Is Fox News a net positive or negative for the GOP?

[C_Clayton_Jones]

.

In the aftermath of The Great GOP Meltdown of 2012, I've now seen a couple of articles asking this question as the party begins a little self-inspection. Wow, never would I have expected this.

(Well, at least SOME of the party is doing some self-inspection. The rest of it is doubling down, proudly remaining in abject denial. But that's for a different thread)

Fox played a big part in the party somehow convincing itself that Romney was going to win in a landslide. It essentially created an information cocoon for conservatives, where no light was getting in, where the bad information inside the cocoon was allowed to fester and grow. The result? Conservatives were shocked at the outcome; no one else was.

So would the GOP be better off if Fox never existed? Or if it changed its approach and stopped being such a weird cartoon act? Is Fox hurting the GOP?

(And by the way, don't divert to MSNBC. I agree it's gone completely over the cliff for the Left. This is about Fox, how it created its own little world, and why the Right was so stunned by the election results)

.

We have witnessed a remarkable and unique period of American political history, where an entire broadcasting entity (can’t really call it ‘news’) dedicated itself for the last four years solely to the removal of a sitting American president.

That it failed to do so is compelling evidence Fox preaches only to the converted, and failed to convince the required number of voters to not vote for Obama – the network’s clear raison d'etre.

It’s reasonable to infer, therefore, that Fox serves a predisposed clientele, where they ‘came that way’ to the network, blind adherents to conservative political dogma.

If Fox didn’t exist, and conservatives exposed to actual ‘fair and balanced’ news sources, they’d still reject the facts presented to them, as these facts would conflict with that conservative dogma.

 

[Mac1958]

Mac, on the Net positive and Net Negative aspect I would ask do you believe that a network alone can pull large amounts of votes from the GOP? I do not.

I am much more intrigued by the apparent viral interest by so many lefties with FoxNews. Now that is something that I think worthy of exploring in depth.

I love media analysis but I would never zone in on just one network to be truly honest and accurate on my analysis of media today and how the media impacts political elections and politics in general.

Well, I think lefties wouldn't give a crap about Fox News if they didn't think it was effective, just as they have such strong feelings about Limbaugh.

But in way, your point applies to my question. By extension, I wonder if lefties overreact to Fox, since it's possible Fox's weaknesses are helpful to them. If Fox is, on balance, helping lefties, they should just LET it. Big "if" there, obviously.

This is one of the main reasons I'm a First Amendment purist. If I think someone is flat wrong, or a net negative to their "side" of an issue, I want them flapping their gums nice and loud. Go ahead, be my guest. It's much easier to just point at them and say "hey, look at that", they're making my point FOR me.

The most hopeful numbers I see are those that show less and less people trusting the media. The media doesn't deserve our trust, not now. Hopefully that will change.

.

 

[NoNukes]

I simply worked with what you offered as answers for why he is an Obama supporter now. IMO you gave no specifics to back up the change he made and I am curious as to why you are not critical enough of a thinker to wonder why he changed without specific details being offered by Sullivan.

My opinion of why he changed really does not matter. He must have thought that Obama was the right direction for America. He was a Bush conservative and I watched him slowly change his course. Being gay may have poisoned him towards the Republicans.

Why did he suddenly become gay? lol Wasn't he gay since birth? During the Bush years?

You brought Sullivan into this discussion. If it was just because you saw another chance to bash Bush I get it. SOP for most lefties.

You obviously did not read anything that I write, you are just a jerk. Now I know better. And by the way, it was not me who brought Sullivan into the discussion.

 

[GuyPinestra]

.

In the aftermath of The Great GOP Meltdown of 2012, I've now seen a couple of articles asking this question as the party begins a little self-inspection. Wow, never would I have expected this.

(Well, at least SOME of the party is doing some self-inspection. The rest of it is doubling down, proudly remaining in abject denial. But that's for a different thread)

Fox played a big part in the party somehow convincing itself that Romney was going to win in a landslide. It essentially created an information cocoon for conservatives, where no light was getting in, where the bad information inside the cocoon was allowed to fester and grow. The result? Conservatives were shocked at the outcome; no one else was.

So would the GOP be better off if Fox never existed? Or if it changed its approach and stopped being such a weird cartoon act? Is Fox hurting the GOP?

(And by the way, don't divert to MSNBC. I agree it's gone completely over the cliff for the Left. This is about Fox, how it created its own little world, and why the Right was so stunned by the election results)

.

We have witnessed a remarkable and unique period of American political history, where an entire broadcasting entity (can’t really call it ‘news’) dedicated itself for the last four years solely to the removal of a sitting American president.

That it failed to do so is compelling evidence Fox preaches only to the converted, and failed to convince the required number of voters to not vote for Obama – the network’s clear raison d'etre.

It’s reasonable to infer, therefore, that Fox serves a predisposed clientele, where they ‘came that way’ to the network, blind adherents to conservative political dogma.

If Fox didn’t exist, and conservatives exposed to actual ‘fair and balanced’ news sources, they’d still reject the facts presented to them, as these facts would conflict with that conservative dogma.

Please Clayton, name ONE...

 

[Dreamy]

My opinion of why he changed really does not matter. He must have thought that Obama was the right direction for America. He was a Bush conservative and I watched him slowly change his course. Being gay may have poisoned him towards the Republicans.

Why did he suddenly become gay? lol Wasn't he gay since birth? During the Bush years?

You brought Sullivan into this discussion. If it was just because you saw another chance to bash Bush I get it. SOP for most lefties.

You obviously did not read anything that I write, you are just a jerk. Now I know better. And by the way, it was not me who brought Sullivan into the discussion.

Is a jerk anyone who corners you in the debate with your own words? Then I wear the name proudly.

 

[NoNukes]

Why did he suddenly become gay? lol Wasn't he gay since birth? During the Bush years?

You brought Sullivan into this discussion. If it was just because you saw another chance to bash Bush I get it. SOP for most lefties.

You obviously did not read anything that I write, you are just a jerk. Now I know better. And by the way, it was not me who brought Sullivan into the discussion.

Is a jerk anyone who corners you in the debate with your own words? Then I wear the name proudly.

No, it is someone who pays no attention to what is being said in a discussion and is just pushing their own agenda, thus, just wasting the other person's time.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Fox is the only media outlet that does not follow the propaganda line from the democrats. That's why obama declared his little war on Fox, and it follows that the little obamabots would continue to moan and groan about Fox.

I think that Fox can provide a valuable service in providing balance to what is clearly a left-leaning (and "leaning" is being charitable) mass media. The point I'm trying to get to (and failing so far) is whether they're doing, on balance, a good job of it, or whether they're actually hurting themselves and conservatism.

I don't think they are doing a good job, and Tuesday night is a shining example of that.

.

Here we disagree.

The notion of the ‘left leaning’ media is a myth; research during the president’s first term, for example, demonstrates that most news stories were negative of Obama.

The ‘mainstream’ media are far from perfect, and individual journalists have exhibited political bias, both left and right; but conservative animosity toward the ‘media’ is predicated on news outlets’ reporting of facts, facts with often conflict with conservative dogma.

The left hates freedom of speech that goes against their marxist beliefs. They use it as a tool to fool people!

Well, they didn’t fool you, now did they…

 

[Dreamy]

You obviously did not read anything that I write, you are just a jerk. Now I know better. And by the way, it was not me who brought Sullivan into the discussion.

Is a jerk anyone who corners you in the debate with your own words? Then I wear the name proudly.

No, it is someone who pays no attention to what is being said in a discussion and is just pushing their own agenda, thus, just wasting the other person's time.

I quoted you and addressed your own words directly. If that overwhelms you there is little I can do. I have no agenda. I want the truth. I asked you for specifics and you went got all squishy.

 

[bodecea]

omg...still with the Fox news

When you the Democrats have EVERY other news Lamestream news channel in the bag for them, you don't see people asking if they are plue or a negative for them

I believe the issue is....did FOX hurt by making people believe that Romney had it in the bag? Did they?

 

[Foxfyre]

There is a left leaning media, and the reason those who lean left trust it more is because they have their values, opinions, and ideology validated there. So most on the left trust the alphabet networks, PBS, CNN, MSNBC etc. more than they trust Fox where they are less likely to have their values, opinion, and ideology validated. And it feels good to them to see conservative values discounted, denigrated, or discredited.

Fox is the ONLY major television source those on the right can go to have their values, opinions, and ideology validated, but they also will be exposed to honestly expressed liberal values. Those liberal values annoy and irritate conservatives as much as conservative concepts irritate the liberals, but those liberal concepts will be given a fair hearing without being discounted, denigrated, or discredited in straight news reporting. And a careful evaluation of programs headed by O'Reilly, VanSustern, Stoseel, Geraldo. amd evem occasionally Huckabee, will reveal much to warm a liberal's heart. Hannity not so much.

You have to look darn hard on CNN or MSNBC or any of the alphabet networks \to find much to warm a conservative's heart.

 

[Dreamy]

omg...still with the Fox news

When you the Democrats have EVERY other news Lamestream news channel in the bag for them, you don't see people asking if they are plue or a negative for them

I believe the issue is....did FOX hurt by making people believe that Romney had it in the bag? Did they?

To answer that question one would have to believe the premise is correct. I don't watch FoxNews enough to know for certain but I tend to doubt it is an accurate assessment.

 

[Mac1958]

Fox is the only media outlet that does not follow the propaganda line from the democrats. That's why obama declared his little war on Fox, and it follows that the little obamabots would continue to moan and groan about Fox.

I think that Fox can provide a valuable service in providing balance to what is clearly a left-leaning (and "leaning" is being charitable) mass media. The point I'm trying to get to (and failing so far) is whether they're doing, on balance, a good job of it, or whether they're actually hurting themselves and conservatism.

I don't think they are doing a good job, and Tuesday night is a shining example of that.

.

Here we disagree.

The notion of the ‘left leaning’ media is a myth; research during the president’s first term, for example, demonstrates that most news stories were negative of Obama.

The ‘mainstream’ media are far from perfect, and individual journalists have exhibited political bias, both left and right; but conservative animosity toward the ‘media’ is predicated on news outlets’ reporting of facts, facts with often conflict with conservative dogma.

The left hates freedom of speech that goes against their marxist beliefs. They use it as a tool to fool people!

Well, they didn’t fool you, now did they…

We'll definitely have to disagree with the leanings of the media; I was in the business for about 20 years in a former life, and I'm still involved on the periphery. Their tactics are as clear to me as anything could be, and I see it every day.

.

 

[bodecea]

omg...still with the Fox news

When you the Democrats have EVERY other news Lamestream news channel in the bag for them, you don't see people asking if they are plue or a negative for them

I believe the issue is....did FOX hurt by making people believe that Romney had it in the bag? Did they?

To answer that question one would have to believe the premise is correct. I don't watch FoxNews enough to know for certain but I tend to doubt it is an accurate assessment.

OK, Fair enough. But somewhere...somehow...the Right got convinced that Romney had it in the bag and got cold cocked on Tues.

 

[Votto]

I love fox news as it reports real news and holds our government to the fire. A republic needs a media that works like fox...

To bad they're the only ones.

Then you are delusional. Fox merely taps into the "rage against the machine" mentality, it does nothing to fight it, rather, they merely want to turn a profit from it. People then watch and smile and nod and then vote democrat.

 

[Dreamy]

I believe the issue is....did FOX hurt by making people believe that Romney had it in the bag? Did they?

To answer that question one would have to believe the premise is correct. I don't watch FoxNews enough to know for certain but I tend to doubt it is an accurate assessment.

OK, Fair enough. But somewhere...somehow...the Right got convinced that Romney had it in the bag and got cold cocked on Tues.

I am sure there were those who thought it was in the bag(every election and both parties have those strong believers) but was that certainty a direct result of FoxNews and any part or all of their content I would have to doubt.

I am simply not getting the direct correlation to the GOP loss this race to FoxNews.

 

[Votto]

We'll definitely have to disagree with the leanings of the media; I was in the business for about 20 years in a former life, and I'm still involved on the periphery. Their tactics are as clear to me as anything could be, and I see it every day.

.

It used to be all we had was Walter Cronkite tell it like it was. Everyone trusted Walter and no one dare question him. Looking back I have to chuckle a bit.

Any media source has a bias in how they present news and what stories they do or do not cover. This fantasy about objective news is a joke. Granted, some try to decieve by giving false facts, but by in large I think what they do is be selective with facts in order to paint a picture that is not necessarily true.

If you ask me, the media is a valuable tool for the two major parties. For you see, the two major parties purposefully try to conquer and divide. For you see, if government treated everyone the same then where would their support come from and from where would money flow into the system? The game is the person with the most dollars wins and gets perks. That is why certain unions now do not have to pay into OBamacare and why GM payed no federal taxes. Also consider the gay lobby. They have no concern about polygamists wanting to marry or singles who don't get the same perks as monogomous married couples. All they care about is themselves and being the "winner".

So on the one side we can watch Chris Matthews head explode on MSNBC after a bad debate by Obama or Carl Rove on Fox news look like a baffoon on election day as networks like Fox and MSNBC feed into the conquer and divide mantra.

To me it is more entertainment.....in a sick kind of way than it is informative.

 

[Foxfyre]

omg...still with the Fox news

When you the Democrats have EVERY other news Lamestream news channel in the bag for them, you don't see people asking if they are plue or a negative for them

I believe the issue is....did FOX hurt by making people believe that Romney had it in the bag? Did they?

To answer that question one would have to believe the premise is correct. I don't watch FoxNews enough to know for certain but I tend to doubt it is an accurate assessment.

The only person on Fox who insisted Romney had it in the bag was Dick Morris, and he has been really scarce since the election. Several thought Romney would likely win, as did I, but everybody else was less certain and expected the margins to be razor thin, as did I. Most especially after Obama got a major boost from the super storm Sandy, and they were able to keep Ghandazi, Iran shooting at our drone, the Petraeus scandal, the FEMA inadequacies, and the true jobs and unemployment numbers etc. off the front pages until after the election. Rasmussen, Luntz, and several others on Fox were calling it too close to call. Rasmussen is disappointed that he was further off the mark than usual in this election, and attributes that to underestimating the minority vote which did turn out in larger numbers than anybody expected.

 

[Dreamy]

We should separate news from commentary. Are we discussing just the reporting of actual news of the day or something else?

Don't these 24/7 news channels offer round table discussions sometimes with both sides of the debate offered? I see nothing wrong with this.

Then as far as talking heads, all the 24/7s have those too. Some are leaning left and some lean right.

The problem with media is what they choose to cover and how they cover it. That is not something that only FoxNews should be scrutinized. Whether it be print, internet or electronic media watch closely the words that are used. The way a story is presented or highlighted. The amount of attention one network will give to one story while ignoring or going light on another.

Media watchdogging with an honest eye takes some work.

 

[Dreamy]

I believe the issue is....did FOX hurt by making people believe that Romney had it in the bag? Did they?

To answer that question one would have to believe the premise is correct. I don't watch FoxNews enough to know for certain but I tend to doubt it is an accurate assessment.

The only person on Fox who insisted Romney had it in the bag was Dick Morris, and he has been really scarce since the election. Several thought Romney would likely win, as did I, but everybody else was less certain and expected the margins to be razor thin, as did I. Most especially after Obama got a major boost from the super storm Sandy, and they were able to keep Ghandazi, Iran shooting at our drone, the Petraeus scandal, the FEMA inadequacies, and the true jobs and unemployment numbers etc. off the front pages until after the election. Rasmussen, Luntz, and several others on Fox were calling it too close to call. Rasmussen is disappointed that he was further off the mark than usual in this election, and attributes that to underestimating the minority vote which did turn out in larger numbers than anybody expected.

Thanks for the very helpful insight. I think all networks have their guests and commentators who make predictions so I am still confused as to why FoxNews draws such special attention from some people here. Do we look to any other network to fault when the left loses an election?

I think the left needs to stop listening to whoever they listen to because imo they are voting for the wrong people. See that is easy for anyone to do.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

There is a left leaning media, and the reason those who lean left trust it more is because they have their values, opinions, and ideology validated there. So most on the left trust the alphabet networks, PBS, CNN, MSNBC etc. more than they trust Fox where they are less likely to have their values, opinion, and ideology validated. And it feels good to them to see conservative values discounted, denigrated, or discredited.

Fox is the ONLY major television source those on the right can go to have their values, opinions, and ideology validated, but they also will be exposed to honestly expressed liberal values. Those liberal values annoy and irritate conservatives as much as conservative concepts irritate the liberals, but those liberal concepts will be given a fair hearing without being discounted, denigrated, or discredited in straight news reporting. And a careful evaluation of programs headed by O'Reilly, VanSustern, Stoseel, Geraldo. amd evem occasionally Huckabee, will reveal much to warm a liberal's heart. Hannity not so much.

You have to look darn hard on CNN or MSNBC or any of the alphabet networks \to find much to warm a conservative's heart.

Again, because ABC, CBS, and CNN relate facts and the truth which conflict with rightist dogma.

This animosity between the right and the media dates back to the days of Vietnam, the Pentagon Papers, and Watergate, the start of the myth that the ‘liberal’ media ‘blame America first’ when in fact the clear evidence indeed proved that the American government was involved in wrong-doing.

Over the last 40 years, for example, the media have related facts with regard to the economy that conflicted with rightist dogma, facts about race and race relations that conflicted with rightist dogma, and facts about the Constitution, its case law, poverty, welfare, and responsible governance that all conflicted with rightist dogma.

The only recourse for conservatives, therefore, in constant conflict with the media where the facts conflicted with dogma, was to declare the media ‘left bias’ and establish their own network to create the illusion of conservative dogma as ‘news.’




And as with Fox, MSNBC is not ‘the news.’