Dead Media Walking

Author's note: Here's an occasional post like I promised.  Not much time as I am currently working something else. Something's gotta give, and this case, it's proofreading.  I'm not even going to worry about any mistakes I may have made.  Just read this rough draft.  You'll get what I mean.

Here's an article where, while everything the author says is true, he is either unaware of, or purposely misses the larger points -

source: Politico

Not in Defense of Bill O’Reilly

But against calls for advertiser boycotts.

Whenever a mob forms—even a righteous mob whose cause seems just—I get the willies. This week, a mob has arisen to punish Bill O’Reilly for his alleged sexual harassing ways by sapping his Fox News Channel show, “The O’Reilly Factor,” of its sponsors. So far, at least 47 advertisers, including Mercedes-Benz, Hyundai, BMW, Mitsubishi, Lexus, Orkin and Allstate, have dumped their buys on his show, according to CNN; more are sure to follow.

Read more.  Go ahead, It's worth it this time.

In short, the author says that media outlets should be more courageous and  not let advertisers control their content.

This is certainly true.

He ends his piece by saying: "If you don’t like O’Reilly and want to protest his alleged behavior, here’s my advice: Don’t watch his rotten show."

Even more true.

But wait a second, wait a second.  How many of you have heard of Bill O'Reilly? All or you?  I thought so. Now, how many of you know who Jack Shafer is?  When was the last time you heard someone say, "Well, Jack Shafer said...  ".  Never?  I thought so.  It's safe to say that the general public doesn't know Jack.

It's also safe to say that all of media types are driven by one thing above all else - exposure, and thereby increased personal income, period.  If any one of them knew that their maximum public exposure would never amount to anything more than them standing in an empty room and talking to the walls, none of them would be doing what they are doing right now.  They'd be plumbers, or chefs, or dog catchers, or something else.  

Now, if everything that I written above is true, that necessarily means that: If Bill O'Reilly's show is "rotten", anything Jack Shaffer writes is "rottener".

Now, let's get to that larger point thing that I mentioned in the sub-headline.

The mainstream media is dying (thank God), and has been dying for a long time.  I just can't tell you how much I enjoy seeing newspapers getting thinner and thinner as the years go by, as I eagerly await the ultimate demise of each one.  The same thing's happening to TV news, it's just harder for the average person to notice, since TV shows don't get thinner.  They do however, get worse.

Now the mainstream media loves to blame this on the rise of the internet, as if they were some kind of poor defenseless species that has become endangered through loss of habitat.  Hey, adapt or die fellas, adapt or die.  I hope you choose the latter.

The truth is, no one was in a better position to take advantage of the internet age than the mainstream media.  They had money, a huge base of followers, connections with all the major players, and more access to information than anyone else.  If anyone was able to see what was coming, it should have been them, yet they failed, miserably, and those who remain are continuing to fail, right before our eyes.

Now why are they failing?  One could write an entire book on this subject, but in the interest of not having this post get too long, it's because they're stupid.  That's right - stupid.  Media is a business, and in business, companies that can't adapt, die.  They can't adapt because their leaders are stupid, and they die because they can't adapt.

Automakers that didn't use Ford's assembly line idea were stupid.

Kodak,  who actually was a pioneer in digital photo technology, but didn't capitalize on its potential for fear of hurting its traditional film and camera business, was stupid.

This list goes on and on.

Now there's two kinds of stupid.  There's the stupid where you just don't know what's going on around you, and there's the stupid where you know what's going on, but you choose not to adapt because you are beholden to some ideology.  

The mainstream media is the second kind of stupid and up until the internet era, they were successful because the public was the first kind of stupid.  That was the equation, but as soon as just a portion the public was able to find truth online, the equation fell apart.

OK so why advertisers so worried about how Bill O'Reilly or any other conservative might negatively reflect upon them?  Because they have been told by the lefties that it would, and the people in charge of advertising for most companies are the second kind of stupid that I mentioned earlier.  But if conservatives in the mainstream media, like O'Reilly are outnumbered by liberals, one thousand to one, why would the left spend and time trying to shut him down?  Would't they be spending their time more productively by handing out leaflets on street corners on May Day?

Now we're getting to the largest point of all.  In any battle where both sides have anywhere near the same technology, the army that outnumbers its opponent one thousand to one, wins every time.  One would think that the left would just laugh at the meager number of conservatives fighting against them.  Why do they even care about any conservative has to say?

The reason is technology, and I'm not talking about computers or the internet here.  As a tool for influencing people's opinions, the conservative message is a vastly superior technology than the liberal one.  People can understand and relate to, from their own life experience, conservative ideals like:
  • A person or government, can't spend more than it takes in without quickly getting into trouble.
  • people who aren't earning their own way are a drag on everyone else.
  • Governments can't give to anyone without taking from someone else.
  • We have a duty to help out our own disadvantaged citizens help themselves, so it would be nothing other than insane to let other disadvantaged people into our country until we've taken care of our own.
  • If increasing taxes are a good way to decrease certain types of behavior (like smoking), it probably also decreases other types of behavior when they get taxed (like investment).
  • Since by definition, law abiding citizens don't commit gun crimes, how will making gun control laws decrease gun violence?

This list can and does go on and on, and you can prove to yourself how the conservative message is a superior technology simply by trying to promote the opposite.  How are you going to convince anyone that it is a good idea to spend more than you take in?  No one's gonna fall for that, and when you look at any of the items that could be included on the list above, using nothing else but logic and reasoning, the conservative message is going to win every time, regardless of how many in the mainstream media are saying otherwise.

Due to this vastly superior technology of the conservative message in influencing people's opinions, the "progressives" are left with no other option but to try and shut the conservative message down and not even try to fight the war of words at all.  What other conclusion can we draw besides the conservative message is winning?

One last thing to all you lefties at Google, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, etc.  You might think that you can control what your users say, but if you think you can shut them up, you're wrong.  Regardless of how big you are, you will not be able to control what people choose to see, hear, and say.  If they cannot be free to do so using your service, they will go elsewhere. Think that's not possible?  Look at what happened to newspapers.  Alternatives to you exist, and are just a few keystrokes away.