Posted on 06/24/2006 3:32:47 PM PDT by jennivinson
Close.
Cryptic.
So, where was it for, say, the last 50-60 years or so? Was "conservative" news just not exciting enough to sell, or were there other considerations?
This of course begs the question of how it is that we find ourselves in a position where large numbers of both Liberals and Conservatives are convinced that the media distorts reporting in favor of the other's opinions.
Just my own observation, but liberals are mental cases who believe anything and anyone not left of Josef Stalin are right wingnuts, and wouldn't recognize true media bias if it bit 'em in the a$$. And it has. I have watched the "animated" Neal Gabler on Fox NewsWatch a few times and the guy's arguments almost always fall flat. "The media is owned by corporations, so they must be biased towards business"(that is, conservative) as an example. No evidence, even anecdotal, but he says it loud and long enough the others on the panel, even Jane What's-her-face, just shake their heads in apparent bewilderment. I personally know of people just like him who will not even debate the issue of utopian dreamers running the media, or anywhere else for that matter. I expect these people will always be with us. The trick is to see their ranks aren't increased.
It ain't gonna be easy but we've got to continue trying. Our target audience should probably be the 20% or so of the uncommitted electorate that are the swing votes in each election. They are reachable and and persuadable, given the proper motivations. What that is, is anybody's guess.
I may be missing your point altogether, but I would submit journalism can have a tremendous effect on our government. The more monolithic the media, the greater the potential impact IMHO. In fact, I have gone so far to suggest in the past, the Dims could in fact be taking their marching orders in large part from the media. You know, if it plays well in Peoria??? At the very least they're using the same playbook.
We either will have it in us to face down this threat, or we won't. Our Founding Fathers are betting on the former. That was my point.
Point taken, but at least one of our founders had some misgivings. Ben Franklin, when replying to a question concerning what type of government the founders had created, "A republic, if you can keep it".
A quote from one of our founders I really like:
"Without morals a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion, whose morality is so sublime and pure (and) which insures to the good eternal happiness, are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments." Charles Carroll, signer of the Declaration of Independence
FGS
So let it be said.
So let it be done.
That is exactly how I feel. There are just enough people who can be influenced in the proper way at the right time.
If Hillary runs in 2008 I am rather sure that I have about two pages of literature and info on her "core values" that, if distributed well, will certainly influence that 20% to avoid voting for her.
The point, surely, is that it depends on what you mean by "conservative." Every ongoing corporation has a culture, and it sustains itself by conserving that culture. So that is "conservatism" WRT itself, whether or not you or I would consider it "Conservative." When it comes to self preservation, Fidel Castro is "conservative."So whether it is Hooters or a Communist dictatorship or The New York Times, self preservation can be called conservative - but with no implication of any desire to
form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterityfor we-the-people of the USA.
His "... a Republic, if you can keep it..." rejoinder is a sublime double-entendre. Not only does it raise the spectre of history - will we fail as have all others before us??? - but deeper still, when considering the likely challenges which we would face in future generations, Franklin also asks us: will we dare to succeed where others have not?
It took almost 40 years for the partisan press to be replaced by the "objective" press, and I suspect it will take at least that long for the process to reverse itself, so we have at least another 10-20 years.
I am hoping, more or less desperately, that the passage of McCain-Feingold will prove to have been the high water mark of "objective" journalism. McCain-Feingold encodes the idea that at a critical time "objective" journalism is in the public interest and your speech or mine is inimicable to the public interest. It is wildly unconstitutional, Alien and Sedition Act, stuff.What effect might McCain-Feingold not have on the '08 presidential election? For that matter, what effect did "objective" broadcast journalism come within a hair's breadth of having on the 2000 election!!
We are in dire need of a SCOTUS ruling overturning its prior 5-4 decision upholding McCain-Feingold. Since O'Connor was in that majority, there is hope that a challenge to M-F could be upheld - but how much mischief might not come about in the meantime?
I agree, but Mc-F only showed that 527s will fill the void. Actually, regardless of how much more money the leftists spent, it was ONE 527, the Swiftboat Vets, who swung the election against Kerry.
. . . so tying one 527 up in litigation for a few months would have turned the election. Somehow I am not reassured . . .
Whatever challenges I might have to your editorial, I have to congratulate you for inspiring a lot of serious reflection on the part of a lot of Freepers. Good show.
Don't misread history. It seems like the good guys always get that one break they need. Midway, Gettysburg, 2004. One can't predict what would have happened media-wise if indeed Kerry HAD tried to tie up the Swifties. In the 527s, the lefties have opened a toothpaste tube they can't close, and my point is, it DOESN'T take a lot of money. Just a little money and the truth.
True enough and I'm sure the Gablers of the world could parse it into oblivion. Fact is, any corporation worth its salt does what it needs to do to, if not prosper, at least survive even in hostile political environments. To that end, knowing which way the political wind's blowing is key to their decision making. It also makes 'em easy pickins' for folks like JJ and his flying monkeys, but that's a horse of a different color........so to speak.
Indeed, and against all odds. What would Ben Franklin and his contemporaries be thinking right about now? I wonder how long it will take to determine whether or not WE have the right stuff?
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.