Angry media pundits changing US politics

Jonny7

I am noticing how galvanised the Republicans/Tea party are now .. and one huge factor, in my opinion, has been the rise of the angry media pundit. I'm not going to go on a Fox news bashing tirade but strong pull-no-punch personalities such as Glenn Beck, O'Reilly, Limbaugh are now indirectly affecting US politics.

I won't pretend to be unbiased - a lot of it is stuff that no one could honestly get away with here in Europe - but it works, and works well. Its obviously not as extreme as say, Hitler, Rwanda, etc, but to a lesser extent, if you cleverly focus peoples frustrations and redirect them to another source then you are going to have a lot of political clout (or worse, the Iranian regime does no end of this)

Obama isn't a muslim communist, but there are people out there, a shocking amount that really do think he is.. they didn't come up with that themselves, but no one told them that directly. Somewhere inbetween was the angry media pundit with the sheer suggestion of it.

mgmt

Jonny7 wrote: »

I am noticing how galvanised the Republicans/Tea party are now .. and one huge factor, in my opinion, has been the rise of the angry media pundit. I'm not going to go on a Fox news bashing tirade but strong pull-no-punch personalities such as Glenn Beck, O'Reilly, Limbaugh are now indirectly affecting US politics.

I won't pretend to be unbiased - a lot of it is stuff that no one could honestly get away with here in Europe - but it works, and works well. Its obviously not as extreme as say, Hitler, Rwanda, etc, but to a lesser extent, if you cleverly focus peoples frustrations and redirect them to another source then you are going to have a lot of political clout (or worse, the Iranian regime does no end of this)

Obama isn't a muslim communist, but there are people out there, a shocking amount that really do think he is.. they didn't come up with that themselves, but no one told them that directly. Somewhere inbetween was the angry media pundit with the sheer suggestion of it.

Why did you mention Hitler???

Media attacking in the USA, swings both ways. Fox News is conservative, MSNBC is liberal. Fox News attacks Obama, MSNBC attacks Sarah Palin etc.

Jonny7

mgmt wrote: »

Why did you mention Hitler???

Media attacking in the USA, swings both ways. Fox News is conservative, MSNBC is liberal. Fox News attacks Obama, MSNBC attacks Sarah Palin etc.

I am talking about angry speakers - basically those who start to shout/raise their voices/get emotional/get angry.. consistantly - live on air. Viewers are confused because these speakers are in the role of impartial observer.

I can't really find any examples in UK television, basically the impartial radio/news reporter is generally.. impartial, they aren't shouting emotionally and angrily about David Cameron in the middle of a live broadcast.

I stuck in Hitler because he was the first and I put in Rwanda to demonstrate its hideous power. Its pretty obvious I view it with utter contempt - I just noticed the conversatives latching onto it more than the liberals

mgmt

Jonny7 wrote: »

I am talking about angry speakers - basically those who start to shout/raise their voices/get emotional/get angry.. consistantly - live on air. Viewers are confused because these speakers are in the role of impartial observer.

I can't really find any examples in UK television, basically the impartial radio/news reporter is generally.. impartial, they aren't shouting emotionally and angrily about David Cameron in the middle of a live broadcast.

I stuck in Hitler because he was the first and I put in Rwanda to demonstrate its hideous power. Its pretty obvious I view it with utter contempt - I just noticed the conversatives latching onto it more than the liberals

I guess you don't see angry speakers on UK media due to the dominance of the BBC which requires a political balance. Print media on the other hand...

Also I think the likes of Dylan Ratigan and Keith Olbermann are in the exactly the same genre as Glenn Beck.

FatherTed

I hadn't watched Cable News TV is a couple of years but it was quite amusing when I watched MSNBC on the election night. Olberman, O'Donnell and Matthews were beside themselves and were losing it at one stage when they were interviewing Michelle Bachman. Now I know she was a whacko but they were over the top with her.

I guess MSNBC is trying to be a counterpoint to Fox. It's just they're not as good at it.

Manic Moran

Jonny7 wrote: »

I am noticing how galvanised the Republicans/Tea party are now .. and one huge factor, in my opinion, has been the rise of the angry media pundit. I'm not going to go on a Fox news bashing tirade but strong pull-no-punch personalities such as Glenn Beck, O'Reilly, Limbaugh are now indirectly affecting US politics.

They're not alone. I'd add Rachel Maddow to that list, for example, but on the other side.

I don't think they're having all that much of an effect. The people who will generally pay any attention to them are the sort who would never vote for the 'other' party if a gun was put to their head. Do independents listen to Beck?

NTM

Overheal

I turn on Beck and listen to those points in his program where he tries to portray himself as a moderate. But then he starts saying crazy things, and i go watch south park.

All of these pundits can be easilly ignored. The Maddows the O'Reillys and the Olbermans:




It's not like they have creepy powers of Hypnosis. Come on.

catbear

Its pretty obvious I view it with utter contempt - I just noticed the conversatives latching onto it more than the liberals

Well Johnny, you have a bias that shields you from the ugly side of what you support but accentuates it on the side that you don't. That's it really.

As far as I can see RTE are signed up Democrats, Tubers gets paid an monster wage for flogging his own drool over JFK. No surprise, the Irish establishment still think like it's the 1960s, they're doing a good job dragging us back there.

kev9100

Manic Moran wrote: »

They're not alone. I'd add Rachel Maddow to that list, for example, but on the other side.



NTM

Really? Yeah, she's biased, but she doesn't go down to the levels of Olbermann and O'Reilly.

Overheal

She cuts her hair short and acts like a dude. Thats enough reason to be afraid of her

kaiser sauze

mgmt wrote: »

Why did you mention Hitler???

Why do Beck, O'Reilly, Hannity et al mention "Hitler and Obama" in the same paragraph about once per show?

Overheal

mgmt wrote: »

Why did you mention Hitler???

Because Hitler was completely demonized in the media. Still is. Look at Looney Toons shorts from the 40s. Look at the way Russia and Communism were turned into an enemy. And Osama Bin Laden. And Saddam. And George Bush. And Obama. The point I believe he was trying to make was that the media has a knack for focusing on a person/place/thing and leaving it on people's lips until its the only thing people talk about. And when they focus on these things they go "This is the cause of all your problems" and that resonates with people.

Jonny7

Overheal wrote: »

Because Hitler was completely demonized in the media. Still is. Look at Looney Toons shorts from the 40s. Look at the way Russia and Communism were turned into an enemy. And Osama Bin Laden. And Saddam. And George Bush. And Obama. The point I believe he was trying to make was that the media has a knack for focusing on a person/place/thing and leaving it on people's lips until its the only thing people talk about. And when they focus on these things they go "This is the cause of all your problems" and that resonates with people.

Yup

For instance, many Americans are being convinced on a daily basis that their country is turning into a socialist haven - many don't have a clue what socialism even is yet they know its something to do with communism and communism is evil therefore their current president is evil. Its kinda eh going down the wrong track there a bit..

I guess I just see the conservatives as being more guilty of this practice than the liberals.

The most prominant 'angry' media pundits, again mainly on the conservative side (in my opinion), are big and only getting bigger - if some of them ran for president they'd have a fairly good chance - thats the future I think. If they can keep Palin away from any 'intelligent' debate then she'll have her finger on the button so to speak in a few years

Manic Moran

kev9100 wrote: »

Really? Yeah, she's biased, but she doesn't go down to the levels of Olbermann and O'Reilly.

She's certainly more subtle about how she goes about it, but is just as opinionated and it shows in her reporting/interviewing.

NTM

southsiderosie

Overheal wrote: »

She cuts her hair short and acts like a dude. Thats enough reason to be afraid of her

:rolleyes:

Manic Moran wrote: »

She's certainly more subtle about how she goes about it, but is just as opinionated and it shows in her reporting/interviewing.

NTM

I think it's unfortunate that NBC chose to put her on MSNBC as Keith Olbermann's sidekick. She is very smart and asks good questions, but also has a sense of humor, which Olbermann seems to have lost after leaving ESPN. If they were taking the long view, they should have groomed her to eventually take over Meet the Press; David Gregory is just biding his time until Matt Lauer leaves the Today Show, and he is terrible on MTP.

southsiderosie

The WaPo just announced that Olbermann was suspended without pay for making campaign contributions.

irishh_bob

mgmt wrote: »

Why did you mention Hitler???

Media attacking in the USA, swings both ways. Fox News is conservative, MSNBC is liberal. Fox News attacks Obama, MSNBC attacks Sarah Palin etc.

MSNBC is only liberal compared to fox news in the way alaska is warm compared to siberia , im no lefty but thier is virtually no left wing mainstream media in america

southsiderosie

There is plenty of left-wing print media; Mother Jones, the Nation, and the New Republic come to mind. And it is less unhinged that the tv version.

kaiser sauze

southsiderosie wrote: »

There is plenty of left-wing print media; Mother Jones, the Nation, and the New Republic come to mind. And it is less unhinged that the tv version.

I notice how you refer to print media, whereas the poster seemed to allude to TV media.

tommyboyle

The closest that you'll get to unbiased news is cnn. Fox news is run by the GOP. The Tea Partyers will disappear with Palin

southsiderosie

irishh_bob wrote: »

MSNBC is only liberal compared to fox news in the way alaska is warm compared to siberia , im no lefty but thier is virtually no left wing mainstream media in america

kaiser sauze wrote: »

I notice how you refer to print media, whereas the poster seemed to allude to TV media.

Yes that was deliberate. If people want liberal media they can get it through print. However, I've found that the best coverage of US politics these days is through foreign media.

I refuse to watch cable news because most of the time it is not informative, and it just turns into a shouting match and 90% of the peop;e they put on-air are unqualified to discuss whatever it is they are pontificating about. I don't think the channels are even so ideological, because they shift based on what planet they are orbiting: Fox is a mouthpiece for the Republican party, and MSNBC is basically anti-Fox.

steelcityblues

Olbermann's always been a glorified sports presenter, who eventually believed he was too 'good' for the trivial world of sports journalism! He always was in the same 'style', for want of better term, as messrs O'Reilly and Beck. I knew his meltdown would eventually happen!

At least Maddow has a bit of class in the way she broadcasts!

tommyboyle

We americans should go the route of every european nation. Could our defense spending and only really worry about ourselves. I am a US vet and dont want to see anymore of my brothers buried after being killed in a forein land. We are powerful enough to more than care for ourselves, that should be sufficient. Only defend America because all of the EU is cutting their military because they depend on us

sarumite

mgmt wrote: »

Why did you mention Hitler???

Media attacking in the USA, swings both ways. Fox News is conservative, MSNBC is liberal. Fox News attacks Obama, MSNBC attacks Sarah Palin etc.

Though MSNBC is better at keep overt opinion out of its straight news feed. Also Palin works for FOX, Obama doesn't work for MSNBC so I fail to see the comparison?

sarumite

tommyboyle wrote: »

We americans should go the route of every european nation. Could our defense spending and only really worry about ourselves. I am a US vet and dont want to see anymore of my brothers buried after being killed in a forein land. We are powerful enough to more than care for ourselves, that should be sufficient. Only defend America because all of the EU is cutting their military because they depend on us

A lot of American foreign (read military) policy has a large chunk of self-interest in it.

gbee

Jonny7 wrote: »

Obama isn't a muslim communist, but there are people out there, a shocking amount that really do think he is.. .

He is on video enough times to make me think he really is too. Or else his overlords want him out and are giving him bad scripts ~ which he delivers with relish.

I've had to sort of look twice as some of his statements, so I'm not surprised to see you post this observation.

kaiser sauze

gbee wrote: »

He is on video enough times to make me think he really is too. Or else his overlords want him out and are giving him bad scripts ~ which he delivers with relish.

I've had to sort of look twice as some of his statements, so I'm not surprised to see you post this observation.

*facepalm*

:rolleyes:

Who needs Neil Delamere?

sarumite

gbee wrote: »

He is on video enough times to make me think he really is too. Or else his overlords want him out and are giving him bad scripts ~ which he delivers with relish.

I've had to sort of look twice as some of his statements, so I'm not surprised to see you post this observation.

As I have only ever looked once at his statements, care to suggest some statements that deserve a second look?

Memnoch

gbee wrote: »

He is on video enough times to make me think he really is too. Or else his overlords want him out and are giving him bad scripts ~ which he delivers with relish.

I've had to sort of look twice as some of his statements, so I'm not surprised to see you post this observation.

Are you seriously saying that you think Obama might be a Muslim Communist?

*confused*

(not that there is anything wrong with being Muslim OR a Communist, or both.)

kaiser sauze

Memnoch wrote: »

Are you seriously saying that you think Obama might be a Muslim Communist?

*confused*

(not that there is anything wrong with being Muslim OR a Communist, or both.)

...but, but, but, teh commiez will eats our babiez!

Black Swan

OK lads, we have had our fun (both now and in the past as posters to this forum), but can we start moving towards more quality of content in our posts on this thread, and in others on the US Politics forum? Thanks.

tommyboyle

Since hitler was brought up may I introduce a funny thought. Does anyone else find it odd that japan chose the aryan hate nation to allign themselves with. If Hitler won he would rule europe and russia from his london capital. He would either own america or have us well under his thumb, yet he would allow the asians to rule themselves and part of china. If he found poles and other white races as second class what did the japanese think emporer hitler would do to them. Yhey could ask stalin about his iron clad treaties. Well thought out plan I think. I apologize if anyone finds this offensive it was not intended to be. Just pointing out actual history

gbee

tommyboyle wrote: »

Since hitler was brought up may I introduce a funny thought.

I fail to catch the context, it sounds interesting but the thought has not expanded in my mid beyond the Hitler being and Atheist argument, when in fact he was a Catholic and part funded by Rome.

So, if I've got your reasoning, half the world should be Catholic adoring both Hitler and the Pope and the other half should be multi religious adoring both the Japanese emperor as dictator of 1/2 the world, and as a God?

And then they go to war because they're bored?

sarumite

tommyboyle wrote: »

Since hitler was brought up may I introduce a funny thought. Does anyone else find it odd that japan chose the aryan hate nation to allign themselves with. If Hitler won he would rule europe and russia from his london capital. He would either own america or have us well under his thumb, yet he would allow the asians to rule themselves and part of china. If he found poles and other white races as second class what did the japanese think emporer hitler would do to them. Yhey could ask stalin about his iron clad treaties. Well thought out plan I think. I apologize if anyone finds this offensive it was not intended to be. Just pointing out actual history

Actual history is that Hitler lost. We will never know what would have happened if Hitler had won....what would winning entail?

tommyboyle

Thank God he did. He was truly an evil man. I didnt mean to stir anything up, it just seemed an odd alliance.

Mjollnir

Manic Moran wrote: »

She's certainly more subtle about how she goes about it, but is just as opinionated and it shows in her reporting/interviewing.

NTM

Ah, so you've never actually seen her show?

Manic Moran

Only the topics that I'm interested in, such as firearms or military events. I certainly don't watch it (or any other show other than Top Gear) routinely.

NTM

20Cent

There is another aspect to this which I find much more disturbing.
Fox news are paying Sarah Palin, Newt Gingritch and Karl Rove as pundits. Fair enough I suppose, but does this give exclusivity?
For example other networks would not have access to these people because they are signed up to another?
Palin has access to an audience on Fox with fawning interviews plus her "reality" show (party political broadcast). Could we end up with media mogul A's candidate V's Mogul B's, assuming there is a B?

Politics like professional sports, buy a person and sell them with your media?

BlitzKrieg

tommyboyle wrote: »

Since hitler was brought up may I introduce a funny thought. Does anyone else find it odd that japan chose the aryan hate nation to allign themselves with. If Hitler won he would rule europe and russia from his london capital. He would either own america or have us well under his thumb, yet he would allow the asians to rule themselves and part of china. If he found poles and other white races as second class what did the japanese think emporer hitler would do to them. Yhey could ask stalin about his iron clad treaties. Well thought out plan I think. I apologize if anyone finds this offensive it was not intended to be. Just pointing out actual history

???

The history forums would have a field day ripping apart this notion.

It reads like the philip K dick novel the man in the high castle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Man_in_the_High_Castle)

For it to occur alot would have to change with american policies prior to the war for the scenario to occur (as was changed in the book.)


though fatherland would be closer to what would have really happened
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatherland_%28novel%29)

Honestly treating hitler like some boogey man who if left unchecked would have had done some comic book like villiany conquering of the world ignores the true horrors of his rule.

The simple truth is neither axis power wanted anything to do with the USA as conquerable territory, you need to remember prior to the world war 2 it looked like too much land that was broke as sh*t, practically worthless and too far out of the way to be used as simply resource territory (in contrast to eastern europe and china which were within spitting distance of both powers)

Manic Moran

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

???

The history forums would have a field day ripping apart this notion.

Oh, I don't know. The disparity is certainly true. After they had conquered the Eurasian Continent, would Hitler really have let those little yellow inferior specimens of sub-humankind rule half of it without eventually turning on them himself?

NTM

gbee

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

For it to occur alot would have to change with american policies prior to the war for the scenario to occur (as was changed in the book.)

Generally speaking, the American people prior to Pearl Harbour and Roosevelt's manipulation of it, were still isolationists and if they were to form allegiances, they were for Germany.

Britain and France were seen by the majority as former enemies of the US, reinforced by the US patriotic history teachings, so 'a despicable cowardly act of aggression' was needed to shift the public mindset to do two things, go to war, and on the side of Britain and France.

In a hypothesis one could nearly have tossed a coin to decide where the US went and the North Atlantic U-Boat conflicts shows that if Hitler had put a fraction more resources into the Kriegsmarine instead of his beloved Luftwaffe, he might have launched the first true submarine sooner, by the time of it's arrival there were just a handful that saw service and none had support or resupply.

Developing the A Bomb: Germany were accidentally developing the core ingredients of a nuclear weapon, there was an A-Bomb race as the Allies knew the potential but in fact Hitler was not working on the A-Bomb, but if he had realised its potential he could have been maybe a year ahead of the Manhattan Project. Some of the greatest sacrifices by bomber crews and commando raids were to neutralise A-Bomb development and one vital target in that was an otherwise simplistic sounding 'ball bearing' factory.

History has not revealed what Hitler had been working on, but he had the nuclear age in his grasp, as we understand it, but was he working on an even BIGGER weapon that we still don't understand .......

BlitzKrieg

Manic Moran wrote: »

Oh, I don't know. The disparity is certainly true. After they had conquered the Eurasian Continent, would Hitler really have let those little yellow inferior specimens of sub-humankind rule half of it without eventually turning on them himself?

NTM

thats the comic book villiany him and the third reich is painted with that is a dis-service to history and the horrors that were commited during its short rule. I find it unsettling that people assume that the mentality of a nazi supporter would tie directly to such a black and white viewpoint, when the reality is that the issue is that issues of scale and hindsight have a tendancy of hiding the complexity of how fascism gains support and how in the end it is directed.

Taking the assumption that the third reich would have forever expanded until it has conquered the whole world has no factual basis. There are plenty of cases of Nazi Germany expecting peace terms, Britain being the most famous, there are records that after Dunkirk the nazi state expected to negotiate some form of peace, going as far as to propose it to the earl of halifax in july 1940 which was refused.

The most common argument that the german's intended to conquer the world is that they had plans drawn up on how to invade pretty much every nation around them (including Ireland) but considering that both Britain and the United States have done the same regulary prior the world war two and since, I wouldnt consider it grounds for a genuine Nazi goal to militarily invade and conquer the world. The closest Germany got to anything close to invading the US was a sabotage mission and a spy ring.

Carcharodon

Manic Moran wrote: »

They're not alone. I'd add Rachel Maddow to that list, for example, but on the other side.

I don't think they're having all that much of an effect. The people who will generally pay any attention to them are the sort who would never vote for the 'other' party if a gun was put to their head. Do independents listen to Beck?

NTM

I am by no means a fan of Maddow but to compare her to Beck is really doing her an injustice, at least she makes sense most of the time.

kaiser sauze

Carcharodon wrote: »

I am by no means a fan of Maddow but to compare her to Beck is really doing her an injustice, at least she makes sense most of the time.

...and she does not lie. That is the main differentiation between the two.

People who think that Fox pundits are the equivalent of anything else out there don't watch Fox News or are just being disingenuous.

Wompa1

gbee wrote: »

Generally speaking, the American people prior to Pearl Harbour and Roosevelt's manipulation of it, were still isolationists and if they were to form allegiances, they were for Germany.

Britain and France were seen by the majority as former enemies of the US, reinforced by the US patriotic history teachings, so 'a despicable cowardly act of aggression' was needed to shift the public mindset to do two things, go to war, and on the side of Britain and France.

In a hypothesis one could nearly have tossed a coin to decide where the US went and the North Atlantic U-Boat conflicts shows that if Hitler had put a fraction more resources into the Kriegsmarine instead of his beloved Luftwaffe, he might have launched the first true submarine sooner, by the time of it's arrival there were just a handful that saw service and none had support or resupply.

Developing the A Bomb: Germany were accidentally developing the core ingredients of a nuclear weapon, there was an A-Bomb race as the Allies knew the potential but in fact Hitler was not working on the A-Bomb, but if he had realised its potential he could have been maybe a year ahead of the Manhattan Project. Some of the greatest sacrifices by bomber crews and commando raids were to neutralise A-Bomb development and one vital target in that was an otherwise simplistic sounding 'ball bearing' factory.

History has not revealed what Hitler had been working on, but he had the nuclear age in his grasp, as we understand it, but was he working on an even BIGGER weapon that we still don't understand .......

History gets interpreted so many different ways! Where are you getting your ideas from? To say that if they were to form allegiances it would be for Germany is a pretty big statement to make with no real foundation. How do you think Roosevelt manipulated what happened at Pearl Harbour, what is it that you would have had him do differently?

More on point anyway. It's nice to see people on here mentioning MSNBC and their broadcasts. For some reason when Bush was in power they didn't seem to get much recognition on here it was all aimed at Fox News. I don't think Americans take these shows as gospel and so I don't think they change US politics at all. The majority of the shows in the evenings are just opinion shows. My aunts boyfriend in Florida watches Bill O'Reilly but he doesn't agree with most of what he says. It's just entertainment with news scrolling along the bottom.

EastTexas

Beck, Limbaugh, Olbermann, Maddow ……
Getting your news from this lot is a form of intellectual laziness.
All of them campaign on truth lol
When it in fact it’s nothing but predigested hyperbole opinion regurgitated in SoundBits with the intent to incense.
You can’t be deeply partisan and truthful at the same time.
Even more ridicules since they started “ reporting” on one another.

InTheTrees

EastTexas wrote: »

Beck, Limbaugh, Olbermann, Maddow ……
Getting your news from this lot is a form of intellectual laziness.

I agree. And those people are commentators so its expected that they'll have a position on issues.

What I object to, and see as a major symptom of the ignorance of the american electorate, is the fawning deference with which the "press" treat politicians.

If you ever watch those sunday morning political shows you see it constantly, a politician can blatantly lie in a reply to a question and know they wont be called out on it because a follow up question is considered bad form.

Overheal

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1363788/Fox-News-firebrand-Glenn-Beck-facing-axe-controversial-TV-losing-million-viewers-year.html?ITO=1490
http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2011/03/07/new-york-times-fox-news-and-glenn-beck-seeking-a-divorce/
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/fox-news-considers-future-glenn-164953

The man with the wild fantasies about a White House Nazi Conspiracy, Middle Eastern Caliphates, NWOs, and a slew of other tasteless ideas that have seen him lose literally millions of viewers and listeners and his advertiser-boycott grows in size, FOX contemplating the end of their relationship with Glenn Beck. About damn time. I look forward again to a day when we thought Bill O'Reilly was a controversial figure.

Beck going, Olberman gone. Are the mainstream channels listening? Do they understand that we want to listen to moderates and journalists? Less of this "Waaa this is the worst person in the world today", Pinheads and Patriots, etc.

Denerick

1.8 million viewers in a country of 300 million is absolutely tiny. I'd say that at most 5% of Americans actively follow politics, and that 90% of those are spiritually bonded to either party. Beck plays to the paranoid fears of the average Conservative, he has a core audience, but I see no evidence of any real mainstream appeal.