Make-believe "political" strategists of TV

[Cosmic Kitten]

[font size="18"][font color="red"]H[/font][/font]ere's what it looks like when the "manipulators"
are out manipulated by the MSM.

A 2006 article at Politico illustrates the absurdity
and blatant manipulation of voters perceptions
through the use of perceived authority.

MSM frequently presents people as "authorities"
or "insiders" using the term "analyst" or "strategist".
Truth be known, even the supposed "analysts" don't believe their own hype!
However, the "real" manure shoveler are upset that the MSM's
BS shovelers are injecting their own spin before the
"bona fide" strategists can spread their talking points.

http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=BC9D1553-3048-5C12-00F5BE5F28096DD0

Jane Fleming Kleeb went on “The O’Reilly Factor” two weeks ago to talk about global warming, a topic on which, by her own admission, she’s hardly an expert. So who, then, is Jane Fleming Kleeb? Well, according to the Chyron that flashed across the screen after Bill O’Reilly introduced her, she is a “Democratic strategist.” But she’s hardly that, either.

“The first time they called me a strategist,” Fleming Kleeb recalls, “I literally laughed on TV.”

Interesting? How did that happen?

She kept a straight face this time, however, because she has grown accustomed to the misbegotten label. It all started in 2006, when Fleming Kleeb, the deputy director of Young Voter PAC, was asked to appear on MSNBC and Fox to talk about young voters. She did well enough in those early forays that she was soon brought back on the air to discuss a wider range of political matters.

Thus, Fleming Kleeb was anointed a “Democratic strategist” and made regular appearances on cable news shows as such, before decamping from Washington for Nebraska, where her husband is running for a U.S. Senate seat. She now makes about one appearance per week via satellite feed from the heartland.

Oh, that makes sense in a disingenuous manipulative way
But what do "real" strategists think about all that??

“I think it’s absurd,” says Ed Rollins, a bona fide strategist who has held high-ranking positions in numerous Republican presidential campaigns. “Everyone calls themselves a strategist. I have been doing this for 40 years, I know most of the players, and I go on these shows and think, ‘Who are these people?’”

“It’s like Noah’s ark. There are a couple of these people, a couple of those people, with no skill and no real analytical ability.”

Yeah Ed, that's right!
Who are these people?
Well Ed, they are people who look good AND....
will say EXACTLY what the MSM expects them to say!
You know, spout talking points favorable to their paymaster.

Of course, the very benefit of bringing a strategist on the air is to break through the echo chamber of talking points.
“If you are a professional political strategist,” says CNN Political Director Sam Feist, “this is what you’ve done for your career. You have worked on a campaign or been a significant member of a campaign team.”

Aparently the problem the "bona fide strategists" have with
"fake" strategists is that they are in competition for talking points.
The paid political, bona fide strategist, want to frame the issues
and control the narrative while the fake strategists are hired guns
for the MSM that undercut the party narrative. Interesting.

Meanwhile, we are awash in electronic media propaganda...

[Scuba]

1. On Fox, "Democratic Strategist" is a euphemism for "conservative shill".

[Cosmic Kitten]

2. LOL, funny how that works

The Politico article goes on how the "strategist's"
framing changes depending on the host show.

On O'reilly some are called "Political Analyst"
while the same person is identified as a
"Democratic Strategist" on Hannity and Colmes.

[aspirant]

3. Everyday people

Maybe we should go back to stopping people on the street and asking their opinion. The everyday guy/gal would be just as informative and free, but we're missing the control factor.

[Cosmic Kitten]

5. Public polling vs talking points?

The thrust of the thread is about "political strategists"
Not so much about polling, although polls are a tool of analysts.

Polls are fine if presented EXACTLY what results reflect.
The problem with polling is, a "percentage"
is given to "validate" a political narrative.

For example: 60% of "liberals" support TPP.
What does that mean?
60% of how many people, from what place, of what demographic?
Then there is the "weighting" of results to reflect national demographics ;~/

Now if the poll was reported as 300, middle-class, mostly white males,
with college educations, making over $50,000, living in southern states,
out of 500... support the TPP that would be honest.
Saying 60% sounds soooo much more persuasive.

Polls are essentially lies of OMISSION.

[aspirant]

9. Ordinary folks

If you read any of my GD posts you will know I've gone beyond your accurate poll analysis.Predictions,estimates and guesses and the difference between inferential stats vs descriptive stats. Finding there is no govt oversight, just AAPOR who asks polling companies to sign an oath. I've even called pollsters and asked for the names and contact #'s of the sample to verify their results, response "absolutely not." Called AAPOR and asked with their signed oath are you able to verify opinion surveys, response no. Then asked, how do we know they don't make these #'s up out of thin air, silence on the phone.

We could ask the street people questions on political strategy and not present it as a poll, just your neighbors point of view.

[fredamae]

11. Yes

Polls are only as reliable as the person(s) who commissioned and Paid for them is honest

[Scuba]

14. Most polls are designed to influence opinion, not measure it.

[Scuba]

16. +1

[Blanks]

15. Stopping people on the street doesn't necessarily yield informed opinions.

[Cosmic Kitten]

19. Who do you imaging is answering polls by phone?

Asking open ended questions versus closed questions
has little bearing on how informed the respondent is.

Isn't it possible the people who actually participate
in phone polls are even LESS INFORMED?
After all they wasted 10 minutes replying yes/no
somewhat/not at all/neutral to a barrage of questions
from a complete stranger.

[aspirant]

20. THat's if they even get called at all

Maybe the pollsters just pick #'s out a hat.

[Blanks]

22. Poll respondents are no doubt uninformed...

Just based on the shit that appears on my Facebook news feed, people have all kinds of perceptions about what is going on in the world.

In that video that I posted, I got the impression based on the sounds that the audience made that a lot of them had no idea that the ACA and Obamacare are the same thing.

The interesting thing is how often conservatives tout opinion polls as facts. As though it's significant what people 'think'.

[Cosmic Kitten]

23. Yep ;~) too many tout opinion polls as facts...

we see it here at the DU everyday?!?!

The TPP and HRC's "50 point lead"
are very apropos examples.

The ACA-Obama Care asininity reminds me
of the tee party demanding that the "gubmint"
keep it's hands off my Medicare... bwahahaha

[Enthusiast]

7. You got that right.

[sabrina 1]

4. I think it's karma for the 'bona fide strategists' that they should be replaced by cheap labor

'fake strategists'. After all it was people like Rollins who 'strategized' us into Republican policies which include ensuring the maximum Corporate profit margins by paying workers as little as possible.

He just got out-strategized by his own 'work'.

They don't call it 'infotainment' for nothing.

[Cosmic Kitten]

6. LOL... replaced by cheap labor

Nice ;~)

It is ironic how TPTB struggle to control the narraitve
and how economic interests dictate the direction
of the conversations.

[fredamae]

8. Both MUTE and OFF Buttons

come in handy and are Well exercised IF I choose to turn on the "tv machine" for "my daily dose of corporate messaging", at all.
There is simply Nothing to learn from Any MSM Corporate source anymore.

[Cosmic Kitten]

10. Don't be too pessimistic

It's just a matter of "retuning" our antennas.

The MSM often "telegraphs" their agenda
and "projects" it's own fear and concerns
onto the opposition.

That alone is worth a listen once
you pass through the looking glass ;~)

[fredamae]

12. I've passed thru that Looking Glass

Once and I came back I heard all I needed to hear "over-there". Have they changed? Or have they just been more creative in finding new ways and people to project the same thing they said in 1969?

[Cosmic Kitten]

13. Understood ;~) The game is the same

Yes, they have changed.
And so has the "media" landscape.

Social media is inherently Populist.
It affords opportunity to interact in ways
that were inconceivable in 1969.
Just ask the founders of EFF

[Scuba]

18. "Social media is inherently Populist." Ergo, no net neutrality for America.

[Scuba]

17. The discerning viewer can see beyhind the flags and crosses, but the masses are hoodwinked.

[Cosmic Kitten]

21. There is a need to grow the numbers of "discerning viewers"...

before the 2016 elections