Generational Dynamics Forum - New Site

Has Fox News Become So Powerful That It is Dictating the Agenda for the Republican Party? Some people think that Fox News is just an arm of the Republican Party but I think that editorial board of Fox News is dictating the agenda for the Republicans. The TV network generates the agenda, not the party.
_______________________________________
affiliateelite ~ affiliateelite.com ~ adgooroo ~ adgooroo.com

calebena wrote: > Has Fox News Become So Powerful That It is Dictating the Agenda
> for the Republican Party? Some people think that Fox News is just
> an arm of the Republican Party but I think that editorial board of
> Fox News is dictating the agenda for the Republicans. The TV
> network generates the agenda, not the party.

From the point of view of Generational Dynamics, an agenda comes from
the people, not from either the media or politicians. For example,
the Tea Party sprang up from populist roots, and was a surprise to
both Fox News and the Republican Party, although they were quick to
embrace it. One interesting outcome of the Republican primaries,
polling and debates is that they help the Republican public to
formulate a common agenda. The media and politicians will follow that
agenda, not dictate it. A major problem for both Republicans
and Democrats is that there are extreme populist positions on
both the right and the left. The good thing about the American
system is that it's always forcing compromises.

John

John wrote:

calebena wrote: > Has Fox News Become So Powerful That It is Dictating the Agenda
> for the Republican Party? Some people think that Fox News is just
> an arm of the Republican Party but I think that editorial board of
> Fox News is dictating the agenda for the Republicans. The TV
> network generates the agenda, not the party.

From the point of view of Generational Dynamics, an agenda comes from
the people, not from either the media or politicians. For example,
the Tea Party sprang up from populist roots, and was a surprise to
both Fox News and the Republican Party, although they were quick to
embrace it. One interesting outcome of the Republican primaries,
polling and debates is that they help the Republican public to
formulate a common agenda. The media and politicians will follow that
agenda, not dictate it. A major problem for both Republicans
and Democrats is that there are extreme populist positions on
both the right and the left. The good thing about the American
system is that it's always forcing compromises.

John

Thanks for the cogent perspective here, John. I've kindly noticed though, in regards to Fox News (I'm not an assiduous watcher of it, but am constantly around someone who watches a lot of Fox News) that Fox News seems to have a "Republican presidential candidate darling" that seems to almost change weekly. One week, it might be Rick Perry; next week, it might be Newt Gingrich. Whover gets the special attention seems to get a valuable, significant lift in the Republican primary straw polls. While again I do agree that the ultimate "force of preference" seems to originate from the Republican public, do you think that a conservative force as potent as Fox News may well be acting as a ratchet for more-extreme conservative-populist positions, coupled with amplifying the Republicans' seeming inability to really come to any sort of togetherness (at least so far) with who they might like to be their presidential contender for 2012? (And now, as I type this and as you likely know, the hot candidate for a lot of the Republicans is the "inelectable" libertarian maverick Ron Paul.) Just some thoughts here.... —Best regards, Marc

Marc wrote:Fox News seems to have a "Republican presidential candidate darling" that seems to almost change weekly.

That's because the polls change weekly. Fox News's darling is whoever
is leading the polls. The NY Times's latest hate figure is also whoever
is leading the polls.

John

John wrote:

Marc wrote:Fox News seems to have a "Republican presidential candidate darling" that seems to almost change weekly.

That's because the polls change weekly. Fox News's darling is whoever
is leading the polls. The NY Times's latest hate figure is also whoever
is leading the polls.

John

Hi, John,

I appreciate your perspective here. Something I've noticed (and maybe other Fox-watchers see it differently) is that those Republican presidential candidates who seem to be able to come off as the most boisterous seem to make the best "Fox-darling fodder"; those who don't have as much conservative-populist theater in them, so to speak, tend to not get as much of Fox's spotlight. I was just wondering if this might be a factor in Fox acting as at least a bit of a kingmaker among Republicans, independent of the polls. But then again, I know that we're in a Post-Unraveling period in the United States, and parallel to this, we could be said to be in a "post-culture-war" period as well. I can see that, among those who have neoliberal and/or neoconservative views, that there would be plenty to bicker about in this Post-Unraveling/Post-Culture-War era (e.g., Obama! Obamacare! Gay Marriage! Don't-Ask-Don't-Tell repealed!, etc.), until that Regeneracy event comes along to put an end to the bickering. —Best regards, Marc

Marc wrote:

John wrote:

Marc wrote:Fox News seems to have a "Republican presidential candidate darling" that seems to almost change weekly.

That's because the polls change weekly. Fox News's darling is whoever
is leading the polls. The NY Times's latest hate figure is also whoever
is leading the polls.

John

Hi, John,

I appreciate your perspective here. Something I've noticed (and maybe other Fox-watchers see it differently) is that those Republican presidential candidates who seem to be able to come off as the most boisterous seem to make the best "Fox-darling fodder"; those who don't have as much conservative-populist theater in them, so to speak, tend to not get as much of Fox's spotlight. I was just wondering if this might be a factor in Fox acting as at least a bit of a kingmaker among Republicans, independent of the polls. But then again, I know that we're in a Post-Unraveling period in the United States, and parallel to this, we could be said to be in a "post-culture-war" period as well. I can see that, among those who have neoliberal and/or neoconservative views, that there would be plenty to bicker about in this Post-Unraveling/Post-Culture-War era (e.g., Obama! Obamacare! Gay Marriage! Don't-Ask-Don't-Tell repealed!, etc.), until that Regeneracy event comes along to put an end to the bickering. —Best regards, Marc

As John stated, Fox will put on whomever is going to draw the most viewers. Sure, there are some OPINION shows on Fox that seem to have their favorites, but at least they've been pretty balanced in presenting most of the candidates unlike MSNBC, etc., who, during the last presidential election, clearly showed a bias in supporting Obama over Hillary.

I have a hard time watching news period, but Fox seems to be the ONLY network that provides BOTH the conservative AND liberal opinions. NO OTHER network does this. In fact, the rest of the "other" networks are hell bent on pushing the liberal ideologies. When is the last time you ever saw a hitpiece on a Democrat from ANY network besides Fox? They will crucify Republicans all day long but refuse to report on Democrats. It is so badly one sided even your average non political folks can see through it. <-- And this is why Fox has the ratings it does. Most people do not want to hear about how crappy America is, they don't want to see "journalists" constantly rooting for our enemies, they don't want to hear Christian bashing, etc. And, let us not forget, the liberal news stations tried every trick in the book to sway American opinion against the Iraq war (v2.0). Some of us will NEVER forget how CBS, ABC, NBC, MSNBC, etc. tried to secure our defeat over seas. Only persons with liberal mindsets wanted to watch that and wanted to see more of it. The rest went to Fox and never left. So, I guess, my counter arguement is, how can you come to the conclusion that one network carries the H2o for the Republican party? Besides, you give the Republicans waaaay too much credit! They wish they could control the agenda on a major news station!
Not trying to be inflamatory. This is just my little opinion.

The problem with any televised news whether it is a local 30 minute program or a 24 hour service is that they have to entertain to keep people watching. Look at what the weather channel has become. It used to give us the weather report continuously all day long, but now it has weather related programming, plus who doesn't get there weather updates from the internet nowadays.

These information outlets have to be biased or sensationalists to keep our attention; if we aren't watching, the advertisements are for nothing. I mean, I only want to watch the news when there is a crisis as I have other things to do with my time. I and think the 24 hours news cycle (though its less than that with the repeat shows throughout the small hours) puts a burden on finding suitable news-worthy events. It seems to me that there are a few things worth mentioning on any of the news channels and the rest is garbage. A little more world news might be nice.

On the other hand, a Jerry Springer News Channel would be entertaining. I want to see commentators and guests fight to defend the veracity of their ideals and opinions.

psCargile wrote:On the other hand, a Jerry Springer News Channel would be entertaining. I want to see commentators and guests fight to defend the veracity of their ideals and opinions.

Be careful what you wish for, even facetiously, otherwise you just might get it But hell, that idea just might compete very successfully with the three dominant American cable-news channels in this Post-Unraveling gutter age —Best regards/Cheers, Marc

I wouldn't give them any ideas. There's already too much crap on television. As things go, though, Fox News isn't the worst.