Originally posted by: eleison
Originally posted by: 1prophet
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Because too many Americans are frankly not very bright, and are easily manipulated thanks to years of vegetating in front of the idiot box.
This.
Which makes it even weirder considering most actors /actress on the
idiot box openly declare their support for dole/kerry...
And? That's totally off on a tangent for at least a couple of reasons. First, are you perhaps aware that actors and actresses engage in an activity called "acting"? That's where they pretend to be someone else, performing a show based on a script that is usually not connected to their personal political views.
Second, and more to the point, the pervasive effect of TV isn't as much due to the material presented as it is to the very nature of the device. Studies have shown that watching television tends to put one's brain into a highly passive, almost hypnotic state. This makes the brain more receptive to the material presented. The theory is this is why television advertising is so effective, coupled with an advertising industry that's spent decades learning how to best package their sales pitches for maximum manipulation.
It is also speculated that years of steady television viewing tend to have a quasi-permanent numbing effect on the brain, eroding one's ability to think and reason. I don't know that this has been backed with solid experimental evidence, however.
Also, since these Americans are not very bright, one would assume Dole/Kerry would not have a problem convincing these people to vote for them.. but this obviously wasn't the case..
The Democrats certainly tried. I think the drone of television is one of the reasons Kerry shot from nowhere to overtake Dean in the Iowa caucuses. The party machine wanted Kerry, started a whispering campaign about Dean's "electability" compared to Kerry, the local media picked it up and got the pundits parroting the question, and within a couple of weeks, Kerry went from way behind to front-runner. It was an irrational and unfounded non-issue, yet it found its mark thanks in large part, in my opinion, to the repetitive drone of the idiot box.
As far as the overall election, the Democrats just aren't as good at wielding TV as the Republicans. The Dems simply lack the skill, the singular focus, and, in my opinion, the ruthlessness of the Republican marketing machine. Rove may be an evil bastard, but even his most vocal enemies acknowledge his exceptional campaign skills. His manipulation of the media is absolutely masterful ... and he's not alone in Republican circles.
Another tremendous strength of recent Republicans, especially when it comes to television, is their ability to zero in on a single message and relentlessly, unvaryingly hammer it home. When the Bush admin or RNC developed a new talking point, we saw 15 different spokesmen pop up on the weekend talk circuit and news programs, all repeating the exact same message, often word for word. This is extremely effective on television. When most people hear something on television, they tend to assume it's true. When they hear it dozens of times, its ingrains itself as subconscious certainty, as above challenge as saying the sun rises in the east.
The Democrats are not so synchronized in their messages. They tend to be more individualistic, giving some attention to the party talking points, but also pushing their individual agendas and issues. This dilutes the effectiveness of their television presence.
The Republican's third big edge is their ruthlessness, or at least the ruthlessness of some of their supporters. Some Republican groups are absolutely shameless in fear-mongering and spreading Big lies to help their cause (see, for example, the
Swiftboat Liars for Bush). Sure, the Dems will stretch, twist, and exaggerate, but I just don't see them casting aside every last shred of honesty and decency to smear their opponents. Some Republican groups will, and it works. No matter how preposterous the lie may be, many people will swallow it if they hear it repeated on the TeeVee enough times.
====
Finally, to digress for a moment, this is why I laugh when the right whines about the "liberal media." If the media were really so liberally biased, they would put a lot more time and effort into debunking anti-liberal smears and lies. Instead, while the mainstream media will occasionally throw in a brief article explaining why this lie or that smear is misleading, their headlines and major air time are devoted to the usual stories of tragedies, celebrities, and scandals.
It wouldn't have been good for business to follow every
Swiftboat Liar ad or interview with a ten-minute analysis of why the whole non-issue was an empty, unsupported smear. It wouldn't have been good for business if every BushCo Iraq+9/11 sound bite was followed by several minutes of pointing out that, if one parsed the exact words carefully, one would note they didn't explicitly state Iraq was connected to 0/11, but merely connected them with innuendo. No, that would bore their viewers and anger the advertisers paying good money to air their lies, and that would have been bad for business.
That's the true bias of the MSM. They aren't really the liberal media. They are corporate, capitalist media, and their overriding focus is selling ad time and maintaining the status quo. That's what's best for business.