"Mainstream" ain't what it used to be
I rarely agree with Conor, but I do agree with this comment he made about a term common among conservatives:
...look, Fox News is the most popular cable news outlet in America. Andy McCarthy's book was a New York Times bestseller. Rush Limbaugh is the most popular radio host in America. If the words mean anything, these are mainstream media figures disseminating their work through mainstream outlets and publishers. Don't be fooled by the way that we use the words "mainstream media." It's misleading shorthand.
This has been bothering me for a while now, too. Fox News and conservative talk radio are definitely mainstream these days. "MSM" made more sense in decades past.
Conservatives are still obviously at a disadvantage in regard to media when one considers that artists in general -- be it scriptwriters, musicians or...um... artists -- are overwhelmingly liberal and have far more influence on culture than reporters and political pundits. But in regard to news and punditry specifically, liberals lost their old monopoly.
I wouldn't be throwing this out there for discussion if I didn't think there was more to be said about it. But I agree with Conor -- it's a little disingenuous to talk as if we conservatives still can't get our ideas out there for widespread consumption. The game has changed. Hallelujah!
- Comment (40)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments :
Dec '10
Re: "Mainstream" ain't what it used to be
Aaron Miller: I rarely agree with Conor, but I do agree with this comment he made about a term common among conservatives:
I have a different definition of MSM.
MSM refers to the dominant overall media generated wall-of-political-point-of-view that people are emerged in in their everyday life, unless they are more discriminate. It is about propaganda and the dominant political attitudes found in all media.
The MSM includes the primary media sources where most people get most of their "news" -- CBS, NBC, ABC, their local NYT/ WP/API/Reuters content driven newspapers, etc.
However, the "mainstream media", literally, includes more than "news" sources. It includes non-news programming insofar as it is intended as political propaganda and/or to politically indoctrinate. It includes daytime talk shows, the plots and dialog of popular prime time programming, the products of Hollywood, popular magazines such as People, US, etc.
For example, does anyone doubt that most Hollywood war movies made about Iraq deliberately made political statements?
Edited on Jan 20, 2011 at 8:47pmMay '10
Re: "Mainstream" ain't what it used to be
Here is my issue with your point of view on this, although I did find much to agree with. The so called MSM is constantly perpetuating charges and hamering conservatives with them and putting us on the defensive. And what's worse is they do it in a way that they themselves might as well be making the charge. Then its all over the airwaves and before conservatives get a chance to respond it's dissmenated so much to the point that it becomes the story and appears to be the truth. While I agree that we have lots of outlets the problem is they have so many more. Another problem is that when conservatives are out there trying to make there case or present a different topic they fail at it every time. We need someone to hold classes for Conservative and Republican politicians on how to use the media even the ones that are against them. I see only one person right now who is doing that and its SP which is another reason why the left is so scared by her.
Dec '10
Re: "Mainstream" ain't what it used to be
Conor is right and wrong. Right, in that "mainstream media" is a convenient political shorthand. Wrong, that the political Right is in charge of that term.
The "mainstream media" are who they say they are and are not anyone they say can't play in their playground. The fact that the traditional media outlets -- the newspapers, the news syndicators, the broadcast networks, even CNN -- are hemorrhaging audience and that the newer outlets -- Fox News, the blogs, talk radio -- are steadily growing doesn't mean the latter are "by any definition" mainstream, because the mainstream media's own definition excludes those latter outlets. To the extent the mainstream media deals with the newer outlets and personalities at all, it's to exploit them for ratings by doing features and "exposes" and interviews with them, treating them as a strange and dangerous new species.
Jul '10
Re: "Mainstream" ain't what it used to be
I have to vigorously agree with Peter and Stuart. The sobriquet "Main Stream Media" is an idiomatic hold over from the 90s when Fox went from being last to competitive with the other networks and the Internet was this quirky place that a few clueless techies exchanged bizarre conspiracy theories and hucksters jammed mailboxes with spam. The news readers for the old guard naturally imagined themselves all sorts of phantom virtues to separate their wheat from those chaffy newcomers. That mostly worked with the sheeple until Dan Rather overreached defending a fraudulent document created to smear a sitting President.
At its best, the New York Times was an imperialist institution in an imperialist city in an anti-imperialist country. Today it is, ironically, the rapidly diminishing bulwark of a desperate left as the pendulum swings hard the other way.
My life-long Democrat mother-in-law curses the Washington Post as the house organ of the Democrat Party. The wayward Washington Times with its foreign ownership and low subscription levels, probably never did better than 12% the circulation of the Post.
And while the Times and the Post, "national" papers, come crashing down, the Wall Street Journal is resurgent mainstream.
Sep '10
Re: "Mainstream" ain't what it used to be
I also agree with the above comments. Rush Limbaugh is a destination. You don't walk into a doctor's waiting room and find the radio playing the EIB network, but you will see CNN or the View or any number of quasi-political shows. In airports across America it seems CNN has the franchise. I only once in all my travels was in a waiting room where Fox news was playing- at an auto lube place in Texas - and the woman sitting next to me assumed I would be in agreement when she said of Glenn Beck, "What a nutcase!"
Fox is cable and a lot of Americans still don't have it. Moreover the MSM has loosely conspired using their existing power to carpet-bomb public opinion that Fox is partisan and they, by the fact they all are saying the same thing, aren't.
The examples Conor cite are each pure destination examples. Bestsellers? Pah! A bestseller can be as few as a couple hundred thousand books. Conor is smarter than his argument. So why is he making this one? Hmmm...
Sep '10
Re: "Mainstream" ain't what it used to be
There are three pretty distinct groups regarding media. There are the millions who watch Fox news, listen to talk radio, and if they are really engaged, read the National Review etc. who are all right wing. Then there is the overtly political left, they watch MSNBC, read the New Republic, The Nation, The New York Times etc.
Then there is everyone else - by far the largest group.
These are people who vote, but they don't involve themselves too much in politics. If they are young they might get most of their news from comedians. My own 21 year old daughter is a perfect example. She literally finds out about what is going on via The Daily Show and The Colbert Repor (spell it like he says it!). They get their news from around the water cooler, The View, Letterman, Good Morning America, The Today Show, The Early Show and clips of radio news while commuting in between weather and traffic reports, or by seeing headlines of discarded newspapers on the train. And it doesn't end there. They also hear opinions from celebrities in all types of magazines like Rolling Stone, Hustler, Playboy, Vanity Fair, People, You name it...
Sep '10
Re: "Mainstream" ain't what it used to be
Things in media are changing, but in many ways it is worse. It is worse because now, thanks to creeping socialism, everything is political. The left wants it this way and has been working towards this end for decades.
It used to be you would tune into Johnny Carson and once a week he would make a fairly innocuous joke at the current Presidents expense. In the rest of the media, things like education, health care, retirement, unions, homosexuality,taxes, weren't partisan political subjects.
It's worse because now there is no reliable neutral source of information, and people can find news outlets that reflect and reinforce their existing views.
In the days of Walter Cronkite and Huntley-Brinkley, the mainstream news may have been slightly left of center, but not nearly as hard left and partisan in the framing and reporting of the news as it is now.
As well, there remained in those days many newsworthy events that were not tied to political points of view. Today everything has a political element, therefore the MSM has more power to influence politics than ever before.
Enough for now, I await Conor's response to this and other comments...
Edited on Jan 21, 2011 at 4:02amMay '10
Re: "Mainstream" ain't what it used to be
It's important to draw a distinction between an agenda (Rush, Beck, McCarthy) and a hidden agenda (NPR, NYT, ABC). The former is a wolf in wolf's clothing, prompting a healthy skepticism in the consumer; the latter is a wolf in sheep's clothing, prompting unhealthy acceptance, especially among the more casual consumers (that is to say, independents).
Very big difference.
May '10
Re: "Mainstream" ain't what it used to be
My term of choice is the Legacy Media. They are indeed going down due to technology change, but the process tends to take a full generation to play itself out. Thus, unfortunately, because of the legacy installed base, these folk have an out-sized influence on the public debate, as well as a stranglehold on Legacy Culture.
And this is where I fault conservatives. The channels of distribution to make our case and grab our piece of the culture are wide open, for the first time in 70 years. But we are not creating our own truly competitive "software" (broadly distributed TV, books, movies) to compete. There is no reason whatever that we should not have a bunch of conservative financiers investing in entertaining fillums that promote freedom and fiscal responsibility, but our side invests in other things instead.
Until we can make many many movies (e.g., Firefly) that are as popular and broadly distributed among the non-political citizens as is the lefty propaganda vehicles, we will not make progress in the culture. Amateurish productions like "Fireproof" that are aimed at true believers already don't do that.
Film Klavan novels. Now.
Sep '10
Re: "Mainstream" ain't what it used to be
My mom, like most Americans her age, get their news mainly from CBS, NBC, or ABC and whatever newspaper she subscribes to that carries mostly AP news reports. That is the mainstream. She thinks it is unbiased. She takes what she hears and reads there as gospel. It is still the mainstream.
I get my news from FOX and listen to Beck and the local conservative AM radio guy in KC. This is not the mainstream, although it is available to all. Give Rush and others credit for taking the crumbs left to them, ie AM radio, and creating a sensation. I suspect that most listeners, like me, take a lot of what they hear there with a grain of salt. They speak my language, but I don't take everything they say for gospel. I know their bias, and take that into account as I digest the information. It is not yet mainstream. I am still a minority.
Is it changing? I think so. The above mentioned mainstream media establishments are losing readers and/or viewers at an astonishing rate. In a few years, I think we could reach parity with them, but it hasn't happened yet.
Nov '10
Re: "Mainstream" ain't what it used to be
I'm not going to jump into the fray with my own personal definition of MSM, except to say that the local Chinese restaurant has a big sign saying they don't use it.
But, the point most of you are getting at is one I made sort of clumsily yesterday or the day before: the left are losing control of the narrative, and it is exactly because there are more and more outlets of good conservative thought. You used to get three channels, maybe the radio, the local paper and maybe a regional paper. All of them were (are) filled with liberal hogwash. But I can now ignore all of that, and get news from literally anywhere, and be an informed citizen. So in a sense, I think the point is correct that there are now many more viable options to what we call MSM. But, I think it is just as true that the average citizen, the guy who says "I don't like to talk politics" is still getting his news from the MSM.
May '10
Re: "Mainstream" ain't what it used to be
No, no, no. They do use Main Stream Media. They won't use Madison Square Garden.
I suggest we ban both.
Edited on Jan 21, 2011 at 5:14pmMay '10
Re: "Mainstream" ain't what it used to be
I'm sure y'all have already noticed but, to consolidate, EJ has another argument for abandoning the "mainstream" label. I agree with his statement:
Aug '10
Re: "Mainstream" ain't what it used to be
As (a for andrew..s for ...) for agreeing with Conor do we have to trust his employer ?
Jul '10
Re: "Mainstream" ain't what it used to be
Personally, I like Self Absorbed, Arrogant, Elitist, Establishment Media, but SAAEEM doesn't have the ring of MSM.
I actually agree with the notion that we have an opportunity to redefine what is "mainstream". And it is us. I also like Duane's "Legacy Media" label. It paints just the right picture of an outmoded but still self-regarding outfit who do not realize they have become irrelevant.
May '10
Re: "Mainstream" ain't what it used to be
But they do realize it. It's on their ledgers.
Jul '10
Re: "Mainstream" ain't what it used to be
What the Left has built is a hellishly-efficient echo chamber. Once an idea congenial to their over-arching goal of political dominance emerges anywhere, it's immediately amplified and repeated, endlessly, everywhere.
Take, for instance, the canard that George Bush lied about WMD's in Iraq. That lie was originated by anti-war activists, amplified by Democrat politicians, trumpeted in virtually every media outlet, echoed over and over by academicians and pundits and incorporated into television dramas and dreadful films like The Green Zone.
And once a useful meme is established, it never dies, it simply becomes an evergreen truism. Any member of the Left apparatus can casually work the now-established "fact" into any remark or bit of news analysis at any time, regardless of whether it's inherently relevant to the topic at hand.
It's a magnificent wall of sound, echoing endlessly through the culture and on and on through the years.
That,my friends, is the mainstream. It's like every musician in the world playing Phil Spector's greatest hits at top volume, forever.
We don't have anything that begins to match it.
Edited on Jan 21, 2011 at 5:59pmSep '10
Re: "Mainstream" ain't what it used to be
Speaking of the media, Keith Olbermann resigned tonight.
May '10
Re: "Mainstream" ain't what it used to be
How do you quantify what is conservative, liberal or merely neutral? History Channel? Discovery? Or how about a conservative show on a liberal network? The numbers aren't all that easy to crunch.
Dec '10
Re: "Mainstream" ain't what it used to be
My only objection to "Legacy Media" is the positive connotation of the word "legacy." I'd prefer something more like "fossil media," connoting their inability to adapt to changing conditions, or "brownfield media," suggestive of their status as dying enterprises.