Skip to main content

View Diary: The Influence of Right-wing Pressure Groups on Media Coverage (20 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  We have our ability (0+ / 0-)

    to push back, thanks to groups like Media Matters.

    "Much of movement conservatism is a con and the base is the marks." -- Chris Hayes

    by raptavio on Tue Nov 12, 2013 at 02:31:00 PM PST

    •  Media Matters is awesome, but... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      their influence never reaches beyond the choir. We need to penetrate the mainstream discussion in a way that MM doesn't.
      MM does a great job debunking right-wing lies but do they put any pressure on media to correct them?

      In fact, FOX has demonized MM so thoroughly that they've successfully convinced people that MM is just a "far-left" smear group. Thus, if CNN or ABC used them as a source it would wrongly be seen as suspect.

      •  I think you underestimate MM (0+ / 0-)

        and overestimate FOX.

        "Much of movement conservatism is a con and the base is the marks." -- Chris Hayes

        by raptavio on Tue Nov 12, 2013 at 02:45:18 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Spend some time talking to (0+ / 0-)

          average working-class white people throughout middle America. Ask them what they believe about the several specific examples I gave in this diary.
          You will find that in almost every case, they will believe the version of reality presented by FOX (even if they aren't FOX viewers, they will get the mythology second-hand) and will not have even heard of MM or the fact that the FOX story has been debunked.

          So how then am I overestimating FOX???

          •  You're relying on (0+ / 0-)

            a hypothetical set of anecdotal evidence to support your position. That's at least two layers of abstraction from hard data.

            "Much of movement conservatism is a con and the base is the marks." -- Chris Hayes

            by raptavio on Tue Nov 12, 2013 at 08:22:33 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Hard data? (0+ / 0-)

              Your point might be valid if my years of overwhelming anecdotal evidence from all over the country were contradicted by the hard data. But it's not.
              Where is the "hard data" showing Media Matters has a bigger influence than FOX? Or even remotely close to the level of influence of FOX?
              This is not a rhetorical question. Please show me this hard data.

              •  Failure in argumentation: (0+ / 0-)

                Anecdotal evidence, by definition, cannot be overwhelming.

                Second failure in argumentation:

                You're the one making the affirmative case -- the onus is on you to prove it.

                "Much of movement conservatism is a con and the base is the marks." -- Chris Hayes

                by raptavio on Wed Nov 13, 2013 at 06:01:43 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Wrong. (0+ / 0-)

                  1. One piece of anecdotal evidence + 1 more + several more + even more on top of that + almost no contradictory evidence =

                  2. This isn't about who does or doesn't have the onus of proof. You came into my diary comments to tell me I'm wrong. So back it up. Where's your evidence that contradicts my argument?
                  In absence of hard data, I'm happy to hear your anecdotal evidence. Anecdotal evidence can have weight if there is no hard data to contradict it.

                  3. Are you even serious? Or are you just being a contrarian troll? It is blindingly obvious that FOX is far more influential than Media Matters. If you want me to believe otherwise, you're gonna need a lot more than "onus of proof" distractions. This isn't your high school debate club. This is real life.

                  •  Google "confirmation bias" (0+ / 0-)

                    to explain why your #1 and last sentence of #2 is false.

                    #3, accusing me of being a troll because I disagree with you (and I did not enter this thread to contradict your thesis, I entered it to note some of the resources we have on our side -- something which you discounted for anecdotal reasons) is just asinine and inappropriate. I've not insulted you at all, unless you consider being told your logic is flawed to be an insult. You've no cause to insult me.

                    If you want anecdotal evidence, let's look at what just happened to Rand Paul. Liberal watchdogs -- Rachel Maddow for one, but MM and others picked up on and expanded on it -- discovered his plaigarism, and though it got almost no play in the conservative media nor Newsbusters or the MRC, took Rand Paul apart so badly that he had a public meltdown over it -- enough for the corporate media to pick up on it and make him a laughingstock.

                    In truth, very few people know who either the MRC or MM is. People don't know who Brent Bozell is any more than David Brock. The only thing that may give the MRC an edge is that the right wing media are far more centrally coordinated than the lefty media.

                    "Much of movement conservatism is a con and the base is the marks." -- Chris Hayes

                    by raptavio on Wed Nov 13, 2013 at 07:22:11 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Calm down, I'm not accusing you... (0+ / 0-)

                      I'm asking you. Because when someone makes a claim as absurd as denying that the sky is blue, and then accuses those who accept it's blueness of using flawed logic, that's usually considered pretty troll-like behavior.

                      And I'm very familiar with the concept of confirmation bias. But apparently, you aren't.
                      Confirmation bias is when you selectively remember information that confirms the conclusion you prefer, while discarding information that doesn't. In other words, the exact opposite of what I'm doing. Because I would much prefer it if you were right and Media Matters was more influential than FOX. So if there's any confirmation bias here, you're the one who's displaying it.

                      Now, let's look at the evidence you've finally provided for your claim.
                      The coverage of Rand Paul's plagiarism is not a very good example. This is because Paul, while he may be a far-right nut job, is also an anti-war libertarian. As you probably know, both the owners of and the advertisers on corporate media include many military contractors and war profiteers. Thus, it's in their bottom-line interest to marginalize someone like Paul. And the plagiarism case gave them a great opportunity to do that.

                      And I never suggested that the general public knows who Bozell or MRC are. They don't have to. That's not the point. The point is that they can put the fear of god into all the networks with their 226,000 signatures, without Joe Public ever hearing anything about it. Can Media Matters do that? Have they even tried?

                      •  One of us clearly doesn't understand (0+ / 0-)

                        confirmation bias, that much is certain.

                        And please -- I don't cotton to passive aggression via GlennBeckish "questions". Don't be that guy.

                        And finally, you're also moving the goalposts. Not only have you replaced MRC with FOX in the equation, you have made the threshold whether either FOX or MRC is more or less influential than MM, something I've never alleged.

                        I'm sorry, I just can't continue with this.

                        "Much of movement conservatism is a con and the base is the marks." -- Chris Hayes

                        by raptavio on Wed Nov 13, 2013 at 08:45:30 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  That's too bad. (0+ / 0-)

                          I was hoping to bring this disagreement back around to something more constructive.

                          For the record, if you look closer, you'll see I never moved any goalposts. You're the one who compared FOX to Media Matters (see your second comment).
                          I didn't replace MRC in the equation. They are 2 different equations that you are mixing up.
                          One is FOX vs Media Matters. (which has more influence on public opinion?)
                          The other is MRC vs Media Matters. (which has more influence on news coverage?)

                          As for your charge of confirmation bias, it assumes that I haven't noticed or have discarded evidence that doesn't support my conclusion. But I can assure you that is not true. I can recall meeting "working-class white people throughout middle America" who do not believe "the version of reality presented by FOX". But my point is that they are in the minority.

                          And there's a lot more than just my "anecdotal evidence" to prove that. There have been multiple polls done over the last decade showing that majorities of people in red states have held false beliefs on some very important issues. Beliefs that had their origins in right-wing media like FOX/talk-radio, etc.

                  •  Oh also (0+ / 0-)

                    Note how MM has been leading the charge against CBS for their bollixed up Benghazi story; and isn't letting the pressure up after CBS's nopology.

                    "Much of movement conservatism is a con and the base is the marks." -- Chris Hayes

                    by raptavio on Wed Nov 13, 2013 at 07:30:58 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site