Fallon replaces Leno in 2014? Talk about bad political timing!

 

Jay Leno is No. 1 in ratings for late night comedy among the networks for his time slot and in the key 18-49 demographic.

NBC apparently perceives a threat to its late night ratings from Jimmy Kimmel, the younger 45 year old comedian who does late night comedy on ABC in the 11:35 p.m. slot. Leno is 62.

So in the Spring of 2014, Jimmy Fallon, 38, moves from his 12:35 a.m. perch on “Late Night” to take over “The Tonight Show” from Leno.

Presumably, NBC feels that it will hold the No. 1 ratings for late night comedy with Fallon.

Maybe yes; but, maybe no!

2014 is the year for mid-term elections.

There will be a firefight in this nation by Democrats and Republicans in the elections for members of Congress to control the Senate and the House.

Voter turnout could be unusually high because of the hundreds of millions in campaign advertising dollars flooding the airwaves, and what can expected to be increased competition for Senate and House seats by women, blacks, Hispanics and other minorities, groups neglected by the GOP in 2012.

Indeed, should Democrats take control of the Senate and House in 2014, it is almost a certainty that Hilary Clinton will run as the Democratic candidate for President in 2016. A Clinton candidacy will spike political activism and turnout especially among women.

Jay Leno has been one of the leading late night comics for every Presidential and mid-term election since he took over “The Tonight Show” from Johnny Carson in 1992. And to the extent that comedians have influenced voters and the outcome of elections, Leno has been at the top.

But, on the brink of the 2014 mid-term elections, one of the most important elections in history, NBC decides to replace time tested and proven Leno with the new face of Fallon?

Talk about bad political timing!

Suppose the FOX Network decides to pick up Leno for an 11:35 p.m. comedy show?

If Leno holds on to much of his viewership, he could tank both Fallon and Kimmel in the ratings.

More interestingly, he also could draw a new base of politically active viewers to FOX, viewers in that key 18-49 demographic who are likely to vote and affect political outcomes in 2014 and 2016.

Talk about ironies, the joke could end up being on NBC!

How the GOP and conservative media blew it on the fiscal cliff crisis

We need to get this to the Fiscal Cliff! What ...

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.