What is the easiest way to be a successful right-wing political commentator?

In America, it seems to be that if you come from a minority and take political positions against the interests of that minority, you will have a huge market in the American Conservative movement. There is nothing that affluent white men like more than to think their political positions are not selfish or privileged because (a few) disadvantaged people agree with them.

How can I be racist when I agree with Walter Williams about black families and the welfare state? How can I be prejudiced when Milo is gay? Joe the plumber is working class and hates 'Big Government'. Someone on Youtube calls herself a 'factual feminist' by re-framing feminism using gigantic straw-man (or straw-woman) arguments. See, I am a nice person because look [i]who [/i]said this what I agree with.

Of course none of these people have views which represent the broad opinions of the communities that they come from. They do like money though and where there is a demand for something, there will be always be someone willing to meet that demand.

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

SW-User

Sadly, added to that formula are ratings for the media here. CNN and the like gather giant panels of talking heads to 1) sound wise and 2) generate conflict, talking points and scandal -- the ingredients of ratings.

We're having considerable trouble these days discerning reality from entertainment. Personally, I think it started when we reluctantly agreed to call McDonald's real food and it's been getting worse since then. We've managed to culminate in a reality-star-as-President. I am so proud of us.

So yes, we gather people to say effectively, "Is not, you are." Sometimes they've done it spectacularly badly, bringing in trolls. Other times, they make a point. But the point you make in strange bedfellow and the comfort they can bring is keen. I think there's an entire avenue to explore on that point.

jackjjackson · 61-69, M

I don't trust any of the talking heads. They will say anything to keep themselves being interviewed.

SW-User

@Jackjjacksonjr: I cringe every time I see as TV blurb saying something like, "Storm Fields: The face you can trust. The news you can use." I don't care who reads it to me; it's the content, not the character reading it live and trying to look smart.

And I will say this, as reluctant as I am to bash the media to "the other side" (😉), but not every single story beign hashed out for 72 hours merits the giant red banner, "BREAKING NEWS," CNN. Take note.

jackjjackson · 61-69, M

@Oconnor:

Excellent point. On election night CNN used that banner inaccurately many times announcing major victories by Mrs Clinton none of which were even news.

If you were creating a factual news show what would it look like?

SW-User

@Jackjjacksonjr: NOTHING like CNN, MSNBC, FOX or any of the usual suspects.

It would be proportional. US presidential feuds and amusing Tweets demand about 25 seconds of air time. Maybe if we had a slightly more robust International perspective we'd learn to anticipate trouble rather than simply reacting to it. It's not fun, but it is responsible.

There would be no sports. Okay, some sports. Weather would consist of temperature, precipitations and a few other Farmer's Almanac-worthy measures. I don't need to know at what time, to the minute, the clouds are on my street or what the temperature is 2 miles away compared to outside the window.

Mostly, it would be as objective as possible. Report the news from locally and across the globe. No pundits, no opinions; I can form my own opinion and do further research. For deeper discussion, feel free to put together a panel show f qualified, well-read professionals, not columnists or surrogates. And it would be moderated such that personalities, innuendo, personal attacks and irrelevant information don't take center-stage. Enough with Trump; I want to hear about policy and plan now. I can gossip at the office; I can only get real news from so many sources.

You?

jackjjackson · 61-69, M

@Oconnor: i am on board with all of that. Suppose we got the financing, got it up and running would there be viewers? Currently what would you say is closest to that model. IF ANY?

SW-User

@Jackjjacksonjr: Well, that's part of the problem. If enough people didn't want to see sensational headlines, the news as it is and check-out aisle publications would cease to exist.

Honestly, I'm always on the lookout for the best news source. Right now, dry as they are, I think NPR and PBS are doing among the best jobs.

Burnley123 · 41-45, M

@Oconnor: The intercept is excellent.

jackjjackson · 61-69, M

@Oconnor:

Even those two have a slant. Even though some of the same people appear on the Sirius POTUS channel the whole thing seems like the most glanced I've seen in the last five years.

On a related subject did you read that Jimmy Fallon's ratings have dropped and Colbert's have improved totally due to the fact that Colbert engages in nonstop Trump bashing. Fallon makes fun of the President and other in a somewhat less snarky way.

jackjjackson · 61-69, M

@Burnley123:

The Intercept has a bias that it doesn't even try to disguise. Granted they use nice words and does not name call. Impartial it is not.

Burnley123 · 41-45, M

@Jackjjacksonjr: everything has some bias but some publications have higher journalistic standards than others.

jackjjackson · 61-69, M

@Burnley123:

I'll follow it for a week and get back to you.