Sultan Knish
In 2010, Newsweek was sold for a dollar and it has been devalued since.
Its corporate owners have called buying it a mistake and a fool's
errand. Around the same time last year, Newsweek marked a major
milestone. The loss of 2.5 million readers in ten years. Since then it
lost another million leaving it with about the reading population of a
small city.
Meanwhile
MSNBC isn't doing any better. It lost a fifth of its viewers since last
year and it still can't decide if it's a network of angry idiots
screaming at the camera (Chris Matthews, Al Sharpton, Ed Schultz and
Lawrence O'Donnell) or snide aging college kids making wisecracks about
Republicans (Rachel Maddow, Chris Hayes). Neither format is working all
that well and at this rate MSNBC may want to look into bringing Keith
Olbermann, who combines both demographics, back for another run.
Newsweek and MSNBC will both attribute their bleeding readership and
viewership to the internet, but that doesn't explain why they're both
doing badly there as well. MSNBC was caught hiring bots pretending to be
young women to pump up hashtags for its hosts and Newsweek's fusion
with the Daily Beast didn't save it either. Its final print issue
carried a hashtag implying that the web had done it in, but the internet
wasn't to blame.
Neither do Newsweek and MSNBC suffer from a surplus of class. Newsweek's
desperate covers last year amounted to a formerly respected magazine
descending into outright trolling. It was no longer possible to tell the
difference between Newsweek covers and Newsweek parody covers. And
certainly Tina Brown has never been accused of a surplus of restraint
and good taste. On the MSNBC front, no news network which includes Al
Sharpton trying to read from a teleprompter can be accused of betting on
class.
MSNBC tried to be FOX News for liberals and Newsweek tried to be the
Huffington Post with a print edition. They didn't outright fail at the
job, but they couldn't succeed well enough either.
The dirty little secret of liberal media is that it doesn't work.
Outlets that identify explicitly as liberal usually play to a very
marginal audience. Mother Jones begs money from its readers in the same
obnoxious way as PBS. NPR relies on donors. The New Republic is
flailing. Liberal mags that succeed do it by focusing on a topic that
overlaps with a liberal target audience and embeds their articles there.
It works for magazines like Rolling Stone and the New Yorker. Online
sites like Huffington Post and Buzzfeed succeed by filling themselves
with so much trash that the politics becomes a sideline. The liberal
brand is fine when it's stuffed into culture, elitist or trashy. It
doesn't however stand on its own two feet. It can't, because it has no
real appeal.
Liberalism remains marginal. Gallup polls invariably show forty percent
of Americans describing themselves as conservative and twenty percent or
less identifying as liberal. Liberals dumped the liberal brand after
conservatives effectively destroyed it back in the Reagan era. They
emphasize policies and rhetoric over political identification because a
liberal political identity is toxic.
The cultural dominance of the left did not come about because a majority
of Americans knowingly identify with it, but because the left has
succeeded in breaking up its agendas into tinier and tinier pieces and
making them part of the national dialogue using seemingly agnostic media
channels. These stealth tactics have been successful because they
eschewed open identification. Liberal media doesn't work when it's
transparently liberal. That's why even liberals mock NPR's news
coverage.
Liberal media influence works when it isn't identified as such. And when
it is identified as such then eighty percent of the country switches
the channel and cancels its subscription. And then liberals realize that
they are preaching to the choir and dump the whole thing as a bad
business. MSNBC's overt identification with a liberal agenda allowed
viewers to see how little of a difference there was between a liberal
news channel and the "objective" mainstream news media.
MSNBC exposed millions of people to what actual media liberals sound
like when they take off their disguises and begin talking about their
agenda. It allowed a level of honesty that was rare in a media landscape
where stealth liberalism is delivered using biased reporting that
advocates for an agenda while claiming that there is no advocacy or
agenda, only common sense solutions to problems that will never be
repeated again.
It's
the agenda that has always been the issue. What conservatives
understand and most of the country does not, is that the issues being
debated are not singular events. It's not just about an individual tax
hike or gay marriage or background checks for gun owners. It's about a
larger agenda being put into place piece by piece. And that agenda is
the ultimate taboo topic. It's the thing we aren't supposed to talk
about.
Watch a media report on any issue and there is never any identification
or agenda to the left. Liberal activists are just activists. Often they
are described as mothers or grandmothers. They don't have a larger plan.
They would just like us to ban something dangerous, raise taxes,
protect our oceans and make the country more equal. There is no policy
platform. No larger set of demands hiding behind the ones being made
right now. And most of the country accepts this deceptive coverage at
face value.
MSNBC however churned out naked liberalism. It showed career radicals
like Melissa Harris-Perry discoursing on just what the agenda is. And
that's fine for Mother Jones, but it isn't something that liberals like
to see out in the open. And it's not something that even many of them
want to spend too much time thinking about because understanding what
they have truly climbed on board with can be a troubling and alienating
experience.
Naked liberalism makes even liberals uncomfortable. It's why they get
uncomfortable hearing the self-righteous voices on NPR. It's too much
like looking into a mirror and the things in the mirror are surprisingly
unsettling. Hearing a Keith Olbermann or Jon Stewart tear into
Republicans was one thing. Opposition is always safe ground. It's when
the talk begins to turn to what you stand for that things begin to fall
apart.
Newsweek and MSNBC had made the mistake of going "Full Liberal" and not
only is there a much smaller liberal audience, but that audience doesn't
really like naked liberalism. It would rather see its agenda dressed up
in mainstream colors than see it for what it really is. It may
occasionally dive into the partisan pool, but then it gets out again.
Conservative media outlets exist as alternatives to a dishonestly
liberal media establishment. But what can liberal media outlets exist as
alternatives to? All they can do is speak openly about the agenda that
their big brothers choose to pass off as mainstream activism and when
you already control the dialogue, there's not much of a percentage in
sudden bouts of honesty.
The liberal agenda relies on manipulation and deception. It can sell
quite well so long as no one knows what they're buying. But label the
product with the liberal brand and it stays on the shelves. New media
bastions of liberalism camouflage themselves with trash. They talk
politics without letting on that they're talking about politics because
that admission is the death knell of everything.
Liberalism's
disproportionate influence depends on not being identified for what it
is. That is why it is so panicked by right wing talk show hosts, not
because of their rhetoric, but because they identify a clear political
struggle between two political agendas and categorize both sides. And
that forces the recognition that there are two sides, disrupting the
illusion of anchormen and editors as objective observers and narrators
of America.
What media liberals fear most isn't the right, it's being exposed as the
left. It's not so much what FOX News says, as its very existence that
is threatening, because once viewers become aware that FOX represents
the right, then, even if they don't agree with it, they have to come
around to the conclusion that there is another side and that the media
embodies that other side.
Liberalism is marginal, as is MSNBC's audience. Media outlets like
Newsweek and MSNBC that go full liberal die. And that lesson has
terrible implications for liberal power as a whole.
No comments:
Post a Comment