little tougher about calling out bullshit and being a little more vocal then that's a different argument.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2012 18:13
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:Olbermann's not on TV. I would say probably Maddow or Chris Hayes. Bill Moyers has more integrity than any of them. Even Faux is scared of him.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2012 18:21
|
|
|
  Maybe because there's nothing that we don't already know about Christians? Maybe Whoopi was curious about the size of the planet Mittens will get in heaven? Dignity Van Houten fucked around with this message at 18:35 on Oct 18, 2012 |
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2012 18:32
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:No, that's what makes us "the left" - valuing things like truth, honesty, sourcing, verification, confirmation and facts in news reporting. Adopting the tactics of the opposition would be a huge mistake and destroy whatever credibility we have. If I understand you correctly, you're saying that unless the left becomes dis-honest lying scumbags, then we deserve what we get. I think that's absurd and counter-productive on nearly ever level. Well, in the first place the left is in no way defined by those feel-good nouns you list; rather, most leftist politics are predicated on the reduction or elimination of social inequity in a society. The point I'm making is that the right has figured out a much more effective way of producing and controlling discourse, despite your and my ethical qualms. The left must figure out a way to do the same thing. Here's an example of the problem: computer parts posted:How is "society is unsustainable and if we don't do something now the end of humanity is upon us" (a statement I have heard from many leftists) not preying on fear? This is not an effective emotional appeal. Typically of the American left, this statement points to a broad, remote, and abstract issue and then leaves it to the reader to draw conclusions. "The facts" are not the means of framing a discourse or influencing opinions. A better way to put this would be: "Your and your childrens' way of life is under threat unless we change X." Let me pursue the environmental argument for another moment. I work in a college of science at an R1 university. Most of the faculty are, in my estimation, leftists. One thing that unites them (and most scientists) is that they are exceptionally bad at engaging the public in understandable and compelling terms. For convincing people to actually do something, charts are bad; facts are bad; "implied moral superiority" is bad. What's good is direct personal appeals, an art which the right has mastered since Reagan.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2012 18:34
|
|
|
So I guess some disparaging welfare spending numbers came out today since both Boortz and Limbaugh were touching on them. Boortz was talking about the increased number of people on welfare (which, you know, happens during a recession and poo poo) but he actually said "and we all know who those people are and who they'll vote for". Hmmmm...I wonder which demographic he was insinuating there. "Those people". edit: Oh yeah, and what little I caught from Rush today had this line (paraphrasing): "what were seeing today is 50 years of failed liberal new-dealism going all the way back to FDR" and "Obama is dotting the 'i's' and crossing the 't's'", putting the final touches on it all somehow. No mention of thirty years of supply side Reaganomics of course. He told me that Obama wants to destroy the private sector "on purpose". For...um...some reason I guess. I never heard him explain why Obama would want to do that, wreck the economy and unemployment numbers and sink his re-election chances, but I guess that's his plan. BiggerBoat fucked around with this message at 18:44 on Oct 18, 2012 |
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2012 18:35
|
|
|
Grand Prize Winner posted:Doesn't our supposedly left-wing media deserve some share of the blame for not fighting the Fox News bandwagon? I mean, who's the leftest person on national TV right now? Maddow? Olberman? As far as I can tell they're both capitalists. There isn't any dispute as to whether or not Democrats/liberals/progressives/whatever you want to call them in America believe in capitalism. If you're expecting different then you're looking in the wrong place. Progressive/liberal != socialist
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2012 18:48
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:I've seen this come up a couple of times and these ads aren't exclusive to conservative shows. Lifelock and gold are staples on Al Gore's channel also and all over the left wing talk shows. Glen Beck's ad even ran on Stephanie Miller's show for a long time.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2012 18:52
|
|
|
Came here after seeing that. Oh my loving GOD what the gently caress is wrong with them. Jesus loving Christ that makes my blood boil and my skin crawl. Also, if they're really going to do poo poo like this, at least they could make it a little more subtle and nicer looking. I know they really don't want Obama to win, but that looks so goddamn trashy and unprofessional.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2012 19:00
|
|
|
As far as liberal-leaning versions of Drudge -- there used to be one called the Dredged Report which replicated the "pageful of contextless links" format, but it's long gone. Nowadays, there are several liberal-leaning blogs but if someone wants to suggest something genuinely leftist, go right ahead.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2012 19:26
|
|
|
ZobarStyl posted:My bad, my post was not to imply that these ads are unique to right wing radio, but rather that they are things that are a complete waste of money that no thinking person should be purchasing. Doing stupid things with your money is not the sole province of the right, but I think the argument can be made that people who listen to authoritarian right wing radio are self-selected to be fed such advertisements. Would I more accurately paint with my over-broad brush if I had said survival seed kits and gun safes? People might be reading too much into these sorts of adds. Yes, there are a lot of ads that have "Protect your..." in them. But that sort of tactic really is used everywhere. Talk radio ads in general though are bottom of the barrel type stuff. AM radio in particular was on it's way out when Rush really ricked off the current right-wing radio format. And part of the reason he became hugely popular was that he used to let local stations rebroadcast him for free. That breathed a bit of life into all those near-death AM station around the country that needed something to attract listeners. Rush made up for it by using national level advertising, like when he started advertising for Florida Orange Juice. To this day though, they are still scraping the bottom of the barrel. FM radio still sounds better, satellite radio is becoming common, and now streaming to your smartphone is coming into its own. The personalities themselves still hawk things with a national appeal, and when the holidays come around they do switch it up for things like 1-800-Flowers for Valentines and Mothers Day. And if the market is good enough, local broadcasters still get ads for local goods and services.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2012 19:38
|
|
|
MrSmokes posted:Came here after seeing that. Oh my loving GOD what the gently caress is wrong with them. Jesus loving Christ that makes my blood boil and my skin crawl. Also, if they're really going to do poo poo like this, at least they could make it a little more subtle and nicer looking. I know they really don't want Obama to win, but that looks so goddamn trashy and unprofessional. I thought they knew the President's religion and the matter was settled? *runs Reverend Wright video* Edit: As an aside, the more I think about it, Newshounds and Media Matters already do the lion's share of work monitoring and reporting on the day to day subject of American right wing media, so maybe that's not really the best direction for this thread to take, even though it's fun and most of us here are funnier than either of those websites. It might be fun to pull things they write and comment on them with an SA sense of humor though. I don't know why this poo poo drives me as crazy as it does and why I let it bother me so much. It's probably not so much what they say as it is how many buy into it hook, line and sinker. My Father in Law is a reasonably intelligent and accomplished man but I found out not too lon ago he's a Birther. My stepfather is a middle class pot smoking turkey salesman (yes) who's been trying to find a new job and is worried about being tested for weed. My mother has been on disability for 5 or so years now and has been hitting me up with questions about Obamacare that her conservative friends are feeding her and seems to be considering voting for Romney. This stuff really does permeate the language, through osmosis alone and by way of sheer repetition, and that bugs me more than anything. Someone brought up "how to debate a conservative" earlier in the thread, but every time I do it, I hit a brick wall of impenetrable false information that they have accepted as abject fact and the conversation ends there. They're getting this information from somewhere and a lot of them should know better, but they don't. I used to discuss politics with a woman I worked with who was relatively smart; was pro choice, pro progressive taxation, anti war, pro gay marriage, supported education funding, separation of church and state and was pro environmental protection but proudly voted Republican all of the time. Everything she supported would lead her to vote Democrat. Her information was just wrong. She loved Sarah Palin for some reason. Guess what was on her radio every day and which news station she watched? BiggerBoat fucked around with this message at 20:50 on Oct 18, 2012 |
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2012 19:50
|
|
|
I got an HD radio a couple years back, and the local AM news station had a nicer-sounding HD broadcast. Hearing Rush rant in crystal clear stereo instead of fuzzy and muffled AM was actually kind of unnerving. I used to listen to Rush on my lunch break to hear what the warrantless GOP complaint du jour was, but it started getting to me. I just read these threads now instead.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2012 21:25
|
|
|
Mercury_Storm posted:I agree with the person who said earlier that right wing media plays to the fears, prejudices and ignorance people already have to rake in the cash. After all, there wouldn't have been a market for this poo poo in the first place if boomers and their ilk weren't clamoring for it. FOX just gives a giant blow-horn to the stupidity that already exists in America, and its not likely that that mouthpiece is going to be taken away anytime soon seeing how far it has seeped into US politics. I disagree. There's a ton of evidence supporting the conclusion that peoples' opinions are influenced more by media than the other way around. While media does need to draw attention, networks are pretty free to choose what to broadcast and how to broadcast it. The influence is even greater due the internet/smart phones; because there's so much saturation, topics/ideas present in the media make up an even larger portion of what people discuss with one another, and such a large amount of media exposure makes topics and opinions that aren't commonly discussed appear even more obscure/radical. People can be influenced fairly easily. Most media in the US is privately owned by wealthy investors, and it isn't surprising that most content is generally favorable (or at least not unfavorable) towards this group.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2012 21:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 16:57 |
|
|
deptstoremook posted:This is not an effective emotional appeal. Typically of the American left, this statement points to a broad, remote, and abstract issue and then leaves it to the reader to draw conclusions. "The facts" are not the means of framing a discourse or influencing opinions. A better way to put this would be: "Your and your childrens' way of life is under threat unless we change X." This is completely true. Another interesting thing to think about is what fights the left is actually winning and how they are doing it. Gay rights is something major that has changed and there's been a bunch of different arguments for it. For the longest time the argument was that same sex marriage is right because it's discriminatory to arbitrarily deny one group rights, and that it only makes sense for us to apply the same rights to everyone. That totally makes sense to me as a left-winger, and I'm sure it does to everyone else here, but conservatives are completely comfortable with denying rights to groups they don't like and aren't really going to be compelled by that. I think a big part of what's snowballed gay rights into the mainstream is that there has been more and more positive (i.e. non-threatening) images of homosexuals to the point that when gay rights is brought up mild conservatives can call to mind someone that they can at least empathize with or at least not explicitly "other" reflexively. The step from there, and what's been really interesting to see this election cycle is that the sort of moral argument that's being made has changed from being non-discriminatory to just applying freedom to everyone. Michelle Obama's speech included a phrase about "being able to love who you want". Also check out this ad: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCdxmcislNk. This sort of appeal is actually the exact opposite of what has being pushed for years. The argument used to be that people just can't help being gay so it's not fair to hate them. Now the argument is that people should have the freedom to make any choices they want, including about their sexuality. So what does this mean for left wing messaging? Well, first of all you can pull from this that arguments that seem crystal clear to us, like that it's unfair to discriminate, aren't always going to gain traction. Many conservatives are beyond the point that you can reach them if they're immersed in the alternate reality of conservative blogs, but many just don't care and aren't compelled by the same arguments as left wingers. But if you can get them to identify at the very least with some of these groups then you can apply some of the things they value to them as well. But the important thing is that you can't compel them to care with an argument about non-discrimination, then you're only begging them not to hate someone and that was never really the goal anyway.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2012 22:44
|
|