Democrat-Media Complex 4
The Decline and Fall of the Liberal Left. Long Live the Internet.
So here we are with the puerile Left shouting down its opponents with catchy sound bites (“tax the millionaires and billionaires”) and television gleefully broadcasting this political theater as serious news. The Left gets their policies past a pummeled Republican party and television gets attractive content.
And then the Internet came of age. Born in 1970 from the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA - see I told it was a military conspiracy), the Internet grew with the breakup of AT&T and then exploded into our consciousness with the invention of web pages. And the Internet is the complete opposite of television.
- The Internet has no control over content. I got a web page. You got a web page. All God’s children got a web page. And we all put what we want on that page.
- The Internet has memory. Can you read the first articles posted to Ricochet? Yes. Can you read any comment posted between that beginning and today? Yes. You can even search for past articles.
- The Internet supports multiple content features of various types. You don’t like this article? You can read another. You don’t want to read? Then listen to the Ricochet founders discuss the latest issues of the day. And there are some nice photos and videos as well.
- The Internet is bi-directional media. You can respond to this article or any article here at Ricochet, all for the price of a Grande Latte at the Starbuck’s flagship store in Seattle. And your comment is recorded for quality purposes.
- The Internet has infinite room for content. Well, not really but for all intents and purposes that is true.
- The Internet has infinite space for new sites. Again, not really true but with the advent of IPv6, it is effectively true. Don’t know what IPv6 is? Don’t worry.
- Internet site revenue can be from ads and/or subscriptions or entirely non-existent. Web sites are so ridiculously cheap, that people run one out of their own pocket and not charge for it.
- Internet has as much time to reflect as it wants to take. Unlike print media and television, Internet content has no fixed update rate. New articles may be posted when ready.
- Internet fosters conversation. Proof: Ricochet. QED.
To summarize television attributes:
- The broadcaster has complete control over content.
- Television has no memory.
- Television can only broadcast one piece of content at a time.
- Television is unidirectional.
- Television allows for a limited number of channels.
- Television has limited time to reflect before broadcasting.
- Television kills conversation.
Take a step back and compare Internet and television attributes. They are the exact opposite of each other. And this spells doom for the Democrat-Media Complex.
The symbiotic relationship between Liberals and television is not entirely reciprocal. Liberal Democrats are completely dependent on television to effect their smash mouth politics. Television is not entirely dependent on Liberal Democrats for content. Wheel of Fortune is apolitical. And the Internet’s rise has begun to drive a wedge between the two.
Smash mouth politics fails completely on the Internet because the open, bi-directional Internet allows for multiple points-of-view. Puerile Liberal rants repel. On television you cannot get away from their screed but the Internet provides an almost infinite amount alternative content. People go to content to which they are attracted. When people stop listening, smash mouth politics fail.
Television is now faced with a credible alternative narrative to its news templates. If television ignores this alternative narrative, then televisions risks being disbelieved and that means it is no longer worth watching. But if television moves away from its templates as a nod to Internet narrative, then television breaks its symbiotic relationship with the left, its primary source for news.
The Internet is entirely superior to television but its performance has not yet caught up with its promise, so television is still viable. But this is rapidly changing. NetFlix has moved away from mailing DVDs to customers to delivering the HD movie over the Internet. But video is a poor use of Internet resources which is interactive and allows for simultaneous presentation of text, photo, audio and video. Televisions death will come when the Internet delivers content that television cannot match.
And television’s death will be the puerile Left’s death. Harry Pelosi and Nancy Reid politics are completely dependent on television. No television, no Democrat rants.
Next: The Tea Party explained.
- Comment (47)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
Comments :
Mar '11
Re: Democrat-Media Complex 4
Charles,
I loved the logic and expression of your argument. If you read American Progressives by Ronald J. Prestritto of Hillsdale College he provides us a reader of early Progressive thought and plans. They are amazingly open as to what their goals and intentions are. But, even a little reading between the lines will reveal almost embarrassing amount of additional detail.
If you read John Taylor Gatto, Underground History of American Education and his Dumbing Us Down, you will find where it all came from. Just as they do today the Progressives in the form of the Democrat Party and the RINOs had sponsors.
If you read Andrew Carnegie's Gospel of Wealth closely you will learn their motives.
Sir, a friend of mine is deeply into esoteric subjects. He defines esoteric as knowledge hidden in plain sight. Never has a political movement hidden its motives and intentions so openly. Never has a conspiracy been so in the open that they didn't even bother conspiring.
However, never before have we had the Internet and big box bookstores to reveal what was going on. Those sponsors, like their sponsors of today, are only up to their personal self aggrandisement.
Ron
May '10
Re: Democrat-Media Complex 4
Years ago I read The Power Game, a fascinating book aboout Washington politics by Hendrick Smith. One passage sticks in my memory. In discussing the advantages of encumbancy, he describes long lines of Congresscritters waiting to be beamed, at taxpayer expense, to local teevee affiiliates on the night of the State Of The Union speech. Lately I've been wondering if the blessed collapse of Big Media will lead to looser, more comepetitive electoral politics.
Oct '10
Re: Democrat-Media Complex 4
Charles Rapp: “Liberal Democrats are completely dependent on television to effect their smash mouth politics.”
I don’t think that’s quite right. “Progressives” captured the Commanding Heights of Culture first and then used their position to control content. As Andrew Breitbart said, “The left wins because it controls the narrative. The narrative is controlled by the media. The left is the media. Narrative is everything.” Pace McLuhan, Lib Dems are completely dependent on something, but it’s the message not the medium. Yes, the internet provides a tool to counter the current dominant means of inculcating Lib Dem ideology to the masses. But, the main battle is for the narrative not the mechanisms of dissemination.
May '10
Re: Democrat-Media Complex 4
The problem with the internet dream is that it is still running on the information structure of the old media. As Charles notes, everybody has a web page, but all of the news, all of the opinion, and everything else is based on other people's work and other people's money.
Charles loves to complain about the media and he thinks he has us and all of our technological shortcomings pegged. But when bloggers want to opine on something they have no qualms about stealing the quote from the AP reporter. There's nothing to linking to a piece of video that was stolen from ABC News. And when one needs an aerial photo of the crack in the Washington monument it's not the internet guys that are paying for the flight time. No, the way of the internet is theft, it is information socialism. And yes, we are all guilty of it, even me.
This weekend, it will be the broadcaster that millions will turn to as Irene races up the east coast. In many cases life and death will hinge on that expensive link between the evil, one-way, time-limited broadcaster and his audience.
Edited on Aug 27, 2011 at 9:50amMay '10
Re: Democrat-Media Complex 4
*Continued*
It will be the broadcaster, going commercial-free for days, paying for the diesel fuel that's keeping him on-air and in contact with all those battery operated radios that people will turn to. It won't be the thieving blogger with nothing original to add but his own opinion.
You may cheer the death of the old media, but you are not in a position to really replace it. You are not prepared to do the original reporting, you are not prepared to run the overseas bureaus, you are not prepared to pay for the battlefield reporter and photographers. You are not prepared to cover the breaking news in Beijing, the wildfire in Australia or even the events in your own backyard.
Be very careful what you wish for, because you just might get it - and you're not necessarily going to like it.
Oct '10
Re: Democrat-Media Complex 4
Charles Rapp:
Okay, Rob, the jig is up. Enough with the sock-puppetry.
Feb '11
Re: Democrat-Media Complex 4
There is one issue you did not deal with, and it is a doozy - probably the bull-work that has (and i fear will) keep the liberal media complex alive and well for the foreseeable future.
As you note, the internet is an interactive media venue. And that's just the trouble. to be heard (and in theory responded to) a user has to take an action - get on their computer, call up a page, read what it says, *think* about what it says, respond, etc. All requiring effort and thought.
In contrast, the television requires users to hit the on button, and, if you are like me, keep a finger pasted on the channel button as i surf. That's it. No effort, no reading, no thought.
I am greatly afraid that for the majority of Americans, this is the only effort they will muster. Internet use (for anything but porn, apparently) is just TOO DIFFICULT for them.
I do believe the internet has the ability to reach "the leaven" in and among us in the way TNR did for my parents generation - but this makes it incumbent on *us* to spread the word.
Edited on Aug 27, 2011 at 9:47amMay '10
Re: Democrat-Media Complex 4
And in the nitpicking department, A. Michael Noll, one of the pioneers of our modern computer-based communications, will be happy to explain to you that the break-up of AT&T had nothing to do with the development of the internet as a commercial enterprise.
Re: Democrat-Media Complex 4
"The Internet is entirely superior to television but its performance has not yet caught up with its promise, so television is still viable. But this is rapidly changing."
I wouldn't know how to evaluate the various business models in play here, but you make an invaluable point about the political effects of the Internet.
I may have mentioned this before, btw, but when I interviewed for my job as a Reagan speechwriter, David Gergen, then the White House director of communications, was still monitoring the news on a special television console that H. R. Haldeman had had built during the Nixon years. The console, a big, cabinet-like structure, held one big television tube and two small ones. Three tubes. That was all Gergen needed each day to monitor the news that was reaching the American people.
The Internet represents not merely a new technology but a liberation.
Edited on Aug 27, 2011 at 11:02amMay '10
Re: Democrat-Media Complex 4
As a compliment it is great. As a replacement, it will not work. How will you pay for it, Peter? Are you ready for each internet site to have a paywall? Who will you trust for your news when you have to pay for it?
Oct '10
Re: Democrat-Media Complex 4
EJ, for the moment you are correct about the internet's dependency on the news-gatherers, but as the internet grows this will likely change. A large factor in this is generational habits. My nineteen-year-old can't be bothered to watch news on the television. He clicks on Drudge through-out the day, probably aware of many breaking stories before our local broadcast anchorman. I think you are particularly off-base if you think that most people will remain captive to the MSM for their disaster information. Independent hurricane tracking and opining websites are far more informative and accurate than the networks. The independents get their raw data from the same government websites the networks do, and can and do provide much more detailed and accurate up-to-the-minute reporting on the storms. In this area, at least, they could take the lead without much trouble.
Oct '10
Re: Democrat-Media Complex 4
EJHill
As a compliment it is great. As a replacement, it will not work. How will you pay for it, Peter? Are you ready for each internet site to have a paywall? Who will you trust for your news when you have to pay for it? · Aug 27 at 10:05am
As the internet grows and television and dead-tree print media shrink, business will turn to whatever is replacing it. Just because there's no widespread success with an internet-for-pay model yet doesn't mean it won't happen. Capitalism never sleeps.
May '10
Re: Democrat-Media Complex 4
And who is going to pay for all of the websites that won't have enough traffic to return any ad revenue? Fractionalization is not necessarily a sustainable model.
If the unthinkable happens and an EMT attack takes down the east coast power grid, which ISP or wireless provider will step in? Or will it be the broadcaster that's still on the air and ramp up ampages on his transmitter that will come to the rescue?
May '10
Re: Democrat-Media Complex 4
But the question also remains who is going to make it happen. Who is more likely to become the leader in paying on-line journalism? The blogger living on the information wealth of others or the ones with the established news organizations and the pre-established working relationships with the advertisers?
Oct '10
Re: Democrat-Media Complex 4
EJHill
And who is going to pay for all of the websites that won't have enough traffic to return any ad revenue? Fractionalization is not necessarily a sustainable model.
My point is that large entities like Breitbart could develop their own news-gathering operations as the shift progresses. Smaller bloggers will continue as now, I assume.
EJHill
If the unthinkable happens and an EMT attack takes down the east coast power grid, which ISP or wireless provider will step in? Or will it be the broadcaster that's still on the air and ramp up ampages on his transmitter that will come to the rescue? · Aug 27 at 10:25am
In that particular scenario, the networks would be more useful, but that doesn't mean that broadcast television will triumph over the internet in the battle for media dominance.
Edit: 'Media dominance in reporting catastrophic weather and events', I should have said.
Edited on Aug 27, 2011 at 11:39amOct '10
Re: Democrat-Media Complex 4
Preserved Killick: In contrast, the television requires users to hit the on button, and, if you are like me, keep a finger pasted on the channel button as i surf. That's it. No effort, no reading, no thought.
I am greatly afraid that for the majority of Americans, this is the only effort they will muster. Internet use (for anything but porn, apparently) is just TOO DIFFICULT for them.
Do people that passive and that devoid of intellectual curiosity actually have the interest in and muster the energy to vote? Or are they part of the nearly 50% that sit it out? We need to capture the narrative and make it compelling to voters, not brain dead couch potatoes. That may sound harsh but when it comes to electoral politics, the demographic called “non-voters” is irrelevant. How do you think young people are made to fork over vast unearned benefits to healthy retirees? One group votes and the other does not.
Jan '11
Re: Democrat-Media Complex 4
EJHill
Who is more likely to become the leader in paying on-line journalism? The blogger living on the information wealth of others or the ones with the established news organizations and the pre-established working relationships with the advertisers? · Aug 27 at 10:48am
Well, at the moment the New York Times, with all of its established news organizations, etc. etc., is floundering on the Internet. I think there's room here for a new model.
Aug '11
Re: Democrat-Media Complex 4
EJHill: ...As Charles notes, everybody has a web page, but all of the news, all of the opinion, and everything else is based on other people's work and other people's money.
...
This weekend, it will be the broadcaster that millions will turn to as Irene races up the east coast. In many cases life and death will hinge on that expensive link between the evil, one-way, time-limited broadcaster and his audience. · Aug 27 at 9:32am
EJ, I am capitalist and believe in paying for good and services including news.One of the television channels covering Hurricane Irene is The Weather Channel which can also be found at www.weather.com. If The Weather Channel charged access to their website and I found value in their content, then I would pay the subscription price. I already do so for access to WSJ.com, Aviation Week & Space Technology and (obviously) Ricochet.com.
News is a valuable product and people should pay to access product. People understood this when buying a newspaper but now believe that it should be free. That belief must go.
May '10
Re: Democrat-Media Complex 4
The old model is broken, there's no doubt about that. Paywalls are ineffective against intellectual theft and the Associated Press redistributing your product to other papers and aggregate sites without them.
Right now ESPN is pioneering the expansion of it's cable model into the internet. Unless your ISP pays a content fee, streaming content from ESPN3.com is unavailable to you. They are also asking wireless providers for fees to cover ESPN Mobile. The problem with expanding this into news is that, unlike sports, very little of it is exclusive. And what is exclusive in news can be expensive.
Aug '11
Re: Democrat-Media Complex 4
EJHill:
You are not prepared to do the original reporting, you are not prepared to run the overseas bureaus, you are not prepared to pay for the battlefield reporter and photographers. You are not prepared to cover the breaking news in Beijing, the wildfire in Australia or even the events in your own backyard. · Aug 27 at 9:43am
But I do pay for battlefield reports. Over the course the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, I followed the news primarily from www.army.mil, www.marines.mil, www.navy.mil, www.af.mil, www.defense.gov and dvidshub videos. The battlefield reporters were military personnel. Their reporting was excellent and, to my mind, unbiased. Most of the stories were mundane and for that reason alone, civilian journalism wouldn't bother reporting it. But it also showed me that things were going better than the civilian news media let on.
This is also a warning sign to MSM: I was able to get my news without them. Yes, it took some initiative on my part to check these military sites for new stories but it was possible. I will go into this in detail in my next comment.