How do Republicans compete with media bias

[pbrower2a]

The media is a problem for Republicans. We have Fox News, talk radio and Drudge, but the bias in most media is overwhelming. You can't go on YouTube and search our politicians versus the Democrats:

george w. bush DID YOU MEAN:

george w. bush bloopers
george w. bush 9/11 speech
george w. bush library
george w. bush fool me once
george w. bush interview
george w. bush shoe attack

barack obama DID YOU MEAN:

barack obama vs. mitt romney
barack obama harlem shake
barack obama speech
barack obama rap
barack obama gangnam style
barack obama singing
barack obama correspondents dinner 2013
barack obama style

Both men were recent two-term U.S. Presidents, but Obama's searches seem in a much more favorable light than George W. Bush's search results.

Look at magazine covers. The weekend that Sarah Palin was selected as John McCain's running mate, before her convention speech or any sitdown interviews or debates, the cover of "Us Weekly" ran a scandalous, clearly negative cover of Palin. But just two months before, they ran a sweet cover of why "Michelle loves Barack" and how she "never misses the girls' recitals".



There could be a Democrat that says (hypothetically) that the Military is unpatriotic, or something like that. You'll never hear about it. Oh sure, FOX News will cover it, but all the liberals including many on this forum will laugh and mock it, "LOL @ FAUX NEWS".

But some stupid State Senator in Nebraska says something about abortion and it's heard by everyone. People who know nothing about politics are discussing it, and it affects their view of the Republican Party. It's like rigging a game, we never had a chance.






Search "Obama" on google image search and it comes up:

FUNNY  OBAMA LOGO  OBAMA SPEECH  OBAMA LOGO 2012
 
Search "Santorum" on google image search and it comes up:

BUTT  CRYING  ASS  LUBE

My question is, why? Almost 61 million Americans voted for the Republican nominee last fall, but if you go on the internet, you'd never know it.

How do we rise above such media bias? 
 
 

George W. Bush was one of the worst Presidents in American history. But that is not enough. Herbert Hoover had a troubled Presidency (although it was squeaky clean on corruption and didn't get America into any unjust wars).  

https://www.google.com/search?q=herbert+hoover&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=com.yahoo:en-US:official&client=firefox

The rap might once used against Herbert Hoover might not seem so fair now. Hoover didn't have the institutions in place that could have mitigated the severity of the 1929-1932 economic meltdown. Bank runs in numbers impossible in recent times turned a recession that looked at first much like 2007-2009 into the monster of 1929-1932.  

I don't see how anyone can excuse him for the bungled wars in Afghanistan and Iraq or for the financial meltdown of recent years. He supported and rode trends that could only prove destructive.

1. Keep the TV on FoX Propaganda Channel -- never mind that anyone with a liberal tendency will soon get away somehow.

2. Pay attention to Republican politicians in the limelight. Dubya is practically a recluse, appearing in public only in baseball games. You will get to see him next to Nolan Ryan in October if the Rangers do well. (If you are a liberal, then that is a good reason to be a fan of the A's or Angels).  

3. Keep hammering on the idea that support of absolute plutocracy is a fitting sacrifice for the common man who has things too good for his own good. After all, greed of elites is the highest expression of human character, and whiny concerns about economic distress from people who don't contribute to American economic life by having been 'only' wage-earners are themselves evil. Yes sir -- back to early capitalism with its workhouses.

.... How about something better. It will take some time. Why not rebuild the old conservative ideal of people making their lives incrementally better through work, skill, thrift, and self-denial? That was the essence of the old Eisenhower-era GOP, the one capable of challenging the New Deal. Corruption and cronyism are good for enriching a few at the expense of everyone else, and such was Dubya's method for jump-starting an economy in the doldrums. We of course know where that led.  

If Republicans don't return to the classic agenda, then the Democrats will take it by default.  The Republican Party will then become an increasingly-narrow party of special interests and regional resentments that will become increasingly irrelevant. I have heard many Democrats say "I am really an Eisenhower-Rockefeller Republican". Republicans may have lost many of those people.

[pbrower2a]

Could it be that Republicans have created their own mess? Isn't it up to Republicans to solve their own problems with image and let the media get some hints?

Maybe the Birther stuff, "Second Amendment solutions", and the rejection of objective science in favor of whatever a huge part of their coalition wants at the moment isn't good for winning media other than those of the Right. 

[pbrower2a]

The only systematic bias that exists in most American mass media is towards whatever will sell more newspapers/magazines/get more web traffic/higher ratings. Although journalists as a profession tend to be Democrats, no one who looks at the press honestly can say they are not trying hard to be fair in most cases. The owners of these institutions, however, want to engage in sensationalism to increase profits, so they expect to journalists to do what will get that audience. Because there are so many more trained journalists than there are job openings for them (I think the statistic is that there are more people who graduate with journalism degrees each year than there are total full-time professional journalism jobs), journalists have no choice but to comply, even if the sensationalism goes against the public interest and their own journalistic instincts. Also, because journalism is such a competitive job market, and because most major news organizations sell themselves to their audiences based on being fair/accurate/unbiased/reliable, it would be career suicide for any journalist to intentionally slant the news.

Much so. The bias shifts as the wind changes direction. The literal reporting of a story rarely has bias. AP wires are arguably the best news source that can exist from the standpoint of lack of bias because the reporter getting the data cannot add or subtract. If a fire breaks out, the journalist can't report that it is likely arson; he simply lacks the time in which to report that conclusion.

News agencies are as much trimmers as any if they don't have any core beliefs.  Example: CNN was often reviled as "the Clinton Network" in the 1990s before it 'out-Foxed' FoX for right-wing bias when Dubya was apparently flying high politically. As credibility of the 43rd President vanished, it turned on him and showed a marked liberal bias that it held until the TEA Party won big.  But that is cable news.

Newspapers are struggling to stay solvent; don't be surprised if one or more big cities end up without an 'old and distinguished' daily as these go under. Circulation and ad revenue are  the only relevant measures of financial success, and finances now trump all else. Maybe some will survive by selling out such credibility as they have, becoming tabloids with content similar to that of the National Enquirer or going under the control of political parties, special interests, and religious cults. Wait till you see a newspaper owned by the American Petroleum Institute, the Teamsters Union, or the Koch Foundation.