We need to get this to the Fiscal Cliff! What could go wrong? (Photo credit: DonkeyHotey)
The deal as it is on the fiscal cliff, approved by the Senate on January 1, 2013 and likely to be approved by the House, was inevitable.
A strategist with a keen sense of how to play into the momentum generated by mainstream media on major policy issues could see the deal coming and plan accordingly.
President Barack Obama deftly played into the momentum.
Republican politicians, commentators and other antagonists did not.
And, until the GOP and conservative commentators master the communications game of playing into mainstream media momentum instead of being critics of the intentions of Democrats and mainstream media, they will not be able to significantly influence major policy outcomes.
Typical of the angst of the GOP about the position of President Obama on the fiscal cliff crisis is the post by Joel B. Pollak, in breitbart.com entitled: “Media Must Share Blame for Fiscal Cliff Crisis,” in which he argued the following conservative position:
As Americans ponder how our politicians could have allowed “fiscal cliff” negotiations to drag on into the final day, it is clear that the mainstream media shares a significant part of the blame. There is no way that the impasse could have lasted this long if President Barack Obama felt a sense of responsibility to lead his government and his party–but instead he is able to enjoy the role of critic and spectator, thanks to media indulgence.
The media’s utter failure to hold President Obama to account was exemplified today on National Public Radio’s Morning Edition in a report by Steve Inskeep and Scott Horsley. After the hosts mocked Congress for having “left another crisis to the last minute,” they discussed, without criticism, how Obama “doesn’t sound that worried” about going over the cliff. Likewise, the New York Daily News wrote: “Congress created the fiscal cliff.”
READ MORE: LINK:
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2012/12/31/Media-Must-Share-Blame-for-Fiscal-Cliff-Crisis
It was not, as Pollak argued, media indulgence.
It was classic media agenda setting.
There is a fundamental reality regarding the influence of mass media in setting the agenda and influencing the direction of major policy issues. It was expressed by Professor Maxwell McCombs, 40 years ago in a scholarly article published in 1972, essentially as follows:
In choosing and displaying news, editors, newsroom staff, and broadcasters play an important part in shaping political reality. Readers learn not only about a given issue, but also how much importance to attach to that issue from the amount of information in a news story and its position. * * * [T]he mass media may well determine the important issues—that is, the media may set the “agenda.”
IN OUR DAY, more than ever before, [politicians] go before the people through the mass media rather than in person. The information in the mass media becomes the only contact many have with politics. The pledges, promises, and rhetoric encapsulated in news stories, columns, and editorials constitute much of the information upon which a voting decision has to be made. Most of what people know comes to them “second” or “third” hand from the mass media or from other people.
READ MORE: “The Agenda Setting Function of Mass Media,” LINK:
http://www.soc.unitn.it/sus/membri_del_dipartimento/pagine_personali/delgrosso/personali/articoli%5Cagendasettingtotal.htm
In the debate regarding the fiscal cliff crisis, mainstream media did not indulge any party, any politicians or any biases. It simply read the election results, and framed its content accordingly.
A majority of American voters reelected President Obama. In doing so, they accepted the President’s vision that in order to address the fiscal crisis, revenues had to be raised by increasing taxes on the wealthy.
Of course, the GOP opposed that vision, and opposed the President’s position on policy.
But, none of that was even remotely relevant to how mainstream media framed the issues and the talking points of the debate in its coverage, analysis and coverage of the fiscal cliff crisis. That content started the momentum, set the agenda and for all practical purposes influenced and even dictated the outcome.
Instead of attacking the President and the content of mainstream media coverage, conservative media should have directed its efforts to dissecting the issues and framing well written and persuasive content to cut into or slow down the momentum, and to give GOP politicians salient talking points that may have influenced policy outcomes instead of just making noise.
By spending time producing rhetoric instead of salient content, conservative media did no more than to allow conservatives to be swept under the waves of mainstream media momentum, and to be shut down in the policy debate and the resulting fiscal cliff deal.
So for good of for naught, the deal on the fiscal cliff crises for all practical purposes is done.
On the fiscal cliff crisis, history will reflect that the GOP blew it, and that conservative media blew it.
Maybe the GOP will get its act together in enough time to make a difference in the policy debate on the next major policy issue and emerging fiscal crisis concerning the debt ceiling.
Related articles
- Fiscal cliff reveals how dysfunctional Republican nihilism makes US politics | Michael Cohen (guardian.co.uk)
- The Fiscal Cliff Losers: Conservatives, the Tea Party, and the GOP (thebrennerbrief.com)
- GOP Senator Concedes Fiscal Cliff Defeat, “Hats Off To The President” (buzzfeed.com)
- The Fickle GOP Has No Problem Pushing Americans Off The Fiscal Cliff (urbanmommies.net)
POLITICO
“House GOP opposition to fiscal cliff bill grows”
Link: http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=D1C0338F-6D65-4519-9B70-5E688B686508
BRENNER BRIEF
“The Fiscal Cliff Losers: Conservatives, the Tea Party, and the GOP”
Link: http://thebrennerbrief.com/2012/12/31/the-fiscal-cliff-losers-conservatives-the-tea-party-and-the-gop/
Thank you for including my column on the fiscal cliff in your “related articles” section!
Sara Marie Brenner
Our pleasure!
HEWITT BLOG
Conservative commentator and blogger Hugh Hewitt must have read our blog post. He stated (quote):
Link: http://www.hughhewitt.com/blog/g/a9fe0b38-28c8-4cdb-afa8-ed95bb247820
RED STATE
Politically conservative Erik Erickson blogged as follows:
Link: http://www.redstate.com/2013/01/02/house-gop-in-disarray-isnt-just-liberal-media-spin/
WEEKLY STANDARD
In an editorial, the conservative Weekly Standard stated (quote):
Link: http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/say-yes-mess_693416.html
BRENNER BRIEF
Sara Marie Brenner, a conservative politician, blogger and talk radio host, understands the strategy of playing to the media momentum. In her blog, she comments as follows (quote):
Link: http://thebrennerbrief.com/2012/12/31/the-fiscal-cliff-losers-conservatives-the-tea-party-and-the-gop/
Dr. Christina Romer, a professor at Cal Berkley and former Chair of President Obama’s Council of Economic Advisors researched and published a study showing that the income tax hump is 28%. What that means is that increasing the income tax rate up to 28% yields more revenues to the Treasury, but raising the rate above 28% causes high-end earners to invest in non-taxable assets, so reduces Treasury revenues. So why in order to reduce the deficit would the President insist on raising the rate on the top 2% of earners fro 35% to 39.6%, and claim that doing so will raise an additional $600 billion? Ignorance or lying?
In April 2008 then-candidate Obama was asked by a pesky reporter whether he knew that raising the capital gains tax from 15% to 40% would, indeed, result in less money to the Treasury. The now-President relied, “Yes, but this is about fairness.” So, again I ask, “Ignorance or lying?”
>thedrpete
Good hearing from you.
You make a good point.
However, it was not forcefully made by tax limit advocates.
So in terms of public opinion, the argument did not have the impact or influence it may have had with more effective messaging.
The end game on major policy seems to be to initiate or influence, and then play into the momentum of public opinion.
Even if that momentum is uninformed or under informed, it probably will carry the day with respect to outcomes.
Accordingly, advocates and their messengers have their work cut out for them in order to shape public opinion and affect outcomes.
Conservative commentator Hugh Hewitt aptly makes the point:
READ MORE: “The House GOP is playing the president the way Notre Dame played Alabama, and probably with the same result. Hope that it changes, soon” LINK: http://www.hughhewitt.com/blog/g/ca37283f-35fd-4c3d-82cb-387ff4cbdc24
I’d continue, jm, messaging with such as . . .
If you consider yourself a sensible and caring and thinking person, and you’re persuaded by the talk coming from Washington and news media about the so-called “fiscal cliff” and the “debt-ceiling”, you might want to factor into the equations just some of the built-in-intentional silly-speak.
Congress and the President use something called “baseline budgeting” and it’s nothing like what you use. Built in to each budget line item from year-to-year is an automatic 8-ish percent increase. So when any of them says, “We’re proposing a 5% cut in X”, you should hear, “They’re proposing a 3+% increase in X.” No one — not a sole soul — has proposed a real-world cut in anything.
Further, the silly-speak department includes something called “static budgeting”. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) is not only non-partisan, but dummer than a rock . . . by law. When the CBO scores — projects the money outcome of any proposed bill, it must again, by law — ignore reality and assume that no one will change behavior based on the new law. So, for example, if the bill included raising you income tax rate from, say, 15% to, say, 95%, the CBO calculates based on your working just as hard and just as many hours. Would you? In the real world, the Treasury will receive precisely the same amount of money from people taxed at 0% as if taxed at 100%. Zero.
So, f you have your thinking cap on, you realize that no one is planning to either raise revenues or cut spending, and we’re paying these clowns for this.
>thedrpete
Perhaps with your considerable skills and experiences, you could take the lead as an online commentator through your blog framing an easily understood and persuasive message to advance your argument.
If it picks up traction, you may be able to have an impact on public opinion, decision makers and policy outcomes.
I have no illusions, jm. Time (the magazine or former magazine) lauded Barack Obama for brilliantly winning the “uninformed voter” and getting them to vote, despite their also being “uninterested”. Progressives (95% of “news” media and 95% of “education” and 75% of government) have no interest or even belief in something called “truth”.
There are several implications in this point.
If the President won uninformed and uninterested voters, then mainstream, social and digital media did not do an effective job in delivering the President’s message.
Implicitly, conservative media did a better job delivering Mitt Romney’s message to better informed and more interested voters.
Thus, an argument can be made that for the 2014 mid-term Congressional elections and the 2016 Presidential Election,
conservatives have a better chance maintaining and expanding their base and scoring election wins, than liberals and progressives have sustaining their base and avoiding losses.
If that’s the case, then with respect to political commentary deemed to be influential, the commentator qua blogger, talk host, columnist or broadcaster who successfully navigates through that paradigm, produces compelling content, distributes that content strategically on multimedia platforms and grows a strong following, potentially could influence election outcomes and policy initiatives in 2014 and 2016.
Start your engines!
Interesting and thoughtful, jm. Muchos gracias.
The uninterested and uninformed is a huge cadre. For them Barack Obama is a rock star.
In WW-I and after the French were warriors of both skill and courage. When Germany invaded in WW-II, it was projected that the French would defeat them. However, in about a week the French raised the white flag. What happened?
Progressivism. Schools stopped teaching history and culture and replaced said with anti-France, anti-Western indoctrination. The very-same thing has happened in America for the past 90-ish years, John Dewey most influential.
The issues in 2014 and 2016 will be having to pursue happiness versus having it delivered, having to work for stuff versus having stuff, having a government which undoes versus one that does, having a government which leaves you alone versus one which cares for you.
The Democrat message will offer the latters while the Republican message will be less-delivered, does-but-less, having less-stuff, cares less. No core and no nads.
A strategy focused on less for the sake of advocating less will not necessarily improve and grow the economy, and empower an independent people.
More needs to be advocated.
The message that MUST be cleverly-crafted, deftly-delivered, and unwittingly-understood, jm, in my almost-always-humble opinion is that absolute liberty and pure-and-unfettered capitalism, necessarily accompanied by extremely-and-strictly-limited government, is THE route to raising the standard of living for every human being on Planet Earth, and America — one American at a time — is the place to first enjoy it and demonstrate it.
You are the best person to craft the message and to get it circulating in the marketplace of ideas where you have the chance to get traction and to influence public opinion.
Your education, skills and real life experiences, which you detail in “Thoughts for 99%-ers,” Link: http://thedrpete.wordpress.com/2012/12/11/thoughts-for-99-ers-from-a-once-homeless-kid/ , should be more than enough for you to build a base, and to grow a following.
As the following increases, and as your message is carried on other media platforms including print, social media, radio, TV and the Internet, you may have some influence on public opinion.
Who better than you to get the ball rolling?
After all if Andrew Sullivan could do it, you certainly can do it!
Wanted you to know, jm, that, based on your admonition, I started a series with http://thedrpete.wordpress.com/2013/01/17/what-must-be-said-and-americans-must-understand-part-1-in-a-series/. Simultaneously, I started direct links to Facebook and Twitter, as well as a group (Band of Bloggers) on facebook. For whatever it’;s worth.
Considering that the “GOP still does not get that it must not only announce it intends to do good things, it must lay out those good things,” Link: http://www.hughhewitt.com/blog/g/69daf456-1f3b-43a1-a1df-ca5f14328938 , your efforts could be timely!
PAUL BEDARD
Paul Bedard, washingtonexaminer. com, makes the following interesting observation:
READ MORE: “Tantaros: Era of ‘angry blond’ is over,” LINK: http://washingtonexaminer.com/tantaros-era-of-angry-blond-is-over/article/2517787?utm_campaign=obinsite#.UPdQuyoo6M8
Pingback: What must be said and Americans must understand (Part 2) | thedrpete