Quote:
|
Originally Posted by roachboy
well, there are a number of ways to look at this.
the right has developed it own media apparatus over the past 20 years. its parameters have remained fairly constant: what has changed is the convergence of conservativeland's internal chatter with more mainstream political discourse--at its most appalling over the 2-3 years after 9/12/2001 (the digit is changed deliberately)--at this point, one way of seeing what has happened is that the discourse particular to conservative-land has lost any contact it once had with mainstream political discourse and so has effectively collapsed back onto its institutional infrastructure......
|
I think, roachboy, that you have summed up exactly what the supporting examples that I included in the OP, indicate is happening.
The "goal" of the most influential conservatives was this:
Quote:
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Pol...ophy/HL380.cfm
.........Indeed, I will go so far as to warrant that 90 percent of the stories in both the electronic and print media which deal with the political bias in the industry have their origins in the Media Research Center.
The Future is Bright
Why should conservatives be optimistic about the media? Because our future is bright, but only if we take advantage of it...........
..........8) Help train the next generation. ........
......Imagine, if you will, a future wherein the media willfully support the foreign policy objectives of the United States. A time when the left can no longer rely on the media to promote its socialist agenda to the public. A time when someone, somewhere in the media can be counted on to extol the virtues of morality without qualifications. When Betty Friedan no longer qualifies for "Person of the Week" honors. When Ronald Reagan is cited not as the "Man of the Year," but the "Man of the Century.".........
|
I think that we are now getting to see the "culmination" of these "efforts". Conservatives of the Bozell "mindset", first set out to discredit the media.....to intimidate into telling "the story" the way they wanted it told. They ended up creating their own alternative, parallel media "universe". By necessity....I'm assuming because of their requirement that "the message" be uniform....tightly controlled, as it moved further and further AWAY from news reporting and commentary that was less inconsistent with what the more mainstream, current events and politically savvy, perceived as accurate accounts of events.
Now we see how "tiny" the effort has ended up being....reducing the republican senate reelection committee and the RNC to touting only the links we see on their webpages....dominated by foxnews and the CNP Salem Comm. "properties" and personalities....and they have "Rush" and Mike Reagan, too.
The positive that I see is that they've conceded the rest of the media to those in the mainstream. It isn't relevant or impressive anymore that, for example....our VP says that he "usually watches foxnews". With his 9 percent approval rating....who cares what he usually watches?
The "multimedia" page at the republican senator's political site, and RNC "call the talk show hosts" page, instead of achieving the intended result....a web presence for a "dynamic" political movement, makes it look more like a "fringe" movement with a small following lacking in mainstream media coverage from "names" (Networks and publications....) familiar to all of us....the ones that we grew up with. Since their best opportunity to grow their base is by reaching folks who are "up to now", not paying particular attention to politics or current events, how will the RNC media "offerings" compete with those of the rest of us, to build or sustain it's base? How will it enhance it's credibility?