You can come back, Pat (part 2)

[Cactus]

Frank,

The fact that the media is on the liberal side has been known for years. There are ways to work around them. President Reagan did it twice, the GOP did it in 1994 and Gov. Bush appears to be doing it so far. The media has not made any appreciable dent in Gov. Bush's support despite their attempts with the drug rumor and the lastest flap. It may be a little tougher, but it can be done.

People dislike candidates who whine and complain about unfairness by the media. People admire candidates who can confront this inequity and win. Both Newt and Pat Buchanan have complained and the people have condemned them for it. Both of them have the perception of being whiners. You and I know that they are decent men but the public thinks otherwise. Some of this is the medias doing, but some of it is the responsibility of both Newt and Pat. We have to face the fact that the public is not that concerned about politics other than 90 days before an election. Then they only know what they read or hear in 30 second sound bites. If they hear something being said by a candidate that turns them off, they will not listen to a detailed outline of the candidates positions, they will simply turn elsewhere.

Perception is reality. The Democrats have learned that and it is time that we do as well. You can not force people to pay attention to politics if they choose not to. Someone made the statement that if we could get a majority of the 80 million gun owners to vote for a third party, that we could change the current system. The NRA can't even get 5% of the gun owners to join them, how can we possibly expect a majority of them to vote for a third party? The vast majority of people vote for a candidate on a variety of issues, not just one. That candidate, in order to be successful, must appeal to people on a broad range of issues, not just one or two.

We can either learn the rules of the game and use them to our advantage, or we can continue to complain and attempt to play it how we wish. With the former, we have a chance to win some, maybe not all, but hopefully enough. With the latter, we condemn ourselves to defeat and bitterness.

I prefer the former!

 

[Frank Haertlein]

Dag-Nab-it, Cactus! How the hell am I going to disagree with that? You're about 99% correct in that assesment and it really frosts my a$$ that this is the situation here in America. It speaks to a mind numbed, gullible public.

I understand these realities in the public arena, I don't like those realities and in my own little way attempt to change this status quo. I am heartened by the loss of credibility in much of the major media as has happened in recent memory. Of major importance is that people are finally beginning to see the effect of that media on the actions and thinking patterns of both adults and, especially, our youth. If this realization leads to a more critical or mistrustfull attitude towards American media then I think it is for the better.

Too many people have blindly trusted our media and that media has lead our society away from the genuine, best interests of the American people. You may notice that I mention the "media" in many of my posts. This is because I realize the effect they have on the attitudes and opinions of Americans and how people are used like pawns for their ends. There was a time when the American media was FOR Americans but no more.

Consider the recent spate of made for television movies that depict gun owners as a bunch of backwater redneck hillbillies all carrying assault rifles and all part of some extreem, racist malitia movement out to destroy the US or commit acts of terrorism.

This type of "programming" puts into the minds of many Americans that gun owners are all wacko, gun nut, malitia loonies bent on white supremacy and overthrowing the US. You can bet a lot of Americans beleive this "typecasting". Many people I talk to at work and who know I am a gun owner have a genuine fear that someday I will walk into work and go on a shooting spree. I have known these people for going on 20 years. The standing joke is "don't piss off Frank or he will come to work and shoot everyone".

Before all the media focus on workplace shootings this thought never entered the minds of my associates. Just my talking about it here will give some people pause for thought that "maybe Frank is that kind of person?". If you are thinking this in the back of your mind then you too have been affected by the media influence. Even our companies CEO issued a memorandum asking people to be especially vigilant of known gun owners. Do you see the effect the media has had here? Before all the media hype, I was "one of the boys" and had a promising future but now am looked upon as "one of those gun owners who might go berzerk".

Those who I consider close friends at work and who are also gun owners know the atmosphere of distrust toward gun owners that pervades our workplace. Just where the hell did this attitude come from? Well, it came from the media who have cast gun owners as all a bunch of malitia crazies and potential "postal" loonies. How the hell can we change or address these perceptions the media has promulgated? The answer is we can't change these perceptions! Only the media can do that! The media wants these perceptions because they work to the disadvantage of gun owners and thus furthers the anti-gun objectives of the liberal media and the people who control that media.

By the same token, politics is treated similarly. The Bush fiasco, where he is typecast as just another stupid Quayle, is a another prime example of media manipulation to sway the electorate. You say that those are the realities of the media and that we have to understand how to work that media towards acheiving our goals. Bottom line is that you may have some measure of success but in order to aceive that success, you have to bend towards it's requirements in some way. You have, in essence, given in to their power to acheive some temporary goal. The media has become the enemy, it has affected society in a negative way, it has lead to children killing children and it is at least partially responsible for inciting copycat killings and other forms of violence. I've been around long enough to see it first hand and I don't need some kind of scientific study to understand the media's affect on society. At every opportunity I try to expose them for the negative catalist of societal change that they are because they, themselves, wont do it. They are like the tobbacco companies in the sense that they have a product they want you to use and they wont tell you about the dangers of that product. When pressed against the wall the media will say "people want it so we sell it to them!". Well? Isn't that exactly what a drug dealer says?

[This message has been edited by Frank Haertlein (edited November 10, 1999).]

 

[Cactus]

Frank,

I too share your frustrations. The purpose of the media WAS to report the news objectively and allow people to come to their own conclusions. But the media has now choosen sides. They see themselves as an elite institution that must convince the un-enlightened of the errors of our ways. They have an agenda and will stop at nothing to accomplish that agenda. If people are harmed or killed, I guess they are just necessary casualties for the "greater good". As far as I'm concerned, the media is the opposition just as the Democratic Party is.

Fortunately, studies show that the mainstream media has been losing market share to alternative sources of information such as talk radio and the internet. They are becoming more and more fearful of losing their influence over people. I feel that this is why they are so supportive of the current campaign financing proposals. It would greatly increase their power.

Another thing that gives me hope is the current lack of voter turnout. That's right, the LACK of voter turnout. The people who don't bother to vote are the people who generally are ignorant of the issues. Their media formed opinions show up in opinion polls, but they do not sway the elections either way. However, some of the ill informed still vote. I think that poll testing for knowledge of our system would greatly improve it. It's discusting to think that there are people voting who can't name their own Congressman or name the three branches of our Federal Government.

I have no fear of you "going postal" at work Frank. You should tell the people at work who worry about it that the way to keep you happy is to give you a promotion. It reminds me of my place of work. We have locks on all the doors and a gated parking lot that we have to contend with every day. Yet when the bosses are expecting strangers to come for meetings, interviews, etc., they unlock the doors and leave the gate open.