Boehlert writes: "This grand experiment of marrying a political movement around a cable TV channel was a grand failure in 2012."
File photo, Fox News logo. (photo: Fox News)
The GOP's Lost Year In the Fox News Bubble
31 December 12
uffering an election hangover after having been told by Fox News that Mitt Romney's victory was a sure thing (a "landslide" predicted by Dick Morris), some Republicans have promised to break their addiction to the right-wing news channel in the coming year. Vowing to venture beyond the comforts of the Fox News bubble, strategists insist it's crucial that the party address its "choir-preaching problem."
Good luck.
This grand experiment of marrying a political movement around a cable TV channel was a grand failure in 2012. But there's little indication that enough Republicans will have the courage, or even the desire, to break free from Fox's firm grip on branding the party.
For Fox News chief Roger Ailes, the network's slash-and-burn formula worked wonders in terms of catering a hardcore, hard-right audience of several million viewers. (Fox News is poised to post $1 billion in profits this year.) But in terms of supporting a national campaign and hosting a nationwide conversation about the country's future, Fox's work this year was a marked failure.
And that failure helped sink any hopes the GOP had of winning the White House.
From the farcical, underwhelming GOP primary that Fox News sponsored, through the general election campaign, it seemed that at every juncture where Romney suffered a major misstep, Fox misinformation hovered nearby. Again and again, Romney damaged his presidential hopes when he embraced the Fox News rhetoric; when he ran as the Fox News Candidate.
Whether it was botching the facts surrounding the terrorist raid on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, parroting the Fox talking point about lazy, shiftless voters who make up "47 percent" of the electorate, or Romney's baffling embrace of reality TV show host-turned Fox News pontificator Donald Trump, the Republican candidate did damage to his chances whenever he let Fox News act as his chief campaign adviser.
Fox viewers didn't fare much better. Fed a year's worth of misinformation about the candidates, and completely misled about the state of the race (all the polls are skewed!), Fox faithful were left crushed on Election Night when Romney's fictitious landslide failed to materialize.
"On the biggest political story of the year," wrote Conor Friedersdorf at The Atlantic, "the conservative media just got its ass handed to it by the mainstream media."
Indeed, Fox's coverage of the campaign has been widely panned as an editorial and political fiasco. The coverage failed to move the needle in the direction of its favored Republican candidate, and the coverage remained detached from campaign reality for months at a time. (Megyn Kelly in July: The Obama campaign is "starting to panic." That was false.)
Following another lopsided loss to Obama, Republican strategist Mike Murphy urged Republicans to embrace a view of America that's not lifted from "Rush Limbaugh's dream journal." (The Fox News dream journal looks nearly identical to Limbaugh's.)
And San Francisco Chronicle columnist Jon Carroll wondered if Romney's defeat marked the end of a Fox News era:
You had to wonder about Fox. This is the third presidential election in which Fox has been a major player, and the Democrats have won two of them. A combination of big money and big propaganda was supposed to carry the day for Romney and the Republicans, but it didn't. Could it be that the Fox model has played out?
Is the Fox model of a cable paranoia played out in terms of ratings? It is not. Is the Fox model of cable paranoia played out as an electoral blueprint? It sure looks that way.
Of course, conservatives should have thought that through before handing over the control of a political movement to Ailes and his misinformation minions. They should have thought twice about the long-term implication of having irresponsible media outlets like Fox supersede leadership within the Republican Party, and should have figured out first if Fox News had an off switch to use in case of emergencies.
It doesn't.
Yet as Fox News segued into the de facto leader of the Republican Party, becoming the driving electoral force, and with Ailes entrenched in his kingmaker role, candidates had to bow down to Fox in search of votes and the channel's coveted free airtime.
And Andrew Sullivan noted in January:
The Republican Establishment is Rush Limbaugh, Roger Ailes, Karl Rove, and their mainfold products, from Hannity to Levin. They rule on the talk radio airwaves and on the GOP's own "news" channel, Fox.
There's a reason New York magazine labeled Ailes "the head of the Republican Party." And that's why a GOP source told the magazine, "You can't run for the Republican nomination without talking to Roger Every single candidate has consulted with Roger."
That meant campaigns were forced to become part of the channel's culture of personal destruction, as well as to blanket itself in Fox's signature self-pity. (Here was Mitt Romney adopting the right-wing whine that the conspiratorial press was out to sink his campaign.)
Still, the right-wing bubble was a comfortable place to inhabit if you thought of Obama as an historic monster, or if you required to be reminded of that fact many time a day, every day of the year. The bubble is the place where followers for four years were fed the feel-good GOP narrative about how Obama's presidency was a fiasco, that the Americans suffered a severe case of 2008 buyer's remorse, and that the president's re-election defeat was all but pre-ordained.
The one-part-panic, one-part-denial message may have cheered obsessive Obama-haters, but it didn't prepare conservatives for the reality of the campaign season.
And it cost the GOP a lost year in the Fox News bubble.
|
THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community. |
Comments
We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.
General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.
Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.
- The RSN Team
There is always a way around a safeguard, but unless guns are being used they should be secured. Perhaps legislation to make a gun safe part of gun purchase and penalities levied against owners that don't secure thier guns appropriate to the challenge of that environment, i.e., man living alone might be fine with a combo safe, whereas a family man with frequent vistors might need a gun safe with a lock and interior combination safeguard or a gun locker away from the home enviroment. There will always be accidents, but shall we take away every single privledge that has a dangerous component to it? What kind of freedom is that?
They are not called "scatter guns" for nothing.
There is much more going on here and he only paints a brief picture.
I have two personal stories. My first experience with a gun in the home was when my little brother decided he wanted to learn to hunt. He got a gun, took safety courses offered by NRA. The first family argument he took it out and pointed it at my brother. Guns represent a sense of power and as my law enforcement friend told me, that sense of power is seductive. Secondly, a friend's husband had brain cancer and the treatment made him violent. She and her children snuck his weapon collection out of the home and into a locked closet of an uncle in another town. Their patient never remembered his gun collection but continued to get more violent. When managing care,keeping firearms around is a chance should never be taken.
There's a disease of power in this country because guns have replaced personal wit and character. The NRA sells guns with the simple solution to personal power.
My little story is of being shot next to my eye with a bb gun by a cousin who was completely indifferent to what he had done. The play and the rowdy tempers that can flair can easily be a precursor to the next stage of real rage with a real gun.
Then there are the two little boys who found their father's pistol in the glove compartment of the car, and the little brother was killed. Jeb was his name. No words will describe the brother's lifelong guilt and the sorrow.
A small boy found a high-powered rifle abandoned in a Cinema seat in the city of Tillamook with the SAFETY OFF!
The kid had the sense to not touch the weapon but went and told his dad, who in turn called the police. But imagine how many kids might have messed with this lethal object planted with what looked like lethal intent by some deranged copycat in the immediate wake of the Connecticut massacre.
Gosh, is the equally deranged NRA goin' to arm not only teachers and have armed guards in schools but tool-up cinema employees too? It'd save people having to go to the movies to watch violence -they could just have shooting matches in the aisles and over the seats. The last one standing gets a free super-sized drink and popcorn!
Exactly!
And it's the same linked reactionary forces who want to destroy public education and make "learning" the realm of the privileged and keep the sacred market forces strong by passing it down through their fortunate spawn.
But there are always rebels and those who insist on looking beyond the box they are born into. They can't keep everybody down!
If a kid has legs long enough to reach the pedals, it is time to learn to drive and understand that vehicle and what makes it run. Those lessons also teach the responsibility of the privilege of driving. And so on in everything possible to teach them. As for schools, it could be there will be group home schooling as there was in communes of the past, should the elites running this country destroy all good things.