How, if at all, do you think a landslide Democratic election (House, Senate, White House, local) would change the media? What would it mean for FOX News, for example? And would it lead over time to any improvement in our public discourse? Thoughts?
About The Author

BooMan
Martin Longman a contributing editor at the Washington Monthly. He is also the founder of Booman Tribune and Progress Pond. He has a degree in philosophy from Western Michigan University.
I do not see Fox News changing. The network is a republican tool and always will be. The local channels do a little better on the actual stories but….
I really do not see main stream media changing for the better anytime soon. They are so use to telling only one side of a story and going for ratings that they no longer know what journalism means.
I asked for orange juice in the Open Thread. I should be banned. Couldn’t help it GOOOOD NEWS:
repost. New Polls April 15, 2008
and this
Mr. BooMan will you…?
One of the thinks I teach is a course in electronic media, and one of our heavy topics is “where people get their news.”
There is a possibility of mobilizing a tremendous slice of the citizenry in this election–18 to 25’s, who will ONLY come out for Obama in large numbers. In general, they haven’t been counted or recognized because frankly, they have a lot of opinions but don’t come out to vote reliably.
If that segment of the population is mobilized, the importance of the traditional (what we erroneously call “mainstream”) media will drop precipitously. They simply don’t watch it. And text messaged news, Internet video, and other new media will take over much more quickly than otherwise expected because “MSM” will be simply irrelevant for those voters.
That’s interesting. All through the primary season I have wondered why all these polls are so inconsistent and usually wrong. I wonder if the tests that the pollsters use to determine if someone is a “likely voter” just miss this whole wave of young people for Obama. Also, the fact that they don’t poll cell phones could be a real factor for the first time. Some pollsters try to say that they have ways of compensating for these factors, but I have yet to see a comprehensible explanation of it.
They have gotten away with it for a long time. The polling companies tinker with the algorithms, estimating “likely voters.” But they have no algorithm for differential turnout for one candidate over another. Obama’s text messaging network, alone, could pull a percent.
The change will be both qualitative and quantitative. “Nightly news” will be gone; cable news will be an AARP benefit.
A landslide Dem victory will result is total releash of the media leashes.It will be a ongoing atttack mode that will drive them. It will make what is taking place now look like a stroll in the park.
They (the media) will focus laser like on every single word that will emerge from the mouths of all of the Dem members of Congress, not mention the WH if that too falls into Dem hands.
I agree. And I think that if Obama wins, this pointless backlash will lead to a rapid reinstatement of media regulation, particularly media ownership regulation. It’s a natural fit for his populism, and the old media’s no ally of his.
will lead to a rapid reinstatement of media regulation
Can’t happen soon enough!
“This bill protects consumers against monopolies. It guarantees the diversity of voices our democracy depends upon.”
Bill Clinton remarks upon signing the Telecommunications act of 1996
Oops.
a democratic landslide will only make a difference in coverage IF the dems reinstate the fairness doctrine.
Thank you so much! I had forgotten the “Fairness Doctrine” ever existed.
Doesn’t make sense even to me and it’s never going to happen. Instead we need to give more local control like Center for American Progress and Free Press have proposed. Automatically it will improve then.
Not a chance:
Until the Progressive community gets serious about developing a network or two of their own (enter George Soros), the right wing slant will continue unabated.
The media narrative is the second most pervasive, corrosive factor facing progressive reform after election integrity.
If we can’t vote them out of office, and we can’t change the spin, the effort to spearhead the voice of truth is surely doomed.
continue to be right-wing propaganda. That is their business model.
There is a chance CNN or MSNBC would add a token liberal as a nod. Maybe Ed Schultz would replace Glenn Beck on Headline News and Maddow would fill Tucker’s former slot. But all of them will still be traditional, corporate media.
What needs to happen is for Al Gore, Democracy Alliance donors and other progressive innovators to get together and build a progressive and truth based channel. It has to be willing to not be a Fox News that won’t criticize it’s favored party but there needs to be some way to get a progressive and independent voice on cable news. Hell it can even have some conservatives on it too. Do what Thom Hartmann does daily on his radio show. Provide strong opinions and also debate. Libertarians hate Fox News too, give them some place to go.
After it overcomes its shock, the msm would eventually come to its senses and public discourse, I think, would improve. Restoring the Fairness Doctrine, as Joe in Oklahoma points out, would be a big help also. Fox News if without hope and beyond any chance of redemption.
Lets celebrate the joy of being human.
Correction Fox news is without. . . . (not if)
Hi, and welcome again to Simple Answers to Simple Questions.
Today, Booman asks “How, if at all, do you think a landslide Democratic election (House, Senate, White House, local) would change the media? What would it mean for FOX News, for example? And would it lead over time to any improvement in our public discourse? Thoughts?”
It’s a multi-part question.
1) “How, if at all, do you think a landslide Democratic election (House, Senate, White House, local) would change the media?”
It won’t.
2) “What would it mean for FOX News, for example?”
Nothing other than new targets.
3). “And would it lead over time to any improvement in our public discourse? “
No.
Thanks for playing we’ll see you next week on “Simple Answers to Simple Questions”!
It would be 1992-1993 all over again, only squared.
And let’s not forget the Democrats would get 100% of the blame for the ongoing recession/depression in 2009. Every day would be “Why haven’t President Obama and the Democrats fixed the economy/global warming/food riots/Iraq/Iran/Immigration/Social Security/Medicare yet? It’s all their fault! Everything was FINE when BUSH was in office…”
And I do mean the bashing would be on a daily basis from our “liberal” media.
It will a very interesting time should that scenario play out. The modern media has not really ever been presented with the situation which is entirely possible after November. They have never had to operate in an environment where there has been anything but a Republican stranglehold on virtually all of the political discourse. So I think it will take some time for them to figure on just how they can deal with it and still advance the corporate and Republican viewpoint after it has been fully and roundly repudiated and abandoned by mainstream Americans across the entire country.
I think they will eventually figure it out their comfort zone. I certainly don’t expect that they will stray from the narratives with which they have become almost irreversibly comfortable. It will likely take the better part of a generation, under the best of circumstances, to begin to swing the media from its almost reflexive Republican viewpoint and toward a more, excuse the term, fair and balanced type of coverage.
I don’t think anything will change UNLESS bloggers and Congress scares the hell out of big media with talk of regulation and big media breakup.
Once that happens, they may (maybe maybe maybe) get their act together.
I don’t know, but bring it on so I can find out!! 🙂
It’s not so much the landslide victory as how it is achieved. If it comes from an on-the-ground victory propelled by tens of thousands of activists who stay with the party, it will be transforming. If it results from a small percentage shift in independent voters that tips seats from one party to the other, and leaves the Dems vulnerable to the kiind of media blackmail they’ve been facing for the last 35 years, then, not so much.
I think the potential in the Obama campaign is that it is not a one-off affair. As a community organizer, he appreciates the importance of staying organized. That kind of organization puts fear into the hearts of the Powers-that-Be. It’s also a dangerous weapon if it can’t be controlled because it’s revolutionary, and revolutions can get out of hand.
For the time being, I’ll take Revolution.
Maybe Fox news will go the way of travelling carnivals. As people get bored with the sideshows, they drift away. Advertisers follow, revenue declines, old Rupert cashes out.
You may say I’m a dreamer, but I’m not the only one.
Let’s not fall into the trap of thinking nothing will ever change.