News Media

The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but the newspapers. – Thomas Jefferson

The liberty of the press is not confined to newspapers and periodicals. It necessarily embraces pamphlets and leaflets. These indeed have been historic weapons in the defense of liberty, as the pamphlets of Thomas Paine and others in our history abundantly attest. – Charles Evans Hughes (1862-1948), U.S. Supreme Court Justice, Lovell v. City of Griffin, 1938

A body of men holding themselves accountable to nobody ought not to be trusted by anybody. – Thomas Paine

It seems that the motto of the Mainstream Media is that the truth is no longer newsworthy. This was certainly the case during the 2004 elections, in which no media attention was given to the accounts of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. It is not surprising for the media to have sat on that news when you consider that wide dissemination of that truth would not have sold more newspapers. In effect, it marked the end of the election, and people would clearly have rejected the candidate and moved on. No need to read anything more about Kerry since he was a damaged candidate, so the motivation of keeping the game close for newspaper sales can be seen as purely capitalistic (something the Wizer will much more easily forgive than he would intentional political bias).

Indeed, CBS then did their best to keep the election close by publishing false accounts of the potentially damaging National Guard story. Sure, the "news" would sell, but the truth takes a hit. That's where the News Media begins to lose their halo.

Now, we have the confirmation of a truth that we all already knew, that there were in fact weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Now, I would surmise that a headline that said "WMD's Found" would have sold the day's quota of newspapers, so profit was clearly not the motivator for suppressing this news.

It was also a good opportunity for the newspapers to show that they are balanced, because the erroneous "no WMD" storyline was advanced for 3 years as if it had some credence.

Consumers of truth are now moving on to other more reliable news outlets, ones collectively known as "The New Media". You are reading one now. You can find them on the internet 24/7 as long as there are those who care enough to bring it to you. This is something to celebrate.

As for the Mainstream Media, well, I would avoid buying stock in these outlets.

Talk Radio

I often marvel at the phenomenon that is Rush Limbaugh. As a former radio personality in the 70's I can admire what he has accomplished in the radio game, a series of achievements that us lesser mortals couldn't foresee from behind our microphones (gold plated or not).

On the surface it is pretty simple to analyze. He has a talk show where his success derives from advocating popular positions, and then painting a vivid picture of "the other guy", this many headed monster which can be branded with an L. Never mind that there is no such thing as the L-monster...Rush is able to convince his audience that the same person who advocates unlimited immigration is the same one who would vote against prop 187. Not too likely that that person exists, but it's a useful boogeyman for what Rush tries to do.

For those who would try to be the antidote to Rush, well, the first mistake is they play on his terms. Namely, they will advocate the positions Rush does not (by definition, the "unpopular" ones), and then try to defend the L-monster, which as I said does not really exist. They wind up lookinf pretty stupid.

Those people are doomed to failure, at least if success means radio audience share (and I think it does). Rush is about as prescient as Nostradamus, who proves only to be "right" after the fact. Rush, for example, is very late weighing in with an opinion on immigration, despite acknowledging for several years that a lot of people care about it. Well, sure, or he wouldn't even have mentioned it in the first place.

So, what would be a reasonable approach for someone who would like to emulate Rush's radio success? Well, for starters, talk about popular things, like budget discipline, limited government, and NAFTA related issues. These are topics Rush avoids for some reason. Then, try to assemble a credible enemy monster comprised with the many heads of Arlen Specter, Lincoln Chafee, and Chuck Schumer; and I guarantee better results than Air America and the sum total of the nuveau commie communicative collective.

The guy is good because he's mostly right. The persons who go against him typically do so by advocating the "wrong". What's keeping the talent away? Surely there's no monopoly on truth. The problem is many radio wannabes feel they must start from the corner Rush paints them into.

Brian Maloney follows the talk radio scene with his informative blog.