Posted on 10/27/2003 10:39:02 AM PST by Cannoneer No. 4
The Lefts near monopoly over the institutions of opinion and informationwhich long allowed liberal opinion makers to sweep aside ideas and beliefs they disagreed with, as if they were beneath argumentis skidding to a startlingly swift halt. The transformation has gone far beyond the rise of conservative talk radio, that, ever since Rush Limbaughs debut 15 years ago, has chipped away at the power of the New York Times, the networks, and the rest of the elite media to set the terms of the nations political and cultural debate. Almost overnight, three huge changes in communications have injected conservative ideas right into the heart of that debate. Though commentators have noted each of these changes separately, they havent sufficiently grasped how, taken together, they add up to a revolution: no longer can the Left keep conservative views out of the mainstream or dismiss them with bromide instead of argument. Everything has changed.
The first and most visible of these three seismic events: the advent of cable TV, especially Rupert Murdochs Fox News Channel. Since its 1996 launch, Fox News has provided what its visionary CEO Roger Ailes calls a haven for viewers fed up with the liberal bias of the news mediapotentially a massive audience, since the mainstream media stand well to the American peoples left.
Nowhere does Fox differ more radically from the mainstream television and press than in its robustly pro-U.S. coverage of the War on Terror. After September 11, the American flag appeared everywhere, from the lapels of the anchormen to the corner of the screen. Ailes himself wrote to President Bush, urging him to strike back hard against al-Qaida. On-air personalities and reporters freely referred to our troops instead of U.S. forces, and Islamist terrorists and evildoers instead of militants. Such open displays of patriotism are anathema to todays liberal journalists, who see taking sides as a betrayal of journalistic objectivity.
The numbers make clear just how stunning Foxs rise has been. Starting with access to only 17 million homes (compared with CNNs 70 million) in 1996, Fox could reach 65 million homes by 2001 and had already started to turn a profit. A year later, profits hit $70 million and are expected to double in 2003. Though CNN founder Ted Turner once boasted hed squish Murdoch like a bug, Fox News has outpaced its chief cable news rival in the ratings since September 11 and now runs laps around it. This past June, Fox won a whopping 51 percent of the prime-time cable news audiencemore than CNN, CNN Headline News, and MSNBC combined. The stations powerhouse, The OReilly Factor, averages around 3 million viewers every night, and during Operation Iraqi Freedom the No Spin Zone drew as many as 7 million on a given night; CNNs Larry King, once the king of cable, has slipped to 1.3 million nightly viewers. Cheery Fox and Friends has even edged out CBSs Early Show in the ratings a few times, despite the fact that CBS is free, while Fox is available only on cable and satellite (and not every operator carries it). While the total viewership for ABC, CBS, and NBC newsmore than 25 millionstill dwarfs Foxs viewers, the networks are hemorrhaging. CBS News just suffered its lousiest ratings period ever, down 600,000 viewers; 1.1 million fewer people watch the three network news programs today than 12 months ago.
The news isnt the only place on cable where conservatives will feel at home. Lots of cable comedy, while not traditionally conservative, is fiercely anti-liberal, which as a practical matter often amounts nearly to the same thing. Take South Park, Comedy Centrals hit cartoon series, whose heroes are four crudely animated and impossibly foul-mouthed fourth-graders named Cartman, Kenny (until his demise), Kyle, and Stan. Now in its seventh season, South Park, with nearly 3 million viewers per episode, is Comedy Centrals highest-rated program.
Why is cable and satellite TV less uniformly Whoopi or West Wing than ABC, CBS, and NBC? With long-pent-up market demand for entertainment that isnt knee-jerk liberal in its sensibilities, cables multiplicity of channels has given writers and producers who dont fit the elite media mold the chance to meet that demand profitably.
Its hard to overstate the impact that news and opinion websites like the Drudge Report, NewsMax, and Dow Joness OpinionJournal are having on politics and culture, as are current-event blogsindividual or group web diarieslike AndrewSullivan, InstaPundit, and The Corner department of NationalReviewOnline (NRO), where the editors and writers argue, joke around, and call attention to articles elsewhere on the web. This whole universe of web-based discussion has been dubbed the blogosphere.
While there are several fine left-of-center sites, the blogosphere currently tilts right, albeit idiosyncratically, reflecting the hard-to-pigeonhole politics of some leading bloggers. Like talk radio and Fox News, the right-leaning sites fill a market void.
The Internets most powerful effect has been to expand vastly the range of opinionespecially conservative opinionat everyones fingertips. The Internet helps break up the traditional cultural gatekeepers power to determine a) whats important and b) the range of acceptable opinion, says former Reason editor and libertarian blogger Virginia Postrel. InstaPundits Glenn Reynolds, a law professor at the University of Tennessee, agrees: The main role of the Internet and blogosphere is to call the judgment of elites about what is news into question.
Debunking liberal humbug is one of the webs most powerful political effects: bloggers call it the Internets bullshit-detector role. The New York Times has been the Number One target of the B.S. detectorsespecially during the reign of deposed executive editor and liberal ideologue Howell Raines. Only, say, five years ago, the editors of the New York Times had much more power than they have today, Andrew Sullivan points out. They could spin stories with gentle liberal bias, and only a few eyes would roll. If they made an egregious error, they could bury the correction later. The Internet makes such bias and evasion hardermaybe impossibleto pull off.
The third big change breaking the liberal media stranglehold is taking place in book publishing. Conservative authors long had trouble getting their books released, with only Regnery Books, the Free Press, and Basic Books regularly releasing conservative titles. But following editorial changes during the 1990s, Basic and the Free Press published far fewer conservative-leaning titles, leaving Regnery pretty much alone.
No more. Nowadays, publishers are falling over themselves to bring conservative books to a mainstream audience.
Theres another reason that conservative books are selling: the emergence of conservative talk radio, cable TV, and the Internet. This right-wing media circuit, as Publishers Weekly describes it, reaches millions of potential readers and thus makes the traditional gatekeepers of ideasabove all, the New York Times Book Review and the New York Review of Books, publications that rarely deign to review conservative titlesincreasingly irrelevant in winning an audience for a book.
Heres whats likely to happen in the years ahead. Think of the mainstream liberal media as one sphere and the conservative media as another. The liberal sphere, which less than a decade ago was still the media, is still much bigger than the non-liberal one. But the non-liberal sphere is expanding, encroaching into the liberal sphere, which is both shrinking and breaking up into much smaller sectarian spheresone for blacks, one for Hispanics, one for feminists, and so on.
Its hard to imagine that this development wont result in a broader national debateand a more conservative America.
(Excerpt) Read more at city-journal.org ...
In a TV debate between the two candidates:
Reporter: "Welcome to Fox News, your voice for evil. Tonight we'll be interviewing the top two candidates for Springfield's 24th congressional district. For the Republicans, beloved children's entertainer, Krusty the Clown. And for the Democrats, this guy."
Armstrong: "I have a name."
Reporter: "Yes, I'm sure you do, comrade. I do appreciate you're being here, you're usually so mired in sleaze, it must be an effort to come down to the studio."
Krusty: "May I say something?"
Reporter: "Certainly, Congressman."
Armstrong: "He hasn't won yet!"
Reporter: "You make a very adulterous point. We will now conclude this debate with a Krusty campaign commercial."
While the debate was airing, the following ran on the news ticker: "Pointless news crawls up at 37 percent. ... Do Democrats cause cancer? Find out at Foxnews.com. ... Rupert Murdoch: Terrific Dancer. ... Dow down 5000 points. ... Study: 92 percent of Democrats are gay. ... JFK posthumously joins Republican Party. ... Oil slicks found to keep seals young, supple. ... Dan Quayle: Awesome.
I disagree with the conclusion of the author as much as I'm encouraged by the developments he cites.
But it's not really their fault. Most were raped in prison so many times that they came to accept it. The others were subjected to severe peer preasure at NOW meetings.
Didn't you forget somebody (cough, cough)
Heres whats likely to happen in the years ahead. Think of the mainstream liberal media as one sphere and the conservative media as another. The liberal sphere, which less than a decade ago was still the media, is still much bigger than the non-liberal one. But the non-liberal sphere is expanding, encroaching into the liberal sphere, which is both shrinking and breaking up into much smaller sectarian spheresone for blacks, one for Hispanics, one for feminists, and so on.
Its hard to imagine that this development wont result in a broader national debateand a more conservative America.
If you disagree with this conclusion, what encourages you?
I agree with the conclusion, but it's too late. The courts are now taking over where the media left off.
Think of the "mainstream liberal media" as the leftist socialist propaganda machine.
Think of the "conservative media" as being forced to constantly fight against that overwhelming barrage of propaganda.
Now think of the attitude and aptitude of the general public.
"....... a broader national debate"?
Possible, but not probable.
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.