Amnesty Bill and the Media (old and new)

[Annie]

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YjI3NDkyNDIyNzM0YmQxMDZlMGZkNTI1MjI2YTg5NmE=

...

The conservative web has, for years now, enabled a kind of end-run around the liberal mainstream media. This dynamic has never been more evident than today. Without the conservative web, the immigration bill would likely have passed–probably in a rushed vote before Memorial Day. As the Supreme Court has moved right (thanks to the conservative media apparatus), MSM coverage has become ever more openly and unashamedly biased. Linda Greenhouse has become an open advocate for left-leaning jurisprudence–in her journalism, and in her extra-journalistic activities. Today’s NYT piece by Adam Liptak on the latest Supreme Court decision literally reads like a piece of opinion journalism. Time Magazine has an openly pro-amnesty cover story. MSM is now almost unashamedly liberalism’s megaphone, while the conservative web, allied with think tanks, cable TV, and talk radio has matured into a full-blown opposition....

 

[onedomino]

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YjI3NDkyNDIyNzM0YmQxMDZlMGZkNTI1MjI2YTg5NmE=

MSM is now almost unashamedly liberalism’s megaphone, while the conservative web, allied with think tanks, cable TV, and talk radio has matured into a full-blown opposition....

It may be "opposition," but I do not believe the media audiences are anywhere near even. I do not have the media penetration figures at hand, but Leftist domination of Network news, television entertainment, Hollywood, and Newspapers must outstrip the Right's influence as expressed by the media channels listed above. It is a microscopic percentage of people who get their news and opinion from the web. Rightwing think tanks might affect rightwing columnists and some Republicans in Washington, but what else? The audience for talk radio is low compared to the number of potential voters and the same can be said of Cable TV. If I wanted to affect political opinion and on the one hand was offered Network news, television entertainment, Hollywood, and Newspapers, and on the other hand "the conservative web, allied with think tanks, cable TV, and talk radio," the choice would be obvious.

 

[Annie]

It may be "opposition," but I do not believe the media audiences are anywhere near even. I do not have the media penetration figures at hand, but Leftist domination of Network news, television entertainment, Hollywood, and Newspapers must outstrip the Right's influence as expressed by the media channels listed above. It is a microscopic percentage of people who get their news and opinion from the web. Rightwing think tanks might affect rightwing columnists and some Republicans in Washington, but what else? The audience for talk radio is low compared to the number of potential voters and the same can be said of Cable TV. If I wanted to affect political opinion and on the one hand was offered Network news, television entertainment, Hollywood, and Newspapers, and on the other hand "the conservative web, allied with think tanks, cable TV, and talk radio," the choice would be obvious.

On important issues, such as immigration, Harriet Miers, UAE ports deal, Dan Rather, etc. the web and talk radio provide the information that people that are willing to work from, do. It's a matter of the right issue with the right information.

Will they make a candidate, no, there isn't enough agreement. However, on certain issues, that unfortunately this administration seems prone to engaging in, the base does get mobilized.

 

[musicman]

It may be "opposition," but I do not believe the media audiences are anywhere near even. I do not have the media penetration figures at hand, but Leftist domination of Network news, television entertainment, Hollywood, and Newspapers must outstrip the Right's influence as expressed by the media channels listed above.

And, while I, likewise, lack the exact figures, I feel quite sure your assessment is correct. Yet it is the left who agitate for a return to the whimsically named, "Fairness Doctrine". Why? Because the left are not content with mere domination; they want monopoly. They have witnessed - and FELT - the power of open discourse, and THEY DON'T LIKE IT.

 

[Annie]

And, while I, likewise, lack the exact figures, I feel quite sure your assessment is correct. Yet it is the left who agitate for a return to the whimsically named, "Fairness Doctrine". Why? Because the left are not content with mere domination; they want monopoly. They have witnessed - and FELT - the power of open discourse, and THEY DON'T LIKE IT.

I do not disagree with the MSM having greater numbers, it's that the alternative medias listeners/readers are more active and influential on others.

 

[Annie]

More on the same topic:

http://www.nypost.com/php/pfriendly...feat_em_all_opedcolumnists_john_podhoretz.htm

DEFEAT 'EM ALL

By JOHN PODHORETZ

June 9, 2007 -- SOMETHING revolutionary occurred Thursday in Washington: A major piece of legislation with bipartisan backing and the strong support of the president failed to pass the Senate.

The immigration bill, it appears, is dead.

Such a thing happens maybe once in a . . . no, actually, it never happens.

Supreme Court nominations sometimes blow up on the Senate floor, but legislation almost never does - because the folks who run the Senate won't allow a piece of legislation onto the floor for a vote unless they know it will pass.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid clearly decided to let the controversial immigration-reform bill go to the floor with an uncertain future because he figured he could spin its failure as a defeat for President Bush - even though Reid himself supported the bill.

Reid is right, though. It's a defeat for Bush, because Bush wanted the measure and couldn't work his will on his own party.

But there's something else notable here - something that should gladden the hearts of libertarians and all those who are suspicious of big government.

The takedown of this bill is a template for future actions against major pieces of legislation. And like so many templates for action these days, it was made possible by the Internet. Here's how....

 

[musicman]

I do not disagree with the MSM having greater numbers, it's that the alternative medias listeners/readers are more active and influential on others.

Is this a great country, or what??!!

 

[Annie]

Is this a great country, or what??!!

For all the times that one would despair, then see the possibilities of participation, yet!