Tuesday, November 20, 2012

Four Plays from the Media Playbook

When it comes to politics, the mainstream media operate from a standard playbook that favors Democrats or anyone on the left over Republicans or anyone on the right. While Fox News is the most watched cable news channel, it doesn’t have nearly the influence as other news outlets, so I don’t include them in my definition of mainstream. Instead, I’m thinking of ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, AP, Reuters, and The New York Times. Each has the ability to shape a news cycle and affect mainstream cultural thought.

While the playbook is not limited to these examples, I’ve identified four tactics that the media use to influence public opinion against Republicans.

#1 The Opinion of Independents
Example: “The Republicans’ extreme stances on social issues are driving away independent voters.”

The mainstream media like to say that partisanship turns off independents. Well, they say that when Republicans act in a partisan way or hold a partisan position, but somehow the sensitivity of independents isn’t ever mentioned when Democrats act in a partisan way. For the good of the party, Republicans are told, they must moderate their tone in order to appeal to independents, while Democratic attitudes are never presumed to scare off independent voters, even some of their most extreme positions like support of late-term abortion.

#2 Politicizing Events
Example: “Romney and Ryan are politicizing Benghazi and the death of our ambassador to create a wedge issue and gain votes.”

The 24-hour news cycle has created an environment where any news story can be politicized in one way or another, yet it is only when Republicans try to capitalize politically on events that anyone in the media objects. Democrats are given a free hand when they choose to score political points off natural disasters, foreign policy failures, or economic reports, but Republicans are told that we need to come together for bipartisan solutions, that politics stops at the water’s edge, and to stop rooting for a bad economy.

#3 Question Your Own Kind
Example: “By refusing to repudiate Mourdock yesterday, Romney showed that he prefers the rapist vote over the female vote.”

When Republicans go on television to criticize another Republican, the media fawn all over them, while Democrats are rarely given media time when they criticize their own. If a Republican writer offers criticism of a Democrat, they are often accused of not being fair and balanced and are encouraged to criticize their own. Of course, Democrats are free to offer criticism of Republicans without hearing the fair and balanced charge. When a Republican makes an incendiary statement, other Republicans are quickly asked to comment on or repudiate the other Republican, but Democrats are never asked to repudiate their own. Finally, crazy statements by Republicans are assumed by the media to be representative of Republican thought, while crazy Democrat statements are immediately labeled as fringe and irrelevant to the rest of the party.

#4 The Seriousness of the Charge
Example: “While there isn’t any evidence of a crime now, the seriousness of the charge demands that we investigate.”

Scandals are the media’s bread and butter, but there is a decided slant to coverage of political scandals. Scandals that involve Democrats warrant a much higher standard of proof than do those that involve Republicans. In many cases, Democratic scandals are quickly labeled distractions, while Republican scandals are considered clear evidence of hypocrisy. When a Republican is accused of doing something untoward, the “seriousness of the charge” is sufficient reason to keep the story alive. Rumors of Republican infidelity require immediate resignation, while Democrats stay in office until absolute proof is found or the media forget about the scandal entirely.

The next time youre watching a news story or opinion show, I have no doubt you will see one of these plays in action. Next time you read something from AP, Reuters, or The New York Times, see if Republicans are held to a different standard using The Media Playbook.

11 comments:

  1. Oyez! Oyez!

    I charge that there are at least two feral swine---possibly a third--- fighting under the back side of the FLOTUS' skirt.

    Who in the vaunted Pool shall investigate this serious charge?

    ReplyDelete
  2. The main hypocrisy from the Left around Fox News concerns how it is so horrible that Fox News tips right, while it is perfectly acceptable that the other major news networks tilt let.

    Partisanship for me, but not for you.

    This is why the so-called "studies" like "Out Foxed" are completely invalid as they ignore and support the stuff they bash Fox for if it is from their side.

    Besides, when it comes to the worst sort of partisanship, nothing can top CBS News... with the incident where Dan Rather presented a fabricated "Bush went AWOL" story based on forged documents. It was exposed right away. Any reputable news organization would have fired Rather immediately. But CBS wanted to keep him on, and they tried to wait a while for it to blow over.

    ReplyDelete
  3. To avoid any confusion, let me clarify that the quotes above are not from anyone in particular. They are my own paraphrases to demonstrate the plays from the playbook.

    I'd hate for anyone to spend time searching the internets for the actual quotes, serving only to avoid my main point about media bias.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I think that there are still a few relative bastions of objectivity. Jake Tapper from ABC and Anderson Cooper of CNN I find to be mostly honest in their presentations....But, yeah, you're right, overall the bias is quite palpable.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Sure there's a bias in the mainstream media! It's a corporate bias of censorship and overt omission, and propaganda, which has been fueled by consolidation over the last thirty years. To suggest it favors and legitimizes Democratic Party ideas over Republican Party ideas is false and unfounded. If anything, it favors whatever is in the best interest of its own corporate agenda -- notwithstanding political party.

    I suggest you watch Orwell Rolls in his Grave. It explains thoughtfully, and objectively, what has occurred due to media consolidation (i.e., "corporate" consolidation) in this country. You just might take a different viewpoint.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jefferson:

      1) There is far less censorship in the US media than in almost all of the world. In fact, I can't think of a single country with more open, less controlled media. You won't find one.

      2) "Propaganda" is meaningless in the way you are using it.

      3) Media consolidation is a complete myth. Not only is there no evidence of it, there is overwhelming proof of the opposite: a trend toward a growing number of more diverse media "voices". If you want information on this, I can provide it. The false claims of "media consolidation" always come with demands for control and censorship, and are fascistic and hostile to the ideals of a free and open press. Among the worst of these ideas comes from Noam Chomsky, who wants the government to tightly control the media in order to deal with the problem he notes in "Manufacturing Dissent" in which an informed public (informed by an open, free press) has ideas different from Chomsky's fringe, crazy views

      Heathen: Jefferson has no idea what he is talking about. Even in TV news, since 1982, we've had national sources added, not take away.

      Delete
  6. Jefferson, you can't be serious. Through consolidation, you think there are fewer news outlets today than in 1982? Ever heard of the internets?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Of all the news sources I listed above, I believe every one of them was present in 1983. And none have consolidated into each other. My contention is that those media outlets drive the news, and they have an entire playbook on how to promote the left or harm the right.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Heathen Republican: "Jefferson, you can't be serious. Through consolidation, you think there are fewer news outlets today than in 1982?"

    As a heart attack...

    The discussion revolved around "mainstream media"? If your complaint did not pertain to these (although I believe it did, since your first sentence explicitly said "...the mainstream media operate from a standard playbook that favors Democrats..."), I stand corrected.

    "Ever heard of the internets?"

    Twice. From the fool who originally proclaimed it, and the other time(s) from you, who apparently idolizes the fool and his outlandish attempts at witticism.

    Again, I believed you were referring to the "mainstream media". Were you not?

    ReplyDelete
  9. I hate debating with children. Seriously Jefferson, what's the name of your middle school?

    Yes, I'm talking about the mainstream media. I defined them later in my first paragraph. None of those entities have consolidated in the last 30 years (as you claim but don't back up) and there are more media entities today than 30 years ago.

    My original post on the four plays of the media playbook go unrefuted by you, so I'll assume at this point that you agree with the premise of my post. But please, keep arguing the non-essential points...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Heathan Republican: "I defined them later in my first paragraph. None of those entities have consolidated in the last 30 years (as you claim but don't back up) and there are more media entities today than 30 years ago."

      It doesn't matter how you define them. It appears you live within your own bubble of illusion, as most conservatives do, disregarding the real truth.

      Sure, there are more media outlets today, but that isn't the issue. Contemporary research demonstrates increasing levels of consolidation, with many media industries already highly concentrated and dominated by a very small number of firms. That's "corporate" media dominance, as I initially claimed and you disputed.

      "In 1983, fifty corporations dominated most of every mass medium and the biggest media merger in history was a $340 million deal. … [I]n 1987, the fifty companies had shrunk to twenty-nine. … [I]n 1990, the twenty-nine had shrunk to twenty three. … [I]n 1997, the biggest firms numbered ten and involved the $19 billion Disney-ABC deal, at the time the biggest media merger ever. … [In 2000] AOL Time Warner’s $350 billion merged corporation [was] more than 1,000 times larger [than the biggest deal of 1983]." -— Ben H. Bagdikian, The Media Monopoly, Sixth Edition, (Beacon Press, 2000), pp. xx—xxi


      "I hate debating with children. Seriously Jefferson, what's the name of your middle school?

      Is that why you coach a school debate team? ;-)

      Delete