Mike Holmes wrote:
So you basically have four categories of people, for the sake of this discussion:
1. Party Liners - Those who are already convinced to vote party line. For these people, the media doesn't matter, because what they read or see either goes against what they believe (cons rail then against the media), or the media is preaching to the choir.
2. Media Insensitive - Those who don't pay any attention to the media, and who, therefore, aren't affected by it.
3. Intelligent Swayable - Those people who might go either way, who could be swayed by the media in theory. These people who are willing to think through issues are also smart enough to understand the media bias, and include it in their analysis of which candidate for which to vote.
4. Dumb Swayable - those who are on the fence, and who the media can sway with their biased arguments.
It's this last category that are the ones who are affected by the media bias. My supposition is that this represents a relatively small proportion of the voting populace. Enough to sway an election? Well, sure, in the right circumstances, where things are close enough.
But that's the media's right. Free speech and all. We as the populace are free to reject a media outlet if it lies or otherwise prevaricates. As many have done with the NYT, for instance. An outlet who would argue that they should not be unseated by a few bad acts. But the fact that they are being unseated gives me confidence that, in fact, the public has very high standards for truth.
Bias, we accept, including sins of omission. Because, again, that's unavoidable. But we are, generally, smart enough to see through the media. Trained as dilligently as we are from an early age by Madison Avenue to see through BS.
If those dumb swayable people weren't swayed by the media, they'd be swayed by something else as insidious. Call that the "slop" in democracy. Alongisde the relatively uninformed voter. If you want to regulate that only informed people get to vote... well... who decides what informed means? That's going to be subject to a lot of bias as well.
I think it's unavoidable. And, yet, survivable.
Mike
Great analysis. I think I only disagree with the importance and size of the "Dumb Swayable." I have long believed that most elections are decided by the "Dumb Swayable", because the evidence exists that the "Mushy Middle" have very little understanding of, and pay very little attention to politics in general. (I just read an article a week ago that indicated this.)
My opinion is, the Media represent Asyemetric warfare on various principles that I believe are essential to preserving freedom and life in this country. They have far more impact as a result of stories they refuse to cover than they do over stories they do cover.
I also look at a lot of news sources. I occasionaly peruse DU, Daily Kos, Politico, and HuffPo, but I look at far more Right wing Web sites, like Atlas Shrugs, Ace of Spades, Power and Control ,Astute Bloggers, etc.
I see stories that never get covered in the Media that the other 99% of the population look at.
Despite efforts among various blogs to spike the story, I have not yet heard a reasonable explanation concerning Obama's Birth Certificate.
I have seen evidence that Indicates Obama's father is NOT Barack Obama Sr, but is instead someone else, possible a man named Frank Marshall Davis. Obama certainly LOOKS like Frank Marshall Davis, as opposed to Barack Sr.
These are just a couple of examples. The News blackout extends to Anti-Jewish movements throughout Europe, Islamization of Europe, the current Fauxtography in Gaza, the role of Prominent Democrats involved in the current Fiscal mess, the Campaign finance fraud, the Foreign Money involvement, Acorn and other voter fraud, etc.
Both Barack AND Michelle Obama have their LAW licenses suspended.
Is none of this stuff News Worthy ?
They do much damage while claiming to be honestly covering the news. To paraphrase the New York Times, "All the news we see fit to print ! "
David