That's okay. Obama's approval ratings will never dip into the low 30s like his predecessor.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2013 |OT1| Never mind, Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
- Thread starter ClovingWestbrook
- Start date
- Status
That's okay. Obama's approval ratings will never dip into the low 30s like his predecessor.
Aaron Strife
Banned
They were in the high 30s at one point. That didn't last long though.
It's been a while since he's been in the negative in aggregate polling, really. For someone who apparently can't politic well...
TacticalFox88
Banned
Rachel Maddow said:
Just heard this.
Holy fucking shit.
Just heard this.
Holy fucking shit.
:lol :lol
Link
The Autumn Wind
Haha, was this in response to something or just a general observation?Just heard this.
Holy fucking shit.
I mentioned Bush's approval ratings post-9/11 to show that democrats at times would be willing to support their president, even if they hate him. Whereas you will never ever see Obama's approval go anywhere near that high cause that's how much right wingers despise him.
Hahaha. Ice cold.
Just heard this.
Holy fucking shit.
Hahaha. Ice cold.
Joel Was Right
Member
Listen to people giving accounts on how the 2012 election divided family and friends
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=544320
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=544320
empty vessel
Member
I haven't listened to it yet, but we've talked about that here in PoliGAF. Conservative Americans--especially in the South but all over the country really--have become extremely radicalized and that radicalization has caused familial rifts (including in my extended family). I blame one particular Australian shit heel for it principally.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
Roger Ailes is FOX news not Murdoch.
empty vessel
Member
Murdoch pays Ailes.
HAHAHAJust heard this.
Holy fucking shit.
PhoenixDark
Banned
In my experience, liberals don't go to the fanatical depths many on the right go to when it comes to family/friend rifts over politics. I remember many liberals being quite upset about Bush, lamenting the imminent "any day now!" attack on Iran/martial law, etc but overall there wasn't nearly as much paranoia or hatred as there is now. And I say that as someone who was heavily deep into the Antiwar.com, Common Dreams, etc wing of the far left during the Iraq war. If anything it tends to metastasize into hopelessness and elitism.
Whereas with the far right, their paranoia goes to the farthest depths of insanity. Violence, supreme anger, whatever you want to call it. It's not just over Obama: they had a very similar reaction to Bill Clinton, Birchers had quite a visceral reaction to JFK
And of course the red scare largely targeted democrats like FDR, Truman, etc. For all the lampooning and hate Jimmy Carter gets today though, I haven't really stumbled across much supreme hatred of him from the 70s. I know many felt he was weak and ineffectual, but at least from what I've seen he wasn't as hated as previous or more modern democrats.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
And gives him complete autonomy.
See Murdoch's views on guns vs. Fox's coverage.
Also look at FOX the TV channel (glee just got renewed, family guy, etc.) and movies. Avatar is pretty anti conservative.
Murdoch just filled the vacuum of their not being right-wing news. The problem is that people that are already ready to eat it up.
It's strange how conservative's excuse of 'well criminals will be the only ones with guns' make criminals essentially magic. Like there are super secret black market operations on every street corner that only bad people can see. Even though guns collected from criminals were bought legally by an overwhelming margin.
There's your answer. Republicans like ineffectual Democrats. You can measure how well a Democrat president is doing his job by how much the other side despises him.
speculawyer
Member
It is not like the New York Post, his Australian papers, and other outlets owned by News Corp are much better.
zero shift
Banned
Can someone tell me what this measures?
I found this interesting. This is data is often cited as a source that people often bring up to counter the lack of social mobility in this country. It measures wealth or income gains compared to one's parents. It measures "absolute mobility" though something is fishy about it.
I found this interesting. This is data is often cited as a source that people often bring up to counter the lack of social mobility in this country. It measures wealth or income gains compared to one's parents. It measures "absolute mobility" though something is fishy about it.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
They've always been crap though, they're not the ones "dividing this nation"
empty vessel
Member
What does any of that matter? Murdoch pays Ailes to have free reign. We have the same problem and the same culprit. I don't take lightly to some wealthy shit heel paying somebody to turn members of my family into slobbering racists and preppers.
That's not the problem at all. Media shapes people, not vice versa. There are entire fields of study devoted to the subject.
Link
The Autumn Wind
They aren't helping. They play into people's doubts, fears, and prejudices, plus they pretty much portray Obama as a supervillain.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
It matters because he's running a business and not making daily editorial decisions.
And Fox doesn't doesn't turn people racist. It can at best present certain facts which confirm bias. And there is a plethora of news sources for people to turn to. In todays age people turn to what they want too. There has to be a market for fox, it doesn't create its own.
Thats not to say I like news corp or its stances but blaming them for turning america conservative is silly IMO, there is 3 cable networks that everyone has access too. They might keep people ignorant but those people keep coming back
media presents facts, people interprite them as they will. Its not state-media, people can turn it off.
I think there poisoning the well, but I think they are part of a wider cultural divide. The growing white anxiety that was a response to the 60s. There was the john birch society back then, now they just have louder microphones. And you said it yourself, they play into preexisting prejudices, they dont create them
empty vessel
Member
It's okay if he destroys families and degrades society so long as he makes a profit from it? Nonsense.
Media influences people. This isn't controversial, nor debatable. If you're going to irrationally deny it, we can stop any further posting on the subject now. I realize that you are young and naive. You have no historical perspective of what this country was like even during the 1990s, let alone before that. You are unable to appreciate the way in which the conservative media has changed people over the last two decades. I get that. But don't be dense on top of it. Media influences people.
The problem here is not a matter of existence, but of prevalence. Entities like Fox News work to put fringe ideas and beliefs into the mainstream where responsible journalism and research would otherwise shun them.
Also, skewed information produces skewed conclusions. If you're of the belief that everyone in America has an equal opportunity to succeed, yet are presented with data on how Black Americans are lagging behind, then it would be rational to conclude that Black Americans have less ability to succeed. An irresponsible news outlet can distort the picture to encourage attitudes and then reinforce it with narrative.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
Media influences people by what it presents and how, but it doesn't change them into mindless racist puppets as you seem to insinuate.
The republican revolution (1994) predates FOX news, the goldwater revolution predates the "murdoch empire". The media often follows and represents the people's ideas.
Europe has a pretty partisan news and has for decades and it hasn't turned out the same as America so I don't buy FOX news has "changed people over the last two decades."
And historical perspective? Polarization has a long history in American politics to the very beginning of the country. Things don't divide themselves into B.M. (before Murdoch) and A.M. (after Murdoch)
And non-partisians aren't really that polarized, and this hasn't changed much with the introduction of conservative media
APKmetsfan:
The fact that Murdoch may just be running a business doesnt excuse the conduct and content of his network. I dont think its a saving grace that he has created a network to fill a gap in the market. I am under no illusion that if he could make more money running a liberal network, he would do it in a heartbeat.
Lets not get Fox grouped in with the other networks. Fox is the only channel that actively tells its viewers to not believe the content from other networks; that theyre part of a liberal mainstream conspiracy thats out to hide the truth from you so stick with us. That right there should raise alarm bells, but peoples ability to think critically is not as widespread as it should be, so such tripe gets swallowed without question. As much as I feel indifferent to CNN and MSNBC, I doubt I would ever hear such a provocative statement coming from them. Yet its a routine throwaway line on Fox.
There was a study recently that showed that Fox was both the most trusted and the least trusted news network. Once again, that should be ringing alarm bells for those concerned about the media landscape in America. It speaks to a divide about how people get their information which is critical in a democracy. If people arent even talking about the same news stories, or the same set of facts, or cant even come to an agreement to what the problems facing the country are, then you have the problems that are described in that TAL story linked above
The fact that Murdoch may just be running a business doesnt excuse the conduct and content of his network. I dont think its a saving grace that he has created a network to fill a gap in the market. I am under no illusion that if he could make more money running a liberal network, he would do it in a heartbeat.
Lets not get Fox grouped in with the other networks. Fox is the only channel that actively tells its viewers to not believe the content from other networks; that theyre part of a liberal mainstream conspiracy thats out to hide the truth from you so stick with us. That right there should raise alarm bells, but peoples ability to think critically is not as widespread as it should be, so such tripe gets swallowed without question. As much as I feel indifferent to CNN and MSNBC, I doubt I would ever hear such a provocative statement coming from them. Yet its a routine throwaway line on Fox.
There was a study recently that showed that Fox was both the most trusted and the least trusted news network. Once again, that should be ringing alarm bells for those concerned about the media landscape in America. It speaks to a divide about how people get their information which is critical in a democracy. If people arent even talking about the same news stories, or the same set of facts, or cant even come to an agreement to what the problems facing the country are, then you have the problems that are described in that TAL story linked above
NYCmetsfan
Banned
I have no problem with this statement and I agree with it.
I don't think it "excuses it" but I don't blame the messenger I guess.
I do think its somewhat ignorant to say the other media doesn't demonize FOX and insinuate you shouldn't trust them. They don't call them a derogatory name but they subtly undermine them as a news source using other techniques (watch Mathews, Bashir, Sharpton, Ed), we just happen to agree. MSNBC is partisan and biased, I do think its more fact based but it manipulates things to an extent and gives its audience what they want
Conservative media was huge in the early 90s in the form of AM Talk Radio. In fact, Roger Ailes produced the Rush Limbaugh TV show around the same time.
Media breaks story -> Public reaction
You're also neglecting the ability of a media outlet to create its own market.
PhoenixDark
Banned
Fox has always been an us vs them type affair, but it's interesting how they've changed from the early to mid 2000s compared to now. Next time you're bored look up some youtube clips of Fox in say...2004. Back then the "us" was much larger than it is now, and you can tell in the framing of their stories. Attacks on elitists and liberals are far more confident, you can just taste the aura of conservative victory. God fearing president, terrorists who want to kill us and liberals who want to defend their right to do so, Europe as Sodom, etc. Obviously a lot of that hasn't changed but instead of protecting the status quo they are now yearning to a return to it.
It's interesting when you think back to how different things were back then. Gay marriage was a lost cause, the anti-war effort was large but not enough to elect a president, democrats were in disarray (remember the Democratic Leadership Council?), "liberals" were a laughing stock on television, etc. I'm not suggesting we now live in a liberal utopia, far from it. But the country has clearly moved to the left on social issues and we have a president who goes to church twice a year (Easter, Christmas). While our foreign policy is still troubling, and Obama is worse on civil liberties than Bush...overall I don't sense a forced level of fear or paranoia about brown people trying to kill us all because we're free.
(No wonder Fox, Lindsy Graham, Drudge, etc are so excited about last week's terrorist attack. They want to usher more Muslim fear, more immigration fear, etc and I fear it might work. Not necessarily with the public as a whole, but enough of the public to shitcan the immigration bill.)
It's interesting when you think back to how different things were back then. Gay marriage was a lost cause, the anti-war effort was large but not enough to elect a president, democrats were in disarray (remember the Democratic Leadership Council?), "liberals" were a laughing stock on television, etc. I'm not suggesting we now live in a liberal utopia, far from it. But the country has clearly moved to the left on social issues and we have a president who goes to church twice a year (Easter, Christmas). While our foreign policy is still troubling, and Obama is worse on civil liberties than Bush...overall I don't sense a forced level of fear or paranoia about brown people trying to kill us all because we're free.
(No wonder Fox, Lindsy Graham, Drudge, etc are so excited about last week's terrorist attack. They want to usher more Muslim fear, more immigration fear, etc and I fear it might work. Not necessarily with the public as a whole, but enough of the public to shitcan the immigration bill.)
NYCmetsfan
Banned
I know the conservative media had been there but today's ire is directed at FOX for causing every ill.
My point to the second thing is that there is a general desire for say a scandal to blow up on Obama in the right, so FOX tried to get ahead of benghazi.
My point is that the media follows the general zeitgeist of the period it doesn't set it. Or at least the news media doesn't. Otherwise we would not have gotten civil rights, gay rights, etc. And yes they "make a market" in that the fill a need that wasn't there, someone needs to want the product they're selling.
This illustrates my point on the media not shifting people.
Even papa bear now says gays have the better argument. He's following the public and changing his product, they fought and railed against it but they couldn't stop change.
Saying they aren't the only factor influencing public opinion isn't the same as them following public opinion.
Not quite. They only need to want a part of the product they're selling, but then be convinced to get it all as a bundled package.
Which is how groups like scientology work.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
People can reject parts of that package as well.
Fox has shifted itself on certain views (opposition to certain wars, gay issues) while still maintaining its general conservative tilt.
I'm not trying to say that FOX isn't playing a part in shifting certain aspects of public opinion, but my initial response was to EV's assertion that News Corp, has single handedly caused all polarization in the country.
You're wrong because you're focusing mainly on their pundits, but they also slant their normal news stories more subtly where they create the impression what an objective person would call the conservative viewpoint is actually moderate. So it results in people who consider themselves moderate accepting the less radical conservative talking points, further shifting the country to the right.
You're conflating "can" with "likely will" in a rather Pollyanna fashion in this discussion.
empty vessel
Member
You seem to think I believe that Fox News created radical conservatives from scratch. That is not what I believe. Fox News did not create radical conservatism. It spread it. Are you denying the radicalization of conservatives over the last two decades--i.e., the spread of radical and reactionary conservatism--or are you denying that Fox News has played any role in it?
And out of curiosity, how old were you in 1994? Have you compared the Republican party in 1994 to the Republican party of today? The 1994 Republican party would be pretty close to 2013 Democrats.
By the way, media--as in news media--can't be dictated by what people want. There is no news "market." What happens is what happens, and what is important for a polity to know is important for a polity to know. These are objective questions that aren't and shouldn't be driven by consumer preference. That's why for-profit "media" ought always to have scare quotes, because it isn't genuinely media. It's entertainment. Or propaganda.
Obama passed the GOP response to Hillary Clinton's healthcare plan of the time!
NYCmetsfan
Banned
I think we might be talking about two groups of people, you seem to be referring to people who'd I'd term the FOX diehards who watch nothing but FOX. While I'm talking about the general american public who can choose to watch FOX along with other channels or not at all.
People who only watch FOX news IMO were never going to be "convertible."
I think people underestimate the American public's ability, especially moderate America to discern bias
I'm saying FOX may have played some part but its not the principal part. It didn't cause its spread, it probably helped it but I don't think by any great measure. And your statement about the similarities between the two parties is laughably false. You can point to certain examples or bemoan the lack of a "real left" but 2013 democrats are not 1994 republicans. (Look at the party platforms).
And I don't think we're ever going to come to agreement on your desire for some sort of state media or a not-for-profit, elite dictated media. I disagree completely. And I'd love for examples besides the BBC (who does have a status quo, liberal, pro-EU/internationalist bias).
If your idea of a conservative voter is watching Fox News exclusively, then you're not familiar with conservatives. It's just their preferred news outlet, as they "discern" the liberal media "bias" in other channels.
Unless you think their slant is AMERICA, I think you'd be surprised. People know the pundits carry an obvious slant, but the straight up news? Most people don't seem to notice.
It's true what you say about watching Fox News in the early to mid 2000's, I used to watch back then in horror as I saw Fox News on the offensive with a message that I knew had the backing of the public. Their swagger was so much more potent, and they never had to lose their composure like when Bill O'Reilly had to adapt to gay marriage being acceptable. It wasn't until after Hurricane Katrina that that fever began to break.
And yeah any time conservatives can get the public conversation back to the basics of security then all the luxuries that liberals want like gay marriage or immigration reform begin to get smothered out of the conversation and suffer from a lack of forward momentum. There's only so much oxygen in the room. Any news report debating the rights of the suspect or the blame game over how these guys slipped through the cracks is a news report taken away from needed reforms making their way through Congress.
zero shift
Banned
Facebook friend post.
Media influences people, but it's really really weird how it does it.
With Fox News it's something of a viscous cycle. In order to appeal to conservatives Fox News presents reality caricature of reality that always presents the conservatives as correct in every circumstance. Watching that caricature reinforces the audience's feelings about that world view making them more likely to watch that caricature. This is called a reflexive feed back loop.
It's not that Fox News spreading conservationism. They aren't. We've seen this in the last few elections. The country's demographics are changing and conservatives aren't keeping up with that and they know it. Fox News is just reinforcing conservative's belief in their ideology, and their increasing belief in the infallibility of their worldview is making them more radical.
I'm quoting Foldable Human's quick explanation of it, but this is a real social theory.
The Librarian
Banned
Can I put the new thread up now??!?!?!
Oui, mademoiselle.
Link
The Autumn Wind
Republicans: Changing the constitution is bad... except when it suits us.
But I welcome Cruz trying to run. It'll be the most spectacular fucking trainwreck ever.
- Status