I heard something on the radio this morning that stirred my thinking. The discussion, which I only caught the tail end of, was with a political advisor of some sort, not currently engaged in either campaign. The question seemed to be the influence of the Palin selection. The conclusion the advisor made, I'm thinking -- again I missed all but the tail end of the discussion -- was that the selection of Palin will only be influential if the Obama campaign is asleep at the wheel and abrogate the role of "defining the narrative." I caught that phrase "defining the narrative" and have been churning that over in my head for the last half hour.
I think I understand this concept very well and understand the roots of this concept. Walter Lippmann wrote a book "Public Opinion" published in 1922 that took the view that (1) in democracies the masses vote according to their opinions and their opinions ("Public Opinion") is determined by the news provided by the media -- the narrative. (2) The news is essentially a selective process controlled by reporters, hence the reporters controlled Public Opinion. It seemed to me that Lippmann went further and suggested that, given these facts, it was the mission of the more educated, enlightened reporters to use their position for good and to selectively cast the news such as to promote progressive government. I admit to having a less than certain memory on this final conclusion of mine. I need to reread that book, as I keep recollecting it recently. Because the news media is so completely dedicated to promoting Democratic candidates and agendas, this thesis is pretty depressing.
But my question is, while it is hard to deny an influence of "controlling the narrative," is it the case that this is determinative? Do facts not matter? For example, the fact is that Sarah Palin is a woman. That is not a matter determined by "controlling the narrative." Given some women's concern about the exclusion of women from powerful positions, this fact may be more important than the narrative. Similarly, the fact is John McCain was a fighter pilot who went in harms way in combat on missions of the US government. That is not a matter determined by "controlling the narrative." Some people are going to see that as an important element of a President of the United States. Digging deeper, some of the "facts" become, perhaps, a bit more selective. Thus, I imagine that "controlling the narrative" cannot happen on all subjects and may be considered to have a variable range of effect, depending on the nature of the "facts" under discussion.
One of the thoughts that occured to me was Democrats are much more engulfed in and committed to this "controlling the narrative." Democrats, in my thought, give much more weight and consideration to words versus deeds. It is as if Democrats think it is more important to say the right things, or to exert influence to try to make others interpret deeds and events favorably to Democratic purposes than in seeing reality clearly itself. Certainly I think you can look at the discussion of Iraq as a case in point.
So . . . is the Democratic party the party of empty Rhetoric and few deeds? It looks that way to me. What do others think.
Do not misunderstand the role of the media. I returned to college as an adult and took a journalism course in college, many years after being a reporter for my hometown newspaper during my first run at higher education. The professor asked the question: What is the role of reporters?
I answered that their role is to present an accurate and unbiased account of the news. That is how I was instructed for my reporting job in the early 70's.
WRONG! The following is the basic outline of that day's lecture.
-----
The role of the reporter is to generate readership (or viewership and listeners on TV and radio). The more readers, viewers or listeners your media outlet has, the more they can charge for advertising. The more they can charge for advertising, the more revenue for the media outlet.
How to generate readership? With controversy. If none exists, create it. Accomplishing that is exceedingly simple. Media is the information gatekeeper. Only that information the reporter/editor/publisher wants to release is fed to the public. Whatever information the reporter/editor/publisher does not want released is consigned to the black pit of the archives - File 13 in other words.
-----
That is Journalism 101 in a nutshell and is mainly what Lippman is trying to convey. Yellow journalism is alive and well.
So, relying on only one news source gives only one outlet's slant on any given story. You have to go to at least three sources, preferably more, for alternate bits of information. Then you can piece all that info together and maybe come up with a good overview of the real story.
Interesting witnessing, Arthur P. I accept your story. I think it has a lot of truth in it. I do think there is something more involved in our current media world, however. It isn't an unbiased selection of what produces more controversy and hence increases viewership/readership. There is a clear bias supporting Obama. I think this is consonant with the educated journalism professional's progressive mission idea going on. At least that is my opinion.
I think you're both right. Newspapers are losing money and readers so the concept of creating controversy to sell more papers and increase revenues is certainly a logical one and much news reporting seems to confirm this concept. I think much of the media does have a liberal slant, bias, lean, whatever you wish to call it and are predisposed to slant their reporting in that direction also. Last, but not least, Arthur P does bring up a good point about corroborating news sources to get more of the story and hopefully increase accuracy.
__________________
Jesus Christ--The reason for the season!
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If you can read this in English, thank a veteran.
If you're certain you know everything, there's little opportunity to learn anything.
I think that is true, Alsatian. Obama is young, smart, articulate and appealing. His face on the TV screen and in print makes people look. The media is trying to recreate the Kennedy/Nixon campaign of 1960. Fresh young talent vs the grumpy old man. Frankly, the comparison is accurate even without the media's interference.
McCain's Karl Rove-inspired negative attacks have generated controversy without any help from the media and created ever more interest in Obama, and the media is lapping it up, helping it along. Painting Obama in a good light encourages more attacks from McCain's operatives to try and offset it. Controversy continues, media revenues are enhanced.
However, the pro-Obama slant is definitely NOT in effect at Fox News. Fox appeals to the far right and their blood thirst for anything negative about Obama. That brings them in. It also brings in the left and independents, in order to keep tabs on the negativity. That is why their viewership is supposedly split into fairly even thirds. Not because their coverage is 'fair and balanced' but because it's patently unfair and heavily weighted to the right. They create controversy in that way. Different tactics, same results.
One of the biggest problems for the Mainstream Media is that they are no longer the sole arbiters of what is news & what isn't. The new media is growing & the MsM is declining.
I wish FOX was much more to the right. If they were then there may be a little tiny bit of balance in the over all Media. However as it is they can't even began to stem the tide of the liberal BS. Obama has pulled the wool over a lot of people's eyes.
I applaud Alsatian on his cognitive understanding of what's going on, and ArthurP is solidly 100% correct in that
reporters are one of, if not the most important part of, a media outlet's income-producing area.
It is true that 'public opinion' is created by media. Certainly, crime waves are 'created' when one or more media outlets
begin to report extensively on one specific type of crime whose incidence has been more or less steady, yet the reporting
of which appears to represent an increase in frequency. A few years ago (ok....it was MANY years ago !), there was a
crime wave in NYC which was labelled "Crimes Against the Elderly". Every day you'd get reports of attacks, victimizations and sorrowful stories of elderly crime victims. Man, you'd think it was a war on them. The actual numbers of this type of crime, as a crime statistic, stayed relatively static but in the minds of the public, more reporting = greater frequency.
People were afraid, the mayor appointed a special police task force and the papers sold like hotcakes.
All this was pre-cable network. People, especially in mid-to-lower income areas in the inner cities (my personal experience, from which I am recalling), did not purchase cable TV services. We grew up with a steady diet of ABC, NBC and CBS
and accepted their reports as fact. Then AM talk radio began a resurgence with the likes of Bob Grant who questioned the liberal media (I believe he's the one true broadcasting giant who paved the way for Rush, Hannity, Savitch, Levin) and called them to task, at least in my limited perception of the thing. Once cable TV came into general usage and people started flippin' from ABC to FOX, the news was different, it was somewhat fresh, and appeared to be more attuned to what people were THINKING rather than what they were TOLD. IT was at this point, when the tide turned from network tv news to cable tv news and specifically to FOX from CNN, that all of a sudden the conservative media outlets came under attack. They presented a different SLANT on the news that was different from the left-leaning pap the networks were spewing.
SO, in a roundabout way, we have come from network tv news which at least attempted to present objective news reports,
to out and out social warfare against political views they do not personally hold. All this was in response to reactionary news networks who owe their very success to the corrupt, morally bankrupt and biased network news outlets. There is no longer the veneer of impartiality being presented by the networks and IMO they have descended to base and despicable propaganda; they are still cultivating a LARGE base of people who, for whatever reason, still do not have access to alternative viewpoints as presented by some venues in the cable television arena. Opposing views are belittled and discredited and why not ? There is no opposing viewpoint. So, it is this fertile ground they till....it's a captive audience they propagandize and they play 'em like a cheap fiddle.
Cripes....we used to say that RAY CHARLES could see it....so once the clouds dissipate, I will say yes,
the dems are THE party of empty rhetoric. They have abandoned the people who have entrusted them with the power
to change the world and they have taken that support for granted and twisted and corrupted their 'mission'.
The Party of Rhetoric?
