|
Thundercracker posted:I've always wondered why the left wasn't able to replicate the same thing. If SA is to go by the ultra-left isn't short on incoherent rage. Why is there no leftist version of Rush calling people unamerican? Because the media are not about educating people, but making money. And without financial backing, the main source of the income for the media are advertisements. So first, they need to ensure that they are read by people with substantial purchasing power, which is usually the middle class, or rather its wealthier parts - which can afford more expensive stuff. Screaming about patriotism would be counter-productive here, because your audience doesn't like that at all. Many of them consider themselves intellectuals, so they avoid reading regularly anything that could make them appear unreasonable. Everything considered "extremist" is not reasonable, and therefore disliked. Arguments to moderation make their boners hard as titanium. They absolutely love professionals (because a job is an important part of their identity), and hate ideologists. Because of that, a liberal media corp which would try to educate Republican electorate would either be ineffective, or lose income faster than they can gain.
|
#
¿
Oct 17, 2012 15:53
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 14:01 |
|
|
Radbot posted:This is right on. For some reason, the only thing liberals love more than free trade policies is false equivocation - if you believe in something really strongly, you must be as bad as the person literally advocating fascism. What is it about the American left and their seemingly unique disdain for ideology of any sort? It's mostly a class-related cultural gimmick and has nothing to do with nationality or political affiliation. Middle class members hold white-collar jobs, so in their environment, intellect is an important thing. One of the ways to improve their social status within their class is to appear professional, intelligent and reasonable.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 17, 2012 16:23
|
|
|
shots shots shots posted:Educated people are typically well-off and support many liberal viewpoints. A perfect example of this is the success of stuff like "The Economist", which supports stuff like gay marriage and weed legalization, but diverges from college leftists when it doesn't support harshly redistributive taxes and a bunch of social justice stuff. Of course. The main difference is that most of businesses don't have anything to gain by attacking gay marriage or weed legalization, but harsh taxes are bad for them (and their owners). Naturally, this means most of the for-profit media will oppose "social justice stuff" more than promote it. Cue to these ideas being mostly portrayed as irresponsible, extremist agenda.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 17, 2012 18:32
|
|