thegreekdog wrote:I read an editorial (I think from Fox) on how the mainstream media cost Romney the election. While I think this is mostly about putting their heads in the sand, it is interesting to read the thoughts.
For example, there were two weeks of regular news commentary on the 47% comment. And I think that's valid. But, as a counterpoint, there was virtually no mention at all of the Benghazi fiasco, which I think is reportable news that shows poorly on the president.
As another example (and something I've brought up a number of times on this form), there was a lot of focus on the lack of detail (or "lies") of Romney/Ryan regarding their fiscal and tax plans. There was no focus on the Obama fiscal and tax plans, which were similarly lacking in detail.
I tended to watch more mainstream media than not, and I didn't see a lot of reporting on any of the negative Obama items. I suspect a study will be done in the near future that shows that the mainstream media was more in bed with Obama, similar to what was done in 2008.
Sorry, Greekdog, but that's just not so, Obama has stated his plan over and over again, it's just that "Republicans" wanted him to fail so much they wouldn't address it, at all, and now it comes up for another fight.
As to did conservatives (pundits or media) con their base? Not really; it was wishful thinking.
1) They discounted that 47% or thought that Obama's "you didn't build that!" would outweigh it as a negative. The problem with that was that most American's who have done well, freely admit that they would have had a much harder time building what they've built without American infrastructure - and that infrastructure (education, freedom to trade state to state without needing to bribe, roads, bridges, ports, railroads, trucks) is PRECISELY what Obama meant when ... you didn't build that.... (all by yourself)
2) They discounted pro-choice Republicans who would be leery of Ryan and leery of Mitt's penchant to change sides/views (they often do discount pro-choicers as though just because THEY want to make abortion illegal, anyone who claims to be Republican wants to make abortion illegal.) Many women were legitimately concerned that Ryan would be convinced to accept someone pushing to make abortion illegal in some form or other; something Ryan openly stated he would like to see.
3) They refused to acknowledge areas where Obama did pretty well, trying to tar him with a "totally incompetent" brush that frankly doesn't fit, if you use critical thinking to analyze what he inherited, what's happened since, and different things he's done. They'd have been better off admitting where Obama did okay, and explaining, in detail, what should have been done differently for a better outcome. Without those details, Mitt was basically claiming he'd be Obama and Bush only better, (his plans outlined in the debates were half Bush, half Obama) and that just wasn't credible.
4) Basically, they were relying on, "Fire Obama" rather than, "Hire Mitt." They forget, though.. most people hated Bush at the end, far more than any but the most right wing crazies hate Obama - and some of those right wing crazies mix racism in with it, which many will (did) oppose.
Basically, the Rush Limbaugh approach to politics - twist the truth to the very worst interspersed with near-lies and omitting many pertinent facts because they would disprove what you're spouting - works well for entertainment radio, but was insufficient to run a successful Presidential campaign.
But that doesn't mean Obama does not have the media in his pocket, because it's clear that he does, just like any other Democrat president had in the past and will have in the future. The Republican, whoever it is, that runs against a Democrat, is always going to have the narrative reinforced about them that they hate the 47%, or the 99%, want to outlaw abortion, and reinstitute slavery. And it's the media that builds and promotes that construct.
