Mitt Romney is not going to win the White House if he doesn’t speak in plain terms about the true nature of this election campaign.
That is, if Romney doesn’t stand up and point out the obvious–that he’s not going one on one with Barack Obama, but rather one on two, with Obama being helped by the Main Stream Media–then he has no chance of rallying the support he needs to win the election. In a football game, a team can’t win if the referees are helping the other team. And in the Romney vs. Obama Bowl, the refs aren’t just calling the plays in favor of Obama; they are out on the field trying to tackle Romney themselves.
If Romney were to call out the media, he would not only get points for telling the truth, but he would also get points for courage. In other words, in standing up to the press on the national stage, Romney would upend two damaging clichés about his own persona: first, that he is a truth-shading maneuverer, and second, that he is not a bold and courageous leader.
It’s one thing for the media to strongly favor President Obama over Mitt Romney. We’re used to that. And if the issue at hand was merely partisanship, that wouldn’t be such a big deal to most Americans–I, to name one, am not a Republican.
[More]
See Also:
Write About Terrorism? Nah, Let’s All Bash Mitt Romney Instead!
Top intelligence official backtracks on Libya story, says initial assessment premature
Sowell: Barack Obama 1 versus Barack Obama 2
Another discussion that has been had before – the media is market driven big business. It prints and broadcasts what sells what the purchasing public wants in order to gain market share, and what its advertisers are willing to have their names attached to in their individual corporate quests for profit.
If it ever did in the past, “just the facts ma’am” does not sell today, and if you feel a pressing need to blame someone for that, blame the consumer/market.
Nice theory SL except the legacy media’s market share is dropping faster than Wyle Coyote’s Acme Anvil. If they were putting out what the public wants and the advertiser thought was an effective marketing tool they wouldn’t be in such a major contraction.
More to the point of Caddell’s advice, Romney has a fine line to walk if indeed he wants to appear presidential. If he charges off like an enraged bull chasing every red flag the media waves he is going to simply look foolish. Were I to advise Romney I would suggest he let Obama play the fool with all the lies, coverups, and BS while Romney spends his time laying out his plan in simple terms.
Legacy media – to a degree, dead tree media – yes
Digital media – no…. and digital media has advertisers, and they have readership and/or viewers, that they have to satisfy or lose.
IOW, no contradiction.
CNN down, Fox up. Rush limbaugh et al up, air America dead. CBC alive due to billion dollar subsidies.
Media dedicated to leftist ideology is not only economically non viable, but they are doubling down on their commitment to what is causing their failure.
Doesn’t really explain why Pat Buchanan or David Duke aren’t president today.
Also, if the media is so left slanted, how come the USA has never even fielded a truly leftist (in the real sense, not the Rush Limbaugh sense) candidate as part of a major party? Europe does so regularly, even though they rarely win.
Sure it does Cy. Just because non leftist news sources are ascendent does not mean that they yet dominate the media landscape. But the leftist MSM are losing their hegemony. For them the Fairness Doctrine cannot arrive soon enough.
As for a far left candidate you are joking aren’t you.
No, I was actually educated about what communism is – turns out it isn’t the guy who wants to kill the least poor people. How could talk radio have led me astray?
So the guy who nationalized GM and Healthcare is not left wing. I guess the MSM has led me astray as well Cy.
GM is not any more nationalized than the tarp banks. Moreover it was never the governments (ALL of them, not just the usa fed) to hold onto those for the long term. You are being dishonest
For the hyper-partisan it doesn’t have to be true, it just has to make for good rhetoric that validates personal belief.
Ouch. Cy are you going to let Stage get away with that smear?
Oh – is that humour – imagine that – insert obligatory chuckle here
Stage questions orthodoxy. No one is beyond questioning. What you and the others do is smearing disguised as political opposition.
It will be interesting to see which one of you first links the condescending right wing attitude to the voting patterns among women, minorities and the young (if not for Ron Paul’s group, the GOP convention would need to wrap up around 7pm)
Obama was determined to be the most liberal senator by both left and right groups.
As for smearing, both you and Stage utilize the tactic perfected by the modern left of accusing others of that which you do. I’ll grant you that it is a very effective tactic, but is fundamentally and intellectually dishonest.
Sorry, are you agreeing now, or are you part of the (worryingly) growning sector of the population that doesn’t know the difference betwen a liberaal and a socialist? I know they all oppose you picking on the —whoever this week— but that doesn’t mean they’re the same.
“Sorry, are you agreeing now, or are you part of the (worryingly) growning sector of the population that doesn’t know the difference betwen a liberaal and a socialist?”
But some of us certainly knew from day one the difference between Obama and pond scum (a person without principles or morals). There is no difference.