Democratic Response Draws More Viewers Than Bush

When Bush addressed the nation last Thursday to persist in pushing his failed war agenda, he succeeded in pulling in a sizable portion of the television viewing audience. The only problem for him is that the response by Rhode Island Senator Jack Reed pulled in 7% more viewers.

Presidential Address – Thursday, September 13, 2007 (000’s)
Network Bush Address Dem Response
Fox News 745 813
MSNBC 455 446
CNN 454 507
Totals 1654 1766

Ordinarily, the opposition party response to a presidential address would be expected to lose viewers relative to the headliner from the White House. Just being competetive would be considered a victory of sorts. Consequently, these numbers demonstrate that there is significant curiosity in the TV viewing public as to the alternatives to administration talking points. The fact that the President can’t easily outperform an obscure senator that most of the country has never heard of, is proof that people are dissatisfied with his tired rhetoric.

It’s interesting to note that the greatest divergence in viewers in favor of the Democrats occurs on Fox News. So even Fox News viewers seem to be open to fresh perspectives and policies on ending the war. It’s too bad the folks at the Fox Entertainment Network didn’t think their audience deserved to hear Reed’s response. They were the only broadcast network to decline to air the Senator’s remarks. Still, more viewers in the cable news universe were exposed to an alternative perspective than to another of Bush’s robotic recitations of his standard pro-war litany.

This may also mean that the audience for the paid-for response by John Edwards might have drawn a larger than expected audience, validating his strategy and expanding the reach of the anti-war message. The other candidates, and the Democratic Party, should pay attention to these results and develop new tactics that make effective use of them.

Find us on Google+
Advertisement:

Changing the World of Internet and Politics

PoliticsOnline is conducting a poll to…

“…help select the top 10 individuals, organizations and companies having the greatest impact on the way the Internet is changing politics.” The award “seeks to recognize the innovators and pioneers, the dreamers and doers who bring democracy online.”

Top 10 lists are always somewhat problematic in that they invariably include and/or exclude wankers and/or winners. POL’s list of finalists is an eclectic and international group of nominees that span broad cross-sections of politics, activism, and technology. Notable amongst the group are:

DailyKos: DailyKos has been at the front lines of the blogospehere and challenging the MSM at every front. DailyKos has led the way for citizens to engage in serious discussion about the most challenging issues the world faces today.

John Edwards: John Edwards works hard to communicate directly and succinctly by speaking through the internet about actual and desperate problems faced by all of us as we try to maintain our standard of living.

CNN: CNN made history on July 23, when it teamed up with YouTube to give voters from around the world an opportunity to directly ask the Democratic presidential candidates for answers to the pressing issues of the day.

CNN may be a dubious choice in that, while they did initiate an innovative partnership with YouTube, they also tightly controlled the selection of questions as opposed to letting the online community decide. But many of the remaining nominees from around the world are engaging in acts of citizen journalism, civic activism, and political reform. The list even includes the Foreign Minister of Sweden. However, everyone on the list is not necessarily a true Internet angel:

Cong. Ron Paul: Ron Paul voted against the amendment for internet neutrality which forsakes the free market in favor of government price controls, would chill investment in broadband network and deployment of new broadband services, would reduce choice for internet users and disrupts experimentation and innovation of the internet.

To include Paul on this list might have been justified for his focus on Internet campaigning and his popularity amongst the Libertarian blogosphere. But by citing his opposition to network neutrality as the reason for his inclusion, along with an argument straight out of the Telecom industry’s PR playbook, POL casts suspicion on the whole awards program. Nothing could have a greater negative impact on the way the Internet is changing politics than snuffing out network neutrality.

I may or may not agree with some of the other, more exotic nominees, as I am not an expert in international tech-affairs, but I am now more skeptical of POL’s intentions. That said, it probably wouldn’t hurt if more honest progressives were to go to the site and vote for DailyKos or John Edwards. That would send a message that real progressive online activism is flourishing and those who would slam the gates closed are floundering.


TV Guide Says Fox News Is NOT News

The debate over whether Fox News is a legitimate news enterprise has seized many in the press and academia. But the transparently partisan presentation in their reporting should make for a short and dull debate. Now, an uncharacteristically honest depiction of Fox News can found in an unlikely place.

TV Guide publishes the industry’s most widely read magazine of program listings and this is how they categorize news programming for their readers:

Note that according to the legend on the top right of the page, the purple highlighting designates a program as “news”. Then, scanning down to the listings, you will see that TV Guide does not consider The O’Reilly Factor to be a news program. However, glancing down a little further reveals that TV Guide does view Keith Olbermann’s Countdown as news. Dig even further than that and you’ll see that the entire Fox News schedule is not designated as news with the exception of Studio B with Shepard Smith. Even Special Report, the program anchored by Brit Hume, Fox News’ managing editor and chief Washington correspondent, is apparently not really news. On MSNBC, Countdown and MSNBC Live are the only programs tagged as news. But CNN’s entire broadcast day is identified as news except for Lou Dobbs and Larry King. (Source: TV Guide September 17-23, 2007)

Now, on a cursory level, that may just appear to be an obvious and objective evaluation of the content on these networks. CNN has always been a dedicated news programmer, just as Fox has always been a propaganda vehicle for the Republican National Committee. But there may be something more to this than just the labeling of program content.

Gemstar-TV Guide International, Inc., the publisher of TV Guide, is owned by … wait for it … Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation. Murdoch sits on its Board of Directors along with News Corp. president and COO, Peter Chernin. The Board is chaired by Anthea Disney, a News Corp executive VP. So why would Murdoch’s own publication seemingly disparage the cable network he is working so hard to establish as a source of reputable journalism by declining to identify it as news? Could it have something to do with the fact that news programming routinely under-performs entertainment programming and that intentionally mislabeling Fox broadcasts could result in driving more viewers to their network? By extension, they could also be attempting to suppress viewers for their main competition, Countdown, by coloring it purple and diverting the broader interest entertainment viewers away from the program.

By owning both the networks and the publications covering them, News Corp. can circle the PR wagons around itself and effectively manipulate viewers, coverage, and potentially, ratings. TV Guide presently has almost 3.3 million subscribers. Although that is a 12% decline from the previous measurement period, it is still a significant audience. They also operate electronic TV Guides on cable, satellite, and the Internet, that expose them to another 82 million viewers. That reach allows them to define the market in ways that accrue to their own benefit. For example, look at how TV Guide describes the O’Reilly/Olbermann match-up:

The Factor: The bestselling author mixes news, interviews and analyses, and some of his most passionate commentaries, not surprisingly, deal with liberals (such as, to pick one name at random, Al Franken). The conservative guru’s `No Spin Zone’ has been the major factor in Fox News’ climb (past CNN) to the top of the cable-news chart, with some three million viewers nightly.

Countdown: The nightly news program ranks the day’s top five stories by what will likely be the next morning’s hottest topics for discussion. `It’s a hard-news broadcast produced and hosted by people who are uncontrollably silly,’ quips the wry Olbermann, who also conducts newsmaker interviews.

In short, The Factor is the number one show hosted by a popular and passionate bestselling author, while Countdown is a hard-news broadcast that is also regarded as “silly.”

This state of affairs is just another reason for rolling back the consolidation that has occurred in the media since the abominably irresponsible Communications Act of 1996 (thanks Bill Clinton). But in the short term, Murdoch and TV Guide need to be called to account for their abject dishonesty and their efforts to deceive the public.


Tony Snow Celebrates Iraq

White House press secretary Tony Snow appeared on The O’Reilly Factor yesterday to discuss, amongst other things, the war in Iraq and the magical progress being achieved by General David Petraeus, whom Snow described as, “the author of a plan that succeeded.”

Prior to introducing Snow, O’Reilly delivered his Talking Points Memo that surprisingly stumbled onto a factual statement:

“It is almost impossible for the folks to get the truth about Iraq or the war on terror in general. Because there is so much misinformation and propaganda being spit out there by the media and Internet partisans.”

He then proceeded to spit out misinformation and propaganda by promoting the lie that, “Moveon and the others are actually hoping for defeat.” But the real propaganda started when he introduced his guest, Tony Snow, who repeatedly portrayed the situation in Iraq as improving and hopeful. This delusion was capped by a this startling and disturbing comment:

“Americans love to succeed and they love to know that our people are embarked on a noble enterprise. We got young men and women who are doing amazing things. We ought to be celebrating.”

Indeed. Let’s put an end to the dismal memorials and moratoriums. Let’s decline invitations to those depressing funerals and services of slaughtered soldiers and civilians. Why be glum when we could be enjoying 3,800 wakes? Let’s get our party on, dude. C E L E B R A T E good times, come on…..


Petraeus? Betray Us? Falacious!

When General David Petraeus appeared before Congress to give his long-awaited report on the state of the war in Iraq, Republicans found a subject that, in their minds, took precedence over the war itself. Rather than focus on the life and death struggles in the Middle East, Republicans repeatedly assailed a newspaper ad by MoveOn.org that asked some provocative questions.

The headline on the ad asked, “General Petraeus or General Betray Us?” Republicans immediately pounced on a shallow interpretation that MoveOn was calling Petraeus a traitor. A more profound analysis would show that they were merely warning readers that the General’s testimony might be more aligned with White House spin than with the facts on the ground saying:

“General Petraeus will not admit what everyone knows; Iraq is mired in an unwinnable religious civil war.”

That didn’t stop Senator John Cornyn from introducing legislation to censure MoveOn, an action that impinges on the rights enumerated in the First Amendment to the Constitution. Although, Cornyn’s statement on the ad twice references freedom of speech, in each instance he qualifies and constrains it:

“Every American, including a Washington special interest organization like MoveOn.org, has the right to voice their opinion on the Iraq war. But to suggest that the four-star General leading the fight against al-Qaeda in Iraq has ‘betrayed’ his country is abhorrent.”

There should be a full and honest debate on the war on terror […] But hateful, personal attacks that call our military leaders traitors should be condemned.”

These attacks on MoveOn are nothing but a desperate attempt to shift the public’s attention from an unpopular war to a false and irrelevant controversy that has been manufactured for media consumption. Cornyn, and the rest of the Republican cabal, should cease their efforts to stifle free speech. Likewise, they should consider placing greater emphasis on the core issues that impact our military and our nation than they do on advertisements that express the views of millions of Americans.


DeadLines

nullJustice Dept. against ‘Net neutrality’
The Justice Department on Thursday said AT&T and other Big Telecom are more important than mere citizens. They believe that the industry should have the right to decide what you can and can not access on the Internet.

Democracy, the press at a critical juncture
American democracy is suffering. The natural strain on our political system after more than two centuries is accelerating with the purposeful weakening of the press. This article is one of the best on the subject of media consolidation that I’ve ever read.

Americans Feel Military Is Best at Ending the War
Despite the headline, the real news in this column is that 33 percent of all Americans, including 40 percent of Republicans and 27 percent of Democrats, say Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001. That’s just so sad.

Dow Jones chief paves way for job cuts
Despite a promise from Rupert Murdoch that there would be no layoffs if he were to acquire the company, Dow Jones is talking now about layoffs.

Study finds left-wing brain, right-wing brain
Previous psychological studies have found that conservatives tend to be more structured and persistent in their judgments whereas liberals are more open to new experiences.

Rupert’s Attack Dog Gets Bitten, Keeps Barking
The [New York] Post hasn’t won a Pulitzer Prize since 1931 (which was well before Murdoch), a fact that pleases [editor Col] Allan. “Hopefully never!” he exclaims defiantly. “Who would want to win an award that is dished out by the hard left of American journalism? Who’d want that?” Sore loser?

Find us on Google+
Advertisement:

The O’Reilly Fracture: Countdown To Victory Edition

Keith Olbermann’s Countdown has reached a milestone that many thought was out of reach. After getting a boost from an airing during the pre-season football broadcast on NBC a couple of weeks ago, Countdown has burst into a real competition with its nemesis, The O’Reilly Factor.

The highpoint of the week for Olbermann was Friday when he bested O’Reilly in the 25-54 demo by 39,000 viewers. But the trend has been heading this way for a while. On Thursday, O’Reilly took the hour, but Olbermann had won the first half (Countdown: 408K – Factor: 373K). An average of all airings for the shows for the week gave O’Reilly a lead of just 11.7K demo viewers. A year ago O’Reilly was clobbering Olbermann by 279K. Are the walls closing in around you Billy?

The first full week after Olbermann’s NBC appearance, Countdown spiked 17% over its 2nd quarter 2007 average. This week that bump is 37%, so there is no evidence that this train is losing speed. The Factor, on the other hand, is still under-performing its 2nd quarter average by 16%. O’Reilly is quickly becoming the Little Train That Couldn’t.

A key point in this victory is that, while last week’s success was achieved with O’Reilly on vacation, this week Bill was on duty and he still got his loofah handed to him. Also, for the record, Olbermann appeared during halftime on the Saints-Colts game Thursday which might have given him an extra push on Friday. And the week was shortened by the Labor Day holiday (Countdown did not air on Monday but O’Reilly did. The Factor pulled in just 329K which was its 2nd worst number for the week).

All of this leads me to quote from the insightful analysis of a truly visionary media scholar:

Hopefully NBC will recognize what’s happening here. And it isn’t just that Olbermann is a phenomenon who warrants additional network attention (although that’s true). It is also that there is a vastly underserved market for mainstream progressive news that is factual and compelling. That is a message that all of the media should heed and act on. It’s time to stop coddling losers like Glenn Beck and Tucker Carlson. It’s time to stop pandering to rightist, corporate media. It’s time to start reshaping the media into something more diverse and representative of America.

Mark @ News Corpse ~ September 4, 2007

By the way…Happy Birthday Bill-O.


Petreaus And Crocker On Fox News

Perhaps this is a Fox News pilot for a program to follow Hannity and Not Hannity: Petreaus And Crocker. Today, following their testimony on Capital Hill, the general and the ambassador will appear exclusively on Fox News in a move that affirms the starkly partisan intentions of both the guests and the the network. Sometimes they make this just to easy.


Bin Laden Video Premieres To Conservative Raves

The latest video episode of Osama bin Laden’s terror series (transcript) has stirred up the rightist media mouthpieces like little that has come before it. There is a uniform glee amongst them that savors the return of OBL much the same as Harry Potter fans relish each new edition of the young wizard’s tales. Were it opening at the Cineplex, I expect that lines of Crusaders dressed up as Rummy and Saddam would be forming around the block. Their delight stems from their confidence that every Osama sighting scores points for the Republican Doctrine of freedom by agression.

Their leader, Mr. Bush, kicked things off with his own critique of Osama’s new production:

“I found it interesting that on the tape Iraq was mentioned, which is a reminder that Iraq is a part of this war against extremists.”

It’s also a reminder that bin Laden is still free to make videos that bring such joy to the hearts of America’s conservative warmongers. The eminence grise of this gang, Rush Limbaugh declared, less than a year ago, that he would no longer carry water for the GOP losers of last November’s election. But today he still wears his yoke with giddy elation:

“It is a liberal rant. It’s everything you would hear out of San Francisco. It’s what you would hear from a major college campus, take your pick of a professor. It’s on the Senate floor. It’s anything you would hear out of the mouth of an average elected Democrat. It’s stunning. I can’t wait to get a hold of the actual transcript of this thing…”

Rush might have a point if you believe that liberal rants propose state-sponsored religions that take precedence over Constitutional law as bin Laden does in this video; or if you believe that it was liberals and not the Reagan administration that supported bin Laden’s Mujahideen in Afghanistan who are also praised in this video. This is the kind of misrepresentation for which the right is famous. Sean Hannity provides another example:

“(Bin Laden) seemed to adopt the very same language that is being used by the hard left in this country as he describes what’s going on in Iraq as a civil war, he actually used the term ‘neocons’ …”

Indeed, bin Laden referred to neocons Richard Perle, the disgraced Pentagon advisor who was forced to resign from the Defense Policy Board for conflict of interest; Donald Rumsfeld, the disgraced Secretary of Defense who was forced to resign for incompetence; and Dick Cheney, who, while still in office, has the distinction of being the least popular vice-president ever. If Hannity wants to associate bin Laden’s comments critical of these neocons with Democrats for the purpose of tarnishing them, he should be aware that he is also disparaging the vast majority of Americans who oppose these crooks and made their views known long ago.

And Wizbang chimes in: “The new OBL tape is out… He’s feeling kinda down spending all his time in a cave talking to himself so he decided to use his tape to audition for Daily Kos…”

And Protein Wisdom: “To borrow from Voltaire, if Osama bin Laden didn’t exist, Republicans would have to invent him. At the very least, they might want to send him a fruit basket.”

And Ace of Spades: “Watch him criticize Democrats, Kos-like, for not being forceful enough in trying to end the War in Iraq, and even praise Noam Chomsky and the Kyoto Accord. I’ll give him this: he knows his target audience.”

And Wake Up America: “WOW, after reading the transcript, bin Laden is getting ALL his talking points from the Democrats in our own country. How many times have we said ‘they are listening to us’, they are ’emboldened by our Democratic politicians?'”

And Little Green Footballs: “The new Osama video is all over the news; in it, he advocates reading Noam Chomsky. It’s another pretty direct appeal to the Western left.”

And Atlas Shrugs: “The Bin Laden sounds like a candidate for the Democrat presidential ticket.”

The celebration greeting bin Laden must be gratifying coming from the group that has provided him with the most effective recruiting campaign he could have ever imagined. This video seems like little more than a holiday bonus for his most loyal fans. Do conservatives think for a minute that bin Laden doesn’t know the effect of the words he has chosen? To whom do they think he is playing?

If I had to pick out a single piece of this production number that succeeded in delivering a message that deserves our attention, it would be this:

“…despite America being the greatest economic power and possessing the most powerful and up-to-date military arsenal as well…19 young men were able to change the direction of its compass.”

The message delivered here is not the one that bin Laden thinks it is. The sad point that this quote conveys is that America, under the guidance of the Bush Administration, has radically shifted course. We have adopted new laws that chafe against our Constitution. We have, for the first time, engaged in a war of aggression. We have abandoned long-held values of justice and humanitarianism. We have become divided as never before. And our faith in institutions like elections and the media and the church are strained and tainted. And all of these changes in the direction of our compass are indeed due to the reactions of frightened politicians who infect their constituents with their fear. They believe that the answer to terrorism is to be afraid; to lock yourself up in a prison so that the evildoers cannot harm you; to surrender your liberties in pursuit of a false security. Never mind Franklin D. Roosevelt, who’s famous quote went further than most people recite:

“The only thing we have to fear is fear itself. Nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror, which paralyzes needed effort to convert retreat into advance.”

This is the victory of modern terrorism. It’s the sense of gratification we feel believing, in our bunkers, that the terrorists have not won and that we are still a proud and free people. Our enemies will never see us cower. Sure, they’ve seen the passage of the Patriot Act that limits long-held freedoms. They’ve seen our government listening in on our phone calls and monitoring our financial transactions. They see us lining up at airport terminals shoeless and forced to surrender our shampoo and Evian water. They see us resort to preemptive war and torture and submission to imperial, undemocratic leaders. They see us mourning the loss of our sons and daughters who are not even engaged in battle with the 9/11 perpetrators.

And now they see us anxiously hanging on every word uttered by the madman they revere. But if there is one thing that offers even a small measure of relief, it is that they will never have the satisfaction of seeing us recoil from militarism or the comforting imposition of martial law.


NewsBusters Has Kos Envy

The folks at NewsBusters are lamenting the lack of a right-wing version of DailyKos. In a lengthy post on their web site, they seek to examine why the left has been so much more successful at motivating activists and advancing progressive issues.

“Whether or not one agrees with the political views of Markos Moulitsas, there’s no getting around the fact his website has become not just a powerful force in the blogosphere, but is also shaping the Democrat Party. This raises an important question: Why isn’t there a conservative website like Daily Kos?”

The NewsBusters column erupted from the musings of Dean Barnett at the Weekly Standard and David Weigel, associate editor of Reason. While their soul searching has produced some accurate descriptions of the differences between the right and the left online, their conclusions are devoid of insight or logic.

The contributions by Barnett and Weigel correctly observe, for instance, that conservative blogs are structured as top-down enterprises and they focus more on punditry than political practicalities. In other words, they’re more interested in disseminating coordinated messages than in precinct walking and campaign outreach.

But when NewsBusters ventures to explain the reasons for dKos’ success they completely misread the obvious. They surmise from Barnett’s comment that the progressive blogosphere is “passionate and in your face,” that lefties are defined only by what they oppose. Even if that were true, it certainly would not be a path to Internet stardom. It is left to Weigel to correct the NewsBusters by pointing out a more profound reason for dKos’ popularity…

“Moulitsas’ willingness to open up the blog and let the readers run it was crucial.”

It’s called democracy and it’s practiced by notorious liberals dating back to Thomas Jefferson, et al. NewsBusters, however, believes that the Conservosphere is disadvantaged because of a liberal media bias that forces them to fight on that front while the left considers the press their allies. Huh? They seriously assert that…

“Kos and his compatriots can rely on the media being friendly to candidates and positions they support.”

By this I assume they mean the way we can rely on the media to responsibly investigate the reasons for going to war. Or perhaps they are referring to the friendly way the press incessantly hounds Democratic candidates about their haircuts or where they attended school when they were six. They even quote Glenn Reynolds who says…

“People on the right think their political machine works, but that the media is out to get them […] People on the left, on the other hand, know the media is basically on their side, but feel that their political machine stinks.”

How then would they explain the innumerable references to media bias, incompetency, and slander that is a daily part of DailyKos (and News Corpse)? Anybody who is paying attention would be well aware of the dissatisfaction the left deservedly holds for the corporate-dominated media that routinely disparages progressives and their values, despite the fact that polls show that those are the values that are most representative of mainstream America. And once again, even if NewBusters were correct, it hardly serves as an explanation for dKos’ success.

NewsBusters goes on to ascribe a laundry list of situational reasons for why dKos took off: the war in Iraq; Howard Dean’s campaign; the Republican majority; etc. But they only seem to trip over a real reason accidentally by recognizing its “free-wheeling nature.” However, even here they reveal their disdain for free speech by describing the comments emerging from this environment as “abhorrent.”

The NewsBusters are clearly suffering from an Internet inferiority complex. At least they recognize now that a race is in progress and that they are losing badly. But I don’t know how they can expect to compete when they have no idea what the game is. If NewsBusters really wants to know why dKos is successful, and how they can emulate that success, they will have to remove their blinders. Now, I don’t want to give away the recipe, but I will say this: It includes generous heapings of reality and liberal portions of free thought (pun intended).

Update: NewsBusters has posted a response on their site that generously concedes some of what I’ve said here – mostly the parts where I conceded some of what they said there. But they also said that I was “laughably incorrect about the media being pro-war.” I guess they don’t read or watch the New York Times, The Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, etc. All of these media outlets, and more, were unquestioningly supportive of the administration’s arguments in the run-up to the war in both their reporting and their editorials.