And by try, we mean generally failing miserably.
By now almost everyone has awakened to how media manipulates and advocates. It is very easy to see who corporate media support, both democrat and republican, and also increasingly easier to see why.
As an example the Wall Street Journal support Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio. National Review also support Bush / Rubio – the establishment selections. However, ideological alignment, and specific intent to create candidate benefit, should be noted and given attention when various levels of nuance are noticed.
There is another aspect that needs to be discussed regarding espoused views of “conservative media”. Everyone should pay attention to the Super-PAC spending, and campaign spending, as it relates to opinions that ultimately come from those media entities.
There is massive campaign spending taking place particularly amid talk radio formats (Limbaugh, Hannity, Levin, and Salem Media Networks as examples), it is disingenuous in the extreme not to notice the espoused views from punditry are impacted by the financial benefits afforded them via campaign, and special interest, ad revenues.
They are not going to cut off their nose and spite their pocketbooks. Period.
Last week we highlighted how Fox News specifically modified their broadcast and punditry coverage to facilitate the selling of a specific agenda regarding immigration. Fox broadcasting does not hold a monopoly at broadcasting messages based on their own vested-financial-interests.
$350,000 for ads on the Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity national talk radio shows. Those early ads played a critical role in giving credibility to the candidacy of Dr. Carson and in persuading Dr. Carson to run. (link)
In addition to vested financial interests – there are ideological interests embedded within the corporate media networks and everything coming from punditry and employees within that media entity are bound to espouse an aligning view.
Never confuse the overlay of media news/current events, with modern corporate media political ideology. Ted Turner did not start CNN just to broadcast current events, he was creating a media platform.
Evolution of this approach extends beyond broadcast into social media platforms like Twitter, Facebook, Instagram etc. When you engage on those platforms you are engaging with a venue controlled by a set of ‘filters’ and objectives you may or may not agree with.
Various media platforms have ideologies behind them. The intersection of politics with that platform creates the influence – hence, Facebook Mark Zuckerburg and the left-wing social media machine.
Controlling information, controlling the platform, especially in conjunction with corporate political interests, is an ever increasing quest for those who need to influence opinion in order to advance their collective goals.
Sometimes those goals are purely political:
Sometimes those collective goals have a specific motive and intent:
…But the bottom line is all of the participants have a vested interest in influencing our opinions, and, as a consequence, our actions:
Stuart W. Epperson – Chairman of the Board – A High-Fidelity Messenger – Long before Rush Limbaugh proved that radio listeners would flock to unapologetically opinionated chat, 10-year-old Stuart Epperson was reading Bible verses from a radio station his brother built in their family’s Virginia farmhouse. By age 36, Epperson had bought an AM station in Roanoke, Va., that would be the beginning of a religious and political broadcasting powerhouse.
Salem Communications, the company Epperson, now 69, later founded with his brother-in-law Edward Atsinger, owns 104 radio stations in 24 of the top 25 U.S. markets and reaches an estimated 5 million listeners a week. The broadcaster’s stations offer Christian music and teaching, as well as conservative talk shows that engage listeners not just to consider hot-button issues like abortion and stem-cell research but also to weigh in with letter-writing campaigns and phone calls to politicians. (Time Magazine 2005 Profile link)
This is why it is important to see how challenging it is for any American Patriot, as a candidate, to break through the concentric walls of special interest and get their genuine message to the electorate.
♦ As if on cue, it only took a few days for another glaring example to surface. This time from Right Scoop, a pro-Cruz advocacy new-media website sponsoring majority content and message delivery from Salem Media Inc.
Apparently the story of Syrian refugees arriving in New Orleans was a risk to someones’ pro-Cruz agenda, and, despite Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal’s confirmation, for some odd reason the (Mark Levin content driven) site, Right Scoop, found it necessary to refute it.
The issue, it appears, is how the Syrian refugees are pictured – as depicted in this article from The Hayride:
The picture shows Syrian Refugees (arriving in Hungary), and for all intents and purposes reflects an accurate depiction of all other EU photographs showing the same. Mostly 18 to 45-year-old males, few women and/or children.
Here’s another example in Greece:
Again, almost all males with a few women and children disbursed. This aligns with various EU print reports showing 85% of the “refugees” are middle-eastern males. The remaining 15% women and children.
However, in a really silly effort to refute the truth – the Right Scoop uses this picture:
The picture above shows the Yazidi community fleeing ISIS in Northern Iraq and headed into the Sinjar Mountains. Iraq, not Syria.
You can only identify traditional refugee families (women and children) in the Yazidi story. It appears in an effort to refute the true imagery of Syrian Refugee composition, the Ted Cruz team need to try and convince readership using images of Yazidi’s in Northern Iraq.
The weird question is why?
Perhaps this has something to do with the weakness of Ted Cruz when it comes to immigration and his flip/flops:
♦ Ted Cruz Flip/Flops on Immigration
♦ Ted Cruz Flip/Flops on Birthright Citizenship
♦ Ted Cruz Flip/Flops on TPP and TPA Support
♦ Ted Cruz Flip/Flops on Marijuana Issue
♦ Ted Cruz Flip/Flops on FEMA and Federal Aid
♦ Ted Cruz Flip/Flops on VISA Program
Perhaps Ted Cruz supporters find themselves on the losing end of reality and need to manufacture distractions. Perhaps Ted Cruz supporters are just maintaining the currency of falsehood that is essentially a hallmark of the Cruz campaign.
Maybe advocates are concerned the Syrian refugee story will be compared to the silliness of the Soccer Ball and Teddy Bear campaign that turned out to be a fictitious unaccompanied alien children crisis during the summer of 2014.
Or maybe, just maybe, they are fearful of being left out of the policy issue. A policy discussion they have wind-tested and reflects an actual risk to their candidates prior position. Who really knows for sure.
What is certain is this.
The picture on the left is indeed Syrians. The picture on the right is not:
And Syrian refugees have actually arrived in New Orleans.