Ask Me Help Desk - Asymmetrical political warfare

Your link is dead so I don't kow what the content is there. But we have what you call "localism" here in Canada too. It's to prevent the ClearChannels of the world from making generic content for the entire country and dropping the local flovour of any community. We've already seen that with FM radio where CC has basically a monopoly control over content.

Quote:

Your link is dead

Go to this page and click on the pdf report :The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio

Quote:

But we have what you call "localism" here in Canada too.

That's all well and good but his clear intent is not to promote local flovour of any community ; but to penalize stations that air conservative talk radio.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

In her case the technology had nothing to do with it - it was the content, those two words.

And then there's this:
There's Just No Way Sarah Palin's Writing Her Facebook Notes - sarah palin - Gawker

If the internet and social networking sites were not available, I doubt if CNN, NBC, ABC, or CBS would be giving Palin any kind of voice to say those two words.

I don't think Ron Paul would have been as widely known had it not been for the internet and You Tube.

Which is just the point, Palin and Paul may have limited appeal, but they speak for those who agree with them. The people want to hear them. This is not the heads of the Democratic or Republican parties deciding our choices and our platform from top to bottom. The people at the bottom are letting those on top know how they feel.

G&P

G&P

Quote:

Originally Posted by inthebox

If the internet and social networking sites were not availble, I doubt if CNN, NBC, ABC, or CBS would be giving Palin any kind of voice to say those two words.

First of all she didn't coin those words, she repeated what she read elsewhere. And no the media did not need to report that because it was erroneous to begin with.

Quote:

Originally Posted by inthebox

I don't think Ron Paul would have been as widely known had it not been for the internet and You Tube.

Correct there, he had an incredible internet following, people championed their guy's cause across the web.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

First of all she didn't coin those words, she repeated what she read elsewhere. And no the media did not need to report that because it was erroneous to begin with.

So if it wasn't hers, ans she wasn't the first person to say it, why is everyone on the left all over her for having said it?

If she ain't all that important, why is everything she says so important that the lefitsts in the MSM have to have a week long bash-fest to counter it?

Answer: they MSM and the Left are trying to MAKE her into a leader for the Right because right now they can't fight the asymmetrical political war. They don't have anyone to attack in the "leadership" of the grass-roots Right, so they need to CREATE someone to be a target for them.

The Left is using the equivalent of the "Bush Doctrine". The Bush Doctrine basically said that any government that supports terrorism is a legitimate target in the War on Terror. The idea was that we can't fight against al-Qaeda in a traditional war, for the reasons that I described in the OP. So we needed to CREATE a target that we could fight on those terms. He designated who the "leadership" or the "support structure" of the terrorists was. Whether you agree with Bush's targets or not, that was the tactic he used.

The Left is using the same tactic now: they are trying to name our leaders for us. First it was Rush. Then it was Palin. The idea is to give their "troops" a target to lash out at.

Problem is that Rush and Palin aren't the real leadership of the Conservative grass roots and aren't involved in the grass roots movement. They are merely sypathetic compatriots.

Frankly, Bush was better at choosing his "targets" of the Bush Doctrine than the leftists seem to be. At least there were real terrorists that gathered in Iraq to fight us... real targets to eliminate. The left is just antagonizing an angry populace within their own area of influence, and losing that influence as a result.

Elliot

Quote:

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

First of all she didn't coin those words, she repeated what she read elsewhere. And no the media did not need to report that because it was erroneous to begin with.

Gee, like no one else we know would do that. Heck, Obama's campaign themes were straight out of Alinsky's book... and just watch what happens when TOTUS betrays him.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

Answer: they MSM and the Left are trying to MAKE her into a leader for the Right because right now they can't fight the assymetrical political war. They don't have anyone to attack in the "leadership" of the grass-roots Right, so they need to CREATE someone to be a target for them.

So the crazy leftists are behind these?

Sarah Palin for President
Draft Sarah Palin For President 2012
The Fix - Palin for President (in 2012)
Sarah Palin for President

Seems like a grassroots movement!

I want to get back to Mark Loyd because I'm sure the statist response to the asymetrical politics will be the government asserting control on the networks employed in it.

Loyd wrote in his book (and remember his thesis that communications media was surrendered to corporate interests ) “Citizen access to popular information has been undermined by bad political decisions,” .... “These decisions date back to the Jacksonian Democrats' refusal to allow the Post Office to continue to operate the telegraph service.”

And

“Neither Progressive era reforms nor new communications technologies have been able to correct the problems resulting from government abdication of a responsibility to advance the equal capability of citizen discourse,” .

This of course is nonsense . What he proposes in the gvt control of the media is for the gvt to control and manage the message . It has nothing to do with equal access or the ability to advance discourse.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

What he proposes in the gvt control of the media is for the gvt to control and manage the message .

Like has been done with Fox News for years?

Quote:

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

So the crazy leftists are behind these?

Sarah Palin for President
Draft Sarah Palin For President 2012
The Fix - Palin for President (in 2012)
Sarah Palin for President

Seems like a grassroots movement!

No. Palin has her own ambissions too. And she has followers as well.

But when the Leftists start making her out to be THE political leader of the right, that's THEIR doing, not hers.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

Like has been done with Fox News for years?

The government controls Fox News? Is that what you are saying?

What color is the sky on your planet?

Quote:

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

The government controls Fox News? Is that what you are saying?

What color is the sky on your planet?

Maybe not controls but they get fed their talking points from the political conservatives.

I disagree ;but regardless... Fox news is independent and free to broadcast whatever content they choose. Lloyd would change that .

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

I disagree ;but regardless... Fox news is independent and free to broadcast whatever content they choose.

Really?

Quote:

On MSNBC’s Hardball last night, host Chris Matthews asked former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan if he saw “FOX television as a tool” to get the White House’s “message out” while he was in the Bush administration. “Certainly there were commentators and other, pundits at FOX News, that were useful to the White House,” replied McClellan, adding that they were given “talking points.”

Making a distinction between journalists like Brit Hume and commentators like Sean Hannity and Bill O’Reilly, McClellan admitted that “certainly” the White House used Fox News talking heads as “spokespeople” with “a script”:

MATTHEWS: So, you wouldn’t use Brit Hume to sell stuff for them, but you’d use some of the nighttime guys?

MCCLELLAN: Yeah, I would separate that out, and certainly I, you know, they’ll say, that’s because they agree with those views in the White House.

MATTHEWS: Well, they didn’t need a script though, did they?

MCCLELLAN: No, well, probably not.

Duh at least the troll had the integrity to distinguish between the news content and the commentators.

Again tell me how the WH feeding talking points is the equivalent of legislating and controlling the content ? FOx was free to disregard their memos no ?

Quote:

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

Maybe not controls but they get fed their talking points from the political conservatives.

First of all, even if that were true, it's a whole lot different from what you said which is that they are GOVERNMENT CONTROLLED.

Big difference.

I don't think that CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, etc. are government-controlled in the despotic sense. I DO think that they are sypathetic to the government and have therefore become enmeshed with the government in a way that is politically unhealthy for any country. Such enmeshment can BECOME government control over time. It ain't there yet, but it could be.

Fox ain't enmeshed with the government, and all you have to do is compare the statements of Fox News with the statements and positions of the Obama government.

Now... does this constitute an attempt by government (or at least a government official) to control of the media? Or at least bully it?

SHERMAN FREDERICK: Enough is enough, Harry - Opinion - ReviewJournal.com

Elliot

Quote:

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

Fox ain't enmeshed with the government, and all you have to do is compare the statements of Fox News with the statements and positions of the Obama government.

Wait a minute, you want people to think that because Fox News doesn't support the Obama government then they are not "enmeshed with the government"? Hahahahahahha! You really think everyone else but you is stupid. It was Bush/far-right spokes piece and still is.

Edit to add: yea, that Reid guy is a for what he did/said.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

Wait a minute, you want people to think that because Fox News doesn't support the Obama government then they are not "enmeshed with the government"? Hahahahahahha! You really think everyone else but you is stupid. It was Bush/far-right spokes piece and still is.

Edit to add: yea, that Reid guy is a for what he did/said.

And which part of the government is Bush a member of?

Last I heard, the guy is retired.

Even if you assume that Fox is/was a "spokes piece" for Bush, if Bush isn't part of the government, what connection is there between Fox and the government? There's a logical link missing from your chain of connections.

Elliot

Quote:

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

Edit to add: yea, that Reid guy is a for what he did/said.

I didn't quite get that... but I can guess what you were trying to say. We are in agreement on this point.