Republicans

Starve The Beast: Appetite For Distortion

Posted by on August 9, 2008 at 3:24 pm. 16 Comments :

Media Blindness

Almost exactly one year ago I published a comprehensive examination of the futility of appearances on Fox News by Democrats and progressives: Starve The Beast. The thrust of the article argued that…

“Every time one of our representatives appears on Fox, they are setting back our agenda. They are not just wasting a little time trying to confront the enemy in its lair. They are literally causing harm to the efforts of the rest of us who are fervently struggling to repair and improve our country.”

The case was supported by studies that showed that Fox News audiences supported Republicans by overwhelming margins and that they were significantly more likely to have misperceptions about current news events. I also provided evidence that the centerpiece in Rupert Murdoch’s empire was a far less ominous presence in the mediasphere than they liked to imagine themselves.

It’s all still true. Rasmussen conducted a new study that affirms the previous studies. Their survey shows that Fox News viewers are still a species apart from the rest of the television population.

When nine out of ten Fox viewers say that they will vote for John McCain, you have an audience that may be more accurately described as a cult (as I described it in The Cult Of Foxonality). And while viewers at both CNN and MSNBC express a solid two to one majority for Barack Obama, that is a far cry from the near unanimous, block mentality of Fox viewers. The fact that the CNN and MSNBC audience compositions agree with one another suggests that they may be a better reflection of the population as a whole. They certainly come much closer to public opinion polling on the presidential race. Another indication of the disparity between Fox and its competitors is that 43% of CNN viewers and 38% of MSNBC viewers have a favorable opinion of McCain. However, only 14% of Fox viewers have a favorable opinion of Obama.

This corroborating evidence of how decidedly unfriendly the Fox News audience is to Democrats ought to be enough to persuade them to stay away from the network. Unfortunately, the past few weeks has seen wayward souls like Lanny Davis and Howard Wolfson lured into the Fox lair. To make matters worse, both Hillary Clinton and Obama have recently granted interviews to Fox flacks Bill O’Reilly and Chris Wallace, respectively. Obviously more persuasion is required. So let’s go to the numbers – the Nielsen numbers.

In the first half of 2008, CNN and MSNBC both improved their ratings over the same period the year before by more than 50% in the key 25-54 year old demographic. Fox News squeaked through with a measly 4% gain. In the second quarter Fox actually sunk 2%. And Fox continues to draw the oldest audience in cable news. MSNBC beats Fox with about 35% more viewers in the 18-34 demo. So Fox’s audience is not only growing slower than its competitors, it is failing to attract the next generation of news viewers. The only reason for the size of the audience they presently have is that they have cornered the market for conservative couch jockeys who congregate at their cable water cooler. Hence their dramatic overweighting of McCainiacs. The rest of the news consuming audience is splintered throughout the dial in a manner that disguises the fact that they are in the majority. There are far more non-Fox viewers than Fox viewers, but they are dispersed over a half dozen channels or more. Conservatives are all gathering together, glassy-eyed in the Fox clubhouse.

Democrats and progressives need to be reminded that a network that is overtly hostile to their interests holds no attraction for them. There is no reason to grace their airwaves. There is no benefit to doing so. They will not change the minds of the Foxpods watching programs like Brit Hume’s Special Report or the O’Reilly Factor. Their appearances will only be used to humiliate them and then to lay claim to being “fair and balanced.” It simply makes no sense to ally with a organization that is working openly and vigorously for your defeat. Can it be any clearer that people like Rupert Murdoch, Roger Ailes, Neil Cavuto, and Sean Hannity are the enemy?

Starve The BeastAnd if it isn’t enough that Fox News is avowedly opposed to the goals of Democrats and progressives, then the fact that viewers are turning away from Fox while the market is growing should convince them of what the rest of the country has already decided – that Fox is not a news network, it is a tool for right-wing propaganda and disinformation. That’s why their audience share is shrinking. And that’s why we must not grant them the credibility our association implies. Just stay the HELL off of Fox News!

This beast has a ravenous appetite and we should not be throwing it chum. Leave it to whither and parish and cease to threaten our land and well-being. We are better rid of it. Starve The Beast!

The GOP Threatens To Sue Its Supporters

Posted by on July 18, 2008 at 5:25 pm. 2 Comments :
Republican ChangeSo Sue Me!

The great minds at the Republican National Committee are once again demonstrating their transcendent grasp of marketing, finance, and public relations. In an action so preposterously witless as to scramble the common cranium, the GOP has sent a “cease and desist” letter to CafePress citing trademark infringement on the part of sellers using the term “GOP” or the elephant logo. Attorney Paul Alan Levy of Public Citizen is representing CafePress and wrote this on the CLP Blog:

“[W]e might ask why the RNC has chosen an election year to try to suppress speech about the Republican Party, especially since many of the images are highly favorable to their cause. Many of the CafePress users appear to be Republican grassroots activists. Is this the right year for RNC staff members to start going after their own supporters?”

Asking the RNC why they are trying to suppress speech is like asking why tobacco companies add nicotine to cigarettes – the only way you can get people to consume either one is to artificially manipulate their behavior. Tobacco companies do it with addictive chemicals. Republicans do it with message control and censorship.

Ironically, this harebrained scheme can only work to the disadvantage of Republican allies. The First Amendment guarantee of free speech, along with “fair use” and the legal protection for parody, insure that any critical use of the trademarked properties is permitted. Only those who are using the properties favorably would be subject to litigation because it would be more likely to result in confusion with the RNC’s own favorable use. So the GOP’s action punishes their friends while having no impact whatsoever on opponents.

This is the same pack of idiots that got us mired in a war in Iraq; that ran our economy into the ground; and that want to persuade us that John McCain ought to be our next president.

Battered Nation Syndrome

Posted by on May 21, 2008 at 8:22 am. NO Comments :

As the eight year long nightmare that is the Bush Administration limps to a close, the threat of more pain and suffering is dangled over our heads by the Republican Party that has been so much a part of the recent pattern of abuse. And like many perpetrators of domestic violence, Republicans are begging us to take them back while promising that “it will never happen again.”


Another irony of the new Republican slogan, “The Change You Deserve,” is that it echoes the defense that victims of abuse make for their abusers. Battered spouses commonly excuse their tormentors by claiming that the beatings were deserved; that it was the victim’s fault for having angered the perpetrator. Now Republicans are simultaneously warning that we’re going to get what we deserve, and swearing that the future will be better because they can change.

Most mental health professionals would be staring America in the face right about now and strongly advising us not to buy it.

Republichol: For The Change You Deserve

Posted by on May 15, 2008 at 4:50 pm. NO Comments :

The more things change…..

In an increasingly complex world, many people find it difficult to cope with the stresses of day to day life. The strain of caring for a family, paying the mortgage, job insecurity, and terrorists lurking at the Dairy Queen, can result in crushing anxiety and fear. But now, from the makers of The War in Iraq™ and Katrina Neglect™ comes a breakthrough in the treatment of depression caused by incompetent and dishonest national leadership. Now there is an alternative to the endless years of suffering brought on by deficient representation.

DemocracynAfter extensive research and focus grouping, the Republican National Committee is proud to introduce Republichol™ for the treatment of Latent Impotent Electoral Syndrome (LIES). Republichol™ is specially formulated to deceive the patient into believing that the utterly discredited Republican Party is actually pursuing an agenda of change. American voters can now enjoy the relief and satisfaction that comes from masking reality with comforting platitudes.

If there is a defining theme for 21st century politics, it is “Change.” Every actor on the political stage has extolled its virtues. Barack Obama promises “Change you can believe in.” Hillary Clinton touts her record of “35 years of change.” Even George Bush stakes out this territory:

“In 2000, I said, ‘Vote for me, I’m an agent of change.’ In 2004, I said, ‘I’m not interested in change. I want to continue as President.’ Every candidate has got to say ‘change.’ That’s what the American people expect.”

In his own, nearly incomprehensible way, Bush admits that he wasn’t interested in change even as he asserts that every candidate has to embrace it. His lack of comprehension is a hallmark of the party he leads. This is why House minority leader, John Boehner, personally developed the Republichol™ campaign and it’s slogan “The Change You Deserve.” The slogan was carefully composed to avoid the promise of change that you need, or change that will actually be beneficial. By focusing on change that you deserve, Republichol’s™ patented time-release formula distributes any change on the basis of personalized determinations of merit. For instance:

  • Oil companies deserve control over protected off-shore and wilderness areas.
  • Telecom companies deserve retroactive immunity for crimes against innocent customers.
  • Defense contractors deserve international hostilities that create demand for their products.
  • The media deserve military analysts who are secretly provided and coached by the Pentagon.
  • Health insurers and drug manufactures deserve freedom from regulations that inhibit their ability to gouge patients.
  • Corporations deserve to consolidate into unregulated monopolies.
  • The top 1% of American income earners deserve more tax relief.

And…..

  • American workers deserve to have their jobs outsourced to India and China.
  • Iraqi civilians deserve to be killed in the tens of thousands.
  • Veterans deserve reduced benefits and substandard treatment for service related injuries.
  • Women deserve prosecution for exercising choice with regard to family planning.
  • Children deserve limited access to, and lower standards for, education.
  • Voters deserve to be disenfranchised by special interests, discrimination, and insecure voting technology.
  • Middle class households deserve to pay more in taxes, as a percentage of income, than the wealthy.
  • Citizens of the world deserve widespread climate catastrophes brought on by global warming.

The Republican model has conveniently defined the deserving as those who have already acquired wealth and power (thank you Ayn Rand). This is enormously helpful in the development of guidelines for dispensing benefits under the new Republican program for change.

Unfortunately, the new slogan was not composed carefully enough to avoid infringing on another product that already claimed “The Change You Deserve” as its marketing mantra. Wyeth Laboratories trademarked the phrase for its Effexor XR anti-depressant medication. While this sort of conflict might ordinarily result in costly litigation, the Republican Party and the multi-national drug maker are notoriously friendly and a mutually acceptable accommodation is expected. In fact, this partnership may even expand marketing opportunities for both, as the implementation of Republican policy is likely to produce greater demand for anti-depressants like Effexor.

DemocracynNot to be outdone, the Democratic Party has developed a product of its own to address mood disorders related to Weak/Unstable Shrinking Spine (WUSS). Democracyn™ works on brain functions to relax the patient’s outrage mechanism triggered by Congressional activity based on fear or self-interest. It can also be prescribed after legislative actions taken on behalf of corporations rather than constituents.

The pharmaceutical cocktail of Democracyn™ and Republichol™ provide a potent antidote to the travails of modern sociological distress. Taken together within a regimen that includes counseling, re-education, and aggressive doses of media punditry, a wall of delusion can be constructed that serves as a defense from the troubling realities of civic life. And as the people become less agitated by affairs of state, those who serve as our representatives benefit as well. Remember, a medicated electorate is a compliant electorate. What began 200 years ago as an experiment in Democracy has evolved into a Pharmocracy™ – an institution defined by two dominant characterizations:

  1. Pseudo-representational legislative bodies that seek to control the behavior of populations through the use of psychoactive propaganda and sedative rhetoric.
  2. Constituent bodies that are heavily medicated and susceptible to the influence of media-dispensed government perspectives.

The media itself plays a major role in the advancement of Pharmacratic principles. No institution in American society is as effective at mood manipulation as the media. As metaphorical opiates go, television has replaced religion in the veins of the masses. Consequently, all sides are rushing to revitalize their brand. The problem for Republicans, however, is that their brand has been severely damaged by the present administration. Even Rep. Tom Davis (R-VA), the former chair of the National Republican Congressional Committee confessed that:

“The Republican brand is in the trash can. … If we were a dog food, they would take us off the shelf.”

That’s even worse than my own brand analysis (The Republican Scare: A Branding Nightmare) written in June of 2007, in response to Boehner’s previous attempt to rehabilitate his Party’s brand. The Republican Scare was how I analogized the situation to the Tylenol Scare of 1982 (another drug calamity):

“After six years of a toxic administration whose policies have led to a poisoning of public discourse; with corruption infecting Capital Hill, the Justice Department, the Pentagon, and the White House; and a president whose market share is dipping into historic lows; Republicans have concluded that they need to persuade the American people that their brand of politics is safe for our families and our country.”

~~~

“…they are trying to design new packaging without enhancing product safety or purpose. While some of them recognize that it will take more than a fresh coat of varnish to restore their credibility, many are convinced that they can improve their image in the eyes of the public if they can just spin some more wool to pull over said eyes.”

After only a year, Boehner is back with the same crippled brand but a brand new PR effort to polish his bruised political fruit. But the Republican brand is rotting in the mud. There seems to be little likelihood that the new “change” campaign will see any more success than the failed campaign it’s replacing.

For real change to take place, the American people need to complete a program of detoxification. They need to flush the poisons from the political system, which will require flushing some of the politicians as well. When finally cleansed of contamination we will have a chance to implement a true reform agenda. One that consists of more than the placebos prescribed by cynical Republican quacks who think that they can dictate what we each deserve.

The Cult Of Foxonality™

Posted by on May 17, 2007 at 1:47 pm. 7 Comments :

The Republican presidential primary debate threw off some interesting bones for chewing. I’m not talking about Rudy Giuliani’s exploitation of 9/11 at every turn, especially his smack down of Ron Paul’s refreshingly rational attempt to offer up a more complex explanation for terrorism than, “they hate us for our freedom.” I’m not talking about Mitt Romney’s pandering to sadists with his applause-bait on Guantanamo and torture. I’m not talking about John McCain’s ludicrous and insensitive promise to be “the last man standing” in Iraq, as if he were volunteering for active duty. And I’m not even talking about the graphics and sound effects that seem to have been lifted from broadcasts of professional wrestling.

What I find interesting is that 2.4 million people watched the GOP debate that aired on the Republican News Network (aka Fox).That is just slightly more than the 2.3 million viewers who watched the Democrats debate on MSNBC. But when Republicans debated on MSNBC, they only managed to pull in 1.7 million viewers. Maybe that was because it was on opposite the O’Reilly Factor which itself snared 2.3 million. So Fox drew the same size audience for their Republican debate as O’Reilly did when Republicans were debating elsewhere.

What this tells us is that a little less than two and half million viewers will show up to watch Fox in that timeslot whether there is a debate on or not. It also tells us that Fox viewers will turn out to get their O’Reilly fix even if there is a Republican debate on another network. [See update in comments].

What this does not tell us is why O’Reilly performs 35% better than a Republican debate on MSNBC. And we can only speculate as to why the Republican debate on Fox performs no better than their daily scheduled program. My speculation to both questions is that Fox viewers are married to the channel and couldn’t care less what’s playing down the dial. Their hypnotic attachment filters out all other sensory stimulation, even if it’s something that would ordinarily excite them.

One way of looking at this would be to acknowledge the success of Fox’s marketing strategy for having developed a powerful brand that inspires loyalty. But I prefer a more paranoid analysis. Most liberals (and objective observers) recognize the tight-knit relationship between Fox and the GOP. However, while we fret about the Murdoch/RNC cabal, we may be missing an even more frightening scenario. Fox viewers appear to be more loyal to Fox than to Republicans or conservatism. This misdirected allegiance bestows a far more influential authority onto a media entity than ought ever to be considered. It suggests that the bombastic demagogues that Fox has shaped into celebrity anchors truly do weigh down their transfixed disciples.

Are Fox viewers more attached to their tele-mentors than to the party and politics they profess? The evidence suggests that this may be so. People who might ordinarily be considered reliable party stalwarts are straying from the pack to trail behind Fox pundits who have come to criticize the administration on issues like Iraq, immigration, and the federal budget. Granted, the criticism is emanating from an even further right stance than the DC GOP has taken, but the result is the same: It’s the Foxebrities that are leading, not elected representatives of the people.

Some may take the view that the people are voting with their remotes, but you have to wonder where all of this could end. Television personalities are still built by marketing and promotion, not principle. If Paris Hilton can command the chunk of media real estate that she does, then clearly intelligence, insight, talent, and vision, are irrelevant in determining who viewers admire. And when admiration swells to idolization in the political realm, how far down the road will fans follow the flickering object of the affection? And how far will the Pundicrats ask their flock to go?

Bill O’Beale: “I’m mad as Hell!”

Paddy Chayefky’s “Network” introduced us to Howard Beale, a new model newscaster that implored his audience to cast off their docility and think for themselves. But today’s Fox version would likely produce Beale’s polar opposite who would only inspire a feverish fealty to himself and his omnipotent infallibility. That is indeed a foreboding picture of a bleak future. Do we have the time and/or will to steer away from it? Or is it already upon us?