Blogs 4 Brownback

March 10, 2007

Sam Brownback: Why Does the Media Ignore Him?

Filed under: Media,Media Bias,Sam Brownback — Psycheout @ 7:53 pm

I’ve been thinking about how the news media affects Presidential races recently. I wonder how much they create the narrative rather than simply informing the public so that it is better equipped to make its own decisions. It seems to me, after seeing a number of elections seasons come and go, that the media is more about PR than anything else.

I have a number of liberal friends who do not like Hillary Clinton, for example, but seem resigned to vote for her, because “the Republican will be worse.”

I have a number of conservative friends and family who consider Rudy Giuliani to be a social liberal who was a heroic mayor on 9/11. They view Mitt Romney as a flip-flopping opportunist who is as conservative as a windsock, but who is reported as being one of the top two GOP candidates. They seem resigned to vote for either one of them, despite their shortcomings (ie, they aren’t conservatives) because “the Democrat will be worse.”

So my liberal and conservative friends have this in common: they dislike the candidates that they are presented with, but vote for them anyway. And it has been this way in modern elections for years. Why is this? Why do we vote for people we dislike over and over again? Isn’t the definition of insanity repeating the same action over and over again expecting different results?

I prefer Sam Brownback, a true conservative, but the media and pundits keep telling me he hasn’t got a prayer. Well, I’ve got a prayer for Senator Brownback right here.

I’m sure the liberals have their own choices who are presented as having no chance. Frustrating, isn’t it? Is this the way things have to be? Or can we turn off our telescreens and finally decide to make up our own minds?

So I welcome my liberal and conservative friends, and friends to be, to comment on this issue. Why do we accept what the media hands us and promotes when we don’t like any of it?

I may have more to say on this matter as time goes on. Consider this an open thread, but I welcome people across the political spectrum to discuss the media and its control of elections here. I’m very interested in your thoughts.

— Psycheout


  1. The media don’t get to shape reality, but they try to. Remember in 2004 when they made Dean the hot Democrat contender? How did that turn out? Relax. Brownback’s going to trounce his opponents, and leave them in the dust right beside the media moonbats who were desperate to catch the hot scoop.

    Comment by Sisyphus — March 10, 2007 @ 9:46 pm | Reply

  2. As I posted, Sen. Brownback polls well against Sen. Clinton -5%.

    The GOP field may get a bit more crowded. It seems that former Sen. Thompson may run. The whispers are now very audible.

    Comment by avoiceofreason — March 11, 2007 @ 2:03 am | Reply

  3. Media is effective at framing the conversation. They won’t impact on true believers from either side, but can have a shifting of issues impact.

    Comment by avoiceofreason — March 11, 2007 @ 2:07 am | Reply

  4. I agree, but there’s more to it than that. It’s a slow day-to-day drip of selective coverage of issues as well as candidates. For every story that’s focussed upon, there’s hundreds and more that are not.

    I don’t think the opinion shaping occurs in a single day or a single week. It takes place over an extended period of time. Hillary has been groomed in the MSM as a viable and prominent Presidential candidate at least since she became a Senator. McCain has been fluffed for years. Giuliani is the hot property for now.

    Others, such as Sam Brownback are mostly ignored. I don’t think this is an accident. It’s intentional.

    The media doesn’t shape reality but it sure does filter it.

    Thanks for stopping by avor. Hopefully you’ll pay us another visit very soon!

    Comment by Psycheout — March 11, 2007 @ 2:19 am | Reply

  5. I think it’s the perception of electability. You can hear that term on every news cable talk show and it pretty much sums things up. A candidate may be great, but if they happen to be from a small state or the Plains and what not, they usually don’t have the name recognition needed to win in the primaries. Personally, I hate primaries. It always leaves the parties with the top 2 candidates that support both parties platforms. i.e. for the Dems, we get a pro-choice, pro-gay marriage liberal and the GOP gets a pro-gun, pro-death penalty kinda guy. One also has to remember that primary voters are pretty hawkish as it is, so unfortunately that shapes the way things turn out. Personally, I wish we could go back to the old system. Big money is what wins campaigns and it’s just not fair. It cheats America in the end of a truly remarkable candidate.

    Comment by inksmudge — March 11, 2007 @ 11:55 am | Reply

  6. That’s exactly what I was getting at, inksmudge. “Electability.”

    It’s an elusive concept which is pushed and reinforced by the media. They select who to cover and the coverage determines in peoples’ minds who is “electable.” An effective and pernicious feedback loop.

    It doesn’t have to have any basis in reality. The media creates “reality” in the minds of it’s consumers. And most of them believe it.

    Comment by Psycheout — March 11, 2007 @ 1:26 pm | Reply

  7. When March 31st rolls around it will be all too obvious why Brownback doesn’t get a lot of attention. He needs to find people who will vote with their feet and their wallets.

    Comment by Justin — March 11, 2007 @ 2:23 pm | Reply

  8. Hey! This is the kind of discussion I could really get into. Hence, my name. I’m a little busy right now, but I’ll get back here later. New people are showing up, too. That’s awesome!

    Comment by Anti-Media — March 11, 2007 @ 2:37 pm | Reply

  9. Wow, an actual thoughtful post. I’m impressed. I guess monkeys and typewriters and all that.

    The problem indeed boils do to money. The candidates with it can appear on TV, the candidates with out it don’t;. Simple.

    Of course then there are kooks like Kucinich and [al-Gore] who don’t stand a chance no matter how much they have.

    Comment by Dave — March 12, 2007 @ 1:54 am | Reply

  10. Thanks Dave. I was thinking of you when I wrote it. I was hoping I could write something even you might be able to relate to. And you made a civil comment without any potty language.

    I think we’re moving forward. So are you considering putting your support behind Sam Brownback?

    I’m not sure what “boils do to money,” but other than that, well done!

    Comment by Psycheout — March 12, 2007 @ 2:08 am | Reply

  11. […] Who are you trying to fool, NYT? I think this article clearly demonstrates exactly what I was trying to say in my last post about the media. […]

    Pingback by Sam Brownback in the New York Times « Leading the charge to get Brownback elected! — March 12, 2007 @ 2:46 am | Reply

  12. It seems like the MSM is intent on electing a DemoRAT or at the very least a RINO.

    They’re hedging their bets. How long before the USA catches on?

    Comment by Bob Arctor — March 12, 2007 @ 8:08 pm | Reply

  13. […] like Brownback is quietly and steadily building a winning campaign. He’s been mostly ignored by the mainstream media, yet seems to impress voters who are able to see and hear him in person. […]

    Pingback by Iowa GOP's Lincoln Day Dinner « Blogs 4 Brownback — April 16, 2007 @ 10:55 am | Reply

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: