Isn't that classic liberalism as well as fundamental to the leftist indoctrination and propagandization,...the mainstream media are involved in?
After all, to really manipulate public opinion, you have to be able to instill impressions on the masses without them having any real knowledge of the subject matter.
If you can make people hate something they actually haven't experienced be it a person, a movie, a book, or a television network, you can totally create a groupthink that is tremendously powerful.
For example, what percentage of liberals in and out of the media:
Hate Rush Limbaugh even though they've never heard his program or read one of his books?
Hate Sean Hannity even though they've never heard/watched his program or read one of his books?
Hate Bill O'Reilly even though they've never heard/watched his program or read one of his books?
Hate Ann Coulter even though they've never read one of her books or heard her speak?
Hate Fox News even though they've never watched an FNC program?
Conceivably, the answer to some of the above could be as high as 50 percent, right? 
Maybe higher?
Pretty scary!
Of course, besides the liberal press, at the heart of this brainwashing are groups like MoveOn.org, Media Matters for America, and ThinkProgress who disseminate their own biased and uneducated opinions to the masses as well as media outlets to aid in the creation of the groupthink.
Consider how many folks are part of the "haters" listed above as a result of "information" they've received directly or indirectly from MO, MMA, or TP. 
In the end, that is the reason these organizations exist: 
To create a belief system in the part of the population that isn't interested in doing any real research or investigation of their own.
A perfect example of such is the vast majority of the left that believes there's a consensus among scientists that man is warming the planet even though they can't name one scientist in said ranks.
Scarier still is that MSNBC employs someone who admits being part of that last hateful group for it goes tremendously counter to anything associated with journalism, although that's not really a surprise given who she works for.
On a related note, what percentage of Americans voted for Barack Obama last November without having read one of his books or having any knowledge about his votes in the Illinois and U.S. Senate?
Probably greater than 50 percent, correct?
Get the picture?-- Noel Sheppard, on discovering Rachel Maddow said Fox News was much more biased than MSNBC - before admitting she doesn't own a TV and has "never seen a show on Fox at any time ever” - just like she probably doesn't own a computer, but knows she's much more fair than NewsBusters.
Fair enough as far as it goes. Though you can hardly complain about people dissing a commentator or belief they haven't personally listened to or read when your blog is fit to bursting with just such secondary condemnations.
ReplyDeleteMost people who are not predisposed to nod along will know what they're getting with Bill O'Reilly or Ann Coulter. They'll start or end most commentaries by pointing out how mentally deficient most liberals are for having a different opinion to their own. That doesn't exactly draw new readers in or persuade them across to your point of view.
Most lefties know who O'Reilly is. He's that guy with the awful hairpiece who has public meltdowns on Youtube and doesn't know basic teleprompter phrases (despite being a TV presenter!)
I read a few of his commentaries.
Nothing there I couldn't have bashed out on the back of a beer coaster while putting my feet up and reading the newspaper. I generally prefer to read an opinion piece by someone with greater insight on the subject than myself. Otherwise I feel like I'm wasting my time.
Coulter has a bit more journo cred. But her use of statistics - comparing military homicides with murders committed by children of single parents - is not very sound. "If you think the peach is fuzzy, here's a bear" and you can tell where she's going with most things before she gets there.