In the tank

One housewife’s opinion as to why the MSM is in the tank for Obama.

It’s a little hard to argue the media equally tracks and describes our two presidential candidates. But thanks to my love for conspiracy theories, I think I’ve figured out why.

The media outlets need the revenue.

I’ve told you before they make money off keeping you angry. I’m not kidding about that. You stay ticked off at them and want to prove you are right so you tune in. When you tune in, they call it a win and charge more for their next advertisement. Plus, when they keep you unhappy, more of those political advertisements are going to be necessary, so they win again.

Think about it. In 2008 America was just beginning to learn the value of a DVR. No one was watching advertising. Faster internet was moving into homes. No one was watching traditional advertising. And so they found a candidate to create the perfect storm and get you to watch advertising again.

Like it or not, American is still a right of center, Christian nation. The only way the media could make money off politics for the next four years was to elevate the candidate who offended the majority. It helped the media found a candidate who so easily polarized this country. It really helped the media could also effectively use the race card.

So this is my little mini-mid-week lecture to turn off the television and think for yourselves. I don’t know a single person who reads here who can honestly say his or her mind isn’t made up yet. Spend some time talking to others. Find that one person who hasn’t decided and try to sway them. If you get a chance, go see your candidate in person, but concede whatever happens in Kansas to those attending in Kansas. It’s not going to matter.

Be about the change you want to see, and leave the media out of it completely this round. I think America will benefit.

Comments

  1. Cindy. good post. the media caters to a base of their own. The base of their own reads the ads and buys in. The political ads are intended to anger those who cannot think for themselves. as an alternative watch them all like I do sometimes and believe none of them. now lets have a discussion about the credibility of individual political media stars. did you notice that they (both sides) always have the same guest contributors. again, good post.

  2. J. Strupp says:

    I don’t understand.

    The MSM has a liberal bias which means that they cater mostly to liberal viewers right? Most conservatives have chosen to move on to other media outlets for their news. Considering the MSM’s viewer demographic, I’d assume that most of their advertising revenues come from non-conservative advertisers, right? Obama doesn’t make liberals scared or angry. Most of them voted for him. Following your logic, the MSM should want Romney to win in November so that they can scare the crap out of their viewers, drive up ratings and sell more deodorant.

    Like Fox News, AM talk radio and groups like the NRA have been doing since 2008.

  3. No, J. Strupp. You don’t get it.

    The right still advertises on CNN. The left is on Fox. No one takes a chance with stuff like that and ignores the other.

    And my argument was the media CHOSE a liberal bias because it was the minority position and would offend the greatest number of people (to keep them agitated to keep it going.)

    BTW, I don’t watch much tv, but news is local channel 4 – NBC, and then CNN, and then mostly CNBC. I watch very little Fox. I tried switching to their business channel after I finally sucked up and installed digital cable (actually, that’s the spouse’s fault) but I couldn’t leave CNBC. I’ve watched that channel since it first came on air. It’s like they are family.

  4. J. Strupp says:

    So your the person that watches CNN? 🙂

    I have to admit it’s an interesting conspiracy theory and there’s probably some degree of truth to it.

  5. I remember when the Milwaukee Journal paper and radio appealed to liberals and then changed to be more conservative to cover all bases. My favorites are ESPN sports and the classic movies.

  6. The Lorax says:

    This is silly. Study after study has shown the media is harder on Obama than Romney and gives more air time to Republicans.

  7. Randy in Richmond says:

    Lorax
    How about a link to a study that shows the media harder on Obama than Romney since he clinched the nomination. As you indicate study after study there should be multiple ones for you to choose from. I’m familiar with the Pew study here:

    http://features.journalism.org/campaign-2012-in-the-media/tone-of-news-coverage/

    but of course it’s results are almost all prior to Romney securing the nomination and took place during that long Republican Primary where up to 9 candidates were daily saying not so good things about Obama which were thusly reported–skewing the results of the Pew study.

    And a key point these studies do not report on are the stories the MSM choose not to cover, or cover after the fact. Fast & Furious pops into my mind.

  8. The Lorax says:

    Fast & Furious is a sham. That’s why it wasn’t covered. Puh-lease.

  9. Randy in Richmond says:

    And I’m in a bubble.

  10. BrkfldDad says:

    The death of a US Citizen/border agent directly linked to a failed dun running program is a sham. Disturbing, but that comment says volumes.

  11. BrkfldDad says:

    *gun