Skip to main content

View Diary: Conservative Media vs. Progressive Media (153 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I think what is more telling (10+ / 0-)

    is that everyone in DC, every Democrat and every Republican, and just about everyone in the traditional print, broadcast, and cable media, knows full well that the vast majority of Americans could care less about the National Review or the Weekly Standard, and that the magazines have a terrible track record on policy both foreign and domestic. They also know full well that without the massive wingnut welfare machine, these magazines would cease to exist.

    But they act, and book, as if the reality is the exact opposite. Fear of being accused of 'liberal bias' drives a credibility line of credit that is vastly undeserved. Jonah Goldberg is free to peddle bullshit like 'Liberal Fascism' while it would be more intellectually honest to discuss 'Soviet Conservatism'.  

    There is a huge double standard between how liberalism is treated and how conservatism is treated. We all know it. A liberal pundit with the track record of being wrong that Charles Krauthammer has would never work again.

    I bet if, say, PeTA had a glossy magazine, it would out circulate the National Review Online. But you would never see Pamela Anderson on Meet the Press discussing the war in Afghanistan. Because she is 'not serious' and PeTA is a radical organization.

    I would argue that Ms. Anderson has more credibility discussing foreign policy than Bill Kristol does, and I would argue that a lot of groups that the Village would dismiss as fringe or out of the mainstream are more sane than the Heritage Foundation or the American Enterprise Institute.

    Somebody randomly throwing darts at policy position papers would have a better track record than Bill Kristol.

    You can't claim solidarity with people if you also want to bomb them

    by LeftHandedMan on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 11:27:39 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Correction: (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      DaleA, fizziks, Uberbah, cybrestrike

      it would out circulate the National Review.

      Obviously the print magazine. My bad.

      You can't claim solidarity with people if you also want to bomb them

      by LeftHandedMan on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 11:30:02 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  It's the bubble (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      fizziks, Rick Aucoin

      See what happens is that they go to a cocktail party, or have a conversation with one of their associates and they talk about the Weekly Standard article, etc.  It's not that it has wide circulation it's that it has wide circulation amongst the right people to push that agenda.


    •  They probably do better than (0+ / 0-)

      mother jones, the nation, the american spectator and the progressive magazine BUT you have to look at the times - I think they could be gaining in circulation with the changing political tides and they don't have the kind of billionaire backing that many magazines on the right have.

      I would like to know if the Nation has picked up a lot in circulation after running ads on Kieth Olbermannn and if they advertise anywhere else.

      You really can't beat the nation for consistent in-depth news and opinion by top experts and journalists in the progressive movement.

      I wonder how many viewers Democracy Now has?

      Makes me want to write a diary about subscribing to one of the magazines or a podcast subscription to Democracy Now because as bad as theirs is I would like to build up our progressive media even further.

      "What is the robbing of a Bank compared to the FOUNDING of a Bank?" Bertolt Brecht

      by thethinveil on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 12:45:50 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site