Each week, it’s like deja vu. The media continues to promote the false narrative that the spectrum of the budget debate consists of Obama’s proposal on the left, with Paul Ryan’s plan on the right. They are using this narrow vision to suggest that the practical answer lies somewhere in the middle. The new line is that Obama’s “liberal” plan does not seriously tackle entitlements, while Paul Ryan’s “conservative” plan fails to consider raising taxes.
Meanwhile, the media continues to ignore the People’s Budget of the Progressive Caucus, while promoting the Ryan plan as a serious and bold proposal. Even as Paul Ryan and his fellow house republicans self-destruct during town halls, where constituents in their districts loudly object to the destruction of Medicare, the media class remains unmoved. Contrast this with the media’s nonstop coverage in the Summer of 2009, of coordinated town hall disruptions by tea-partiers during healthcare reform, and a clear pattern of ignoring criticism of conservative ideology emerges.
On Meet the Press, David Gregory hosted a round table about fixing the partisan divide over the budget with New York Times columnist David Brooks, Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson, republican consultant Alex Castellanos, and former Obama white house communications director Anita Dunn. Unsurprisingly, the discussion became a competition between David Brooks and Alex Catellanos of who could better salivate over Paul Ryan’s proposal to privatize Medicare. Statement’s made by David Gregory ranged from “both sides have to face some tough realities” to “You have to raise taxes on the middle class if you’re serious about balancing the budget.”
An identical conversation took place on Fareed Zakaria’s GPS, which included former Secretaries of the Treasury Paul O’Neill and Robert Rubin — “one from each side of the aisle” — to offer their opinions on whose plan will fix the budget deficit. Fareed Zakaria made the following statements in his introduction: “Democrats are still clinging to entitlement programs, medicare, social security, with no talk of real cost cutting, though the current system is clearly unaffordable” and “Republicans are playing politics with the vote to raise the country’s debt ceiling and are still blind to the inevitable need to raise taxes.”
The popular story being promoted by media personalities that both sides are at fault, since democrats refuse to cut entitlements and republicans refuse to raise taxes, is completely disconnected from reality. When will the media interview guests that are not members of the establishment punditry? When will they have on a progressive to discuss the People’s Budget? When will they quit ignoring the criticisms faced by republicans at town halls across the country?
Judging by the mainstream media’s consistent failure to include voices outside the narrow beltway consensus, one shouldn’t hold their breath waiting for the media to do its job.
The corporate media will never change as long as its owned by multi-national corporations. It’s 95% corporate propaganda and 5% fluff.
Like it or not, the main reason progressives can’t get a foot in the door is that they have absolutely no idea how to sell their ideas. Progressives are their own worst enemy when it comes to marketing and branding progressive ideas. Marketing is an area where conservatives excel. They have no need for nuance. They go for the slap in the face. It’s all about choosing the words very very carefully and repeating them over an over.
Progressives on the other hand love nuance. We believe in it. It’s where reality exists..But that does not mean that we can’t promote our strongest ideas effectively. We just don’t do it. I think that progressives have some sort of visceral negative reaction towards marketing, and unless we get over it, conservatives will continue to dominate the messaging world.
A perfect example is calling something the “People’s Budget”. That name alone kills any chance of gaining centrists as the conservatives will immediately seize on the word “People’s” and associate it with things that draw negative emotions. Of course they will be very effective at distancing it from “We The People” and push the association to “The People’s Republic of China” and wrap socialism firmly around the word “People’s”. Calling it a “People’s Budget” automatically renders it dead in the water.
If marketing and advertising did not work, there would be no need for it. The Conservatives know this and embrace it wholeheartedly while distancing themselves from actually calling their lies “marketing”. Take John Kyle’s 90% of planned parenthood’s work is abortion statement as an example. This got an incredible amount of press, but the people Kyle wanted to reach heard only 90% Abortion and not his publicist’s statement that “it was not meant to be factual”. It was meant to get emotions riled up. To get a response; and it did. It got people’s minds off the real issues and into emotional posturing. It’s a “look over here” statement. It works.
Calling something the “People’s Budget” is something conservatives will turn into a “look over here” message. The actual budget proposal will never be heard by anyone because it’s a completely and utterly unmarketable name, ripe for exploitation by a very effective right wing marketing machine.
Rick:
So what do you suggest? It’s gotten so bad I haven’t even heard about anyone in the corporate media touch on the “People’s Budget” besides Maddow. So marketing isn’t the only thing.
The mainstream media has changed from reporting news, and of course, facts, to creating theatre and illusion.
The media serve simply as marketeers for their corporate employers. Not sure if we should continue to believe or expect anything but low-level fictional soap opera style “product” from mainstream “reporting.” It is not going to happen. The few excellent reporters who have existed have been fired.
I sort of trust watching meterologists on the news. I stopped trusting NPR or NPB years ago. The CBC does a bit of a better job reporting news and doing aggressive in-depth interviews with controversial figurines.
And they call it the “liberal media.” Just what, exactly, is their agenda these days? We know the owners are part of the 1% so it shouldn’t be difficult to answer that question, yet too many people are still asleep dreaming of faeries, sugar plums and continual requited love.
We’ll never get the straight answers from the mainstream media and must rely on people such as yourself for the unvarnished versions. Truthout is another source that I enjoy, but I still see a paucity of solutions save the aliens coming down to help us along…