Epiphany about FOX and conservative talk after reading Lakoff

[artistforpeace]

I had an epiphany after reading George Lakoff about framing and after reading this paragraph in “don’t think of an elephant!":

“Stay away from set-ups. Fox News shows and other rabidly conservative shows try to put you in an impossible situation, where a conservative host sets the frame and insists on it, where you don’t control the floor, can’t present your case, and are not accorded enough respect to be taken seriously. If the game is fixed, don’t play.” (pg.116)

We should start a campaign of insisting on our democratic representatives and any other liberal “consultant”, etc to not go on any of these shows. We as progressives should NOT call the radio shows, or respond to overtly conservative ed-ops directly, etc.

Most of you might think this mad, or not fighting or getting out our message, that is what I used to think until I thought about it this way. Take away the punching bag and all you’re hitting is air and any moderate conservative out there is going to think this nuts.

Another way of thinking about it: Consider the “average” moderate conservative out there who might not agree with most of the neocon agenda. This is a person who watches FOX, assumes FOX is not promoting an agenda and when witnessing a statement raised on FOX thinks to him/herself “so what is the opposite side of this?” and waits for the “liberal” response on FOX. Of course the game is fixed and so this moderate conservative sees the “liberal” not giving a response they can identify with. So they most likely will side with the argument that wins which will always be neocon.

Now place that same person in a situation where is no response from a “liberal”. Instead FOX idiotically pumps their fists and beats their chest unchecked. At first, this moderate is going to side with them. But as time progresses, they will start to see the insanity and be like “wait what is the opposite side of this?” For them to find that out, they will have to go outside FOX to get that info. That’s when we get them!!!!! We get to frame and it will start to make sense to this moderate conservative and they will start to see the agenda behind FOX.

Of course for this to happen, we have to expose any “liberal” that goes on FOX as not a liberal and absolutely under no circumstance can a true representative (congressman, senator) go on FOX. “If the game is fixed, don’t play”.

[mazzarro]

1. You make sense to me

But the question is 'how do we implement this?'.

[rockydem]

2. I think there is some value in going on those shows and not

accepting the frame - if you go on a show be persistent about putting forth your own frame of the issue - to win we must win the debate over framing the issues. I do this all the time with my right wing 'friends' - they insist on ludicrous frames and I say 'no you're looking at this issue in the wrong way' - it's really the most powerful way to argue with a winger. It throws them off their game plan.

[artistforpeace]

7. But have you ever seen this work?

The problem is that there is no way to get that frame out on shows on FOX. They interrupt, change topic, etc. So again I ask why have our elected officials and people who speak for our party play a game of three card Monty when we know the queen isn't on the table but in their hands? We should put our money down anyways?

[rockydem]

12. I've seen it work

One thing a lot of these shows do is find a stable of weak Dems that they can showcase on particular issues.

But a good, tought Dem can destroy a winger in a debate. I remember one time Dean was on Hannity's show. Dean destroyed Hannity. I'm partisan so yeah I am biased, but I'm honest enough to know when one from my side gets beat. But let me tell - Dean eviscerated Hannity. It was a thing of beauty.

[rniel]

9. when a conservative

goes on tv they avoid any of the interviewers questions and just spout off a bunch of soundbytes over and over. Liberals should make the show theirs. Use their show as a tool like toiletpaper. Take it over. I see Carville do it before. Just spout off from our new word list pasted below:

Radical
Extremist
liars
fiscally irresponsible
morally bankrupt
isolationist
most hated country
despised
illegitimate
anti-education
anti-government
big government
demagogue
stubborn
fake humility
unscrupulous
warmonger
draft
failure
Bin Laden
deficit
bankrupt
conflict
compromised
partisan
self-interest
power
elite
cruelty
dishonesty
selfishness
arrogance
suffering
self-seeking
self-centered
fickle
fake
cowardly
egotism
vanity
vain
impatience
contempt

Morality related:
Anti-family
Child abuse
Spousal abuse
Adultery
convicted
drug abuse
closeted gay
sodomy
cheating
divorced
chickenhawk
draft dodger
hypocrite
surrender of moral principles
covetous
betrayal of ideals
Unethical

[jasmeel]

3. I think it makes perfect sense to punish Fox by not allowing

them to put the dems in the no win situation they usually find themselves in. It's not like Fox (and some MSNBC) shows actually help the dem get heard in any way. It's just a way to mock them. I agree! It would be great if democrats would work together and deny access!It's not like you can have a conversation with Laura Ingraham so refuse to go on until they have someone who can be fair. I completely agree! The dems keep setting themselves up for failure. It's like they want to be abused!!!

[Dover]

4. Fighting the GOP machine is like trying to swim in a rip tide.

The harder you swim, the further away from your goal you get.

I think one way to set the agenda (besides avoiding theirs) is to be the architects and builders of our venues (such as AAR) and simply create the world we want to live in. In other words, if they are the archictects of a building with a faulty foundation of evil, we shouldn't show up with our hammers and argue about it. We should simply create a new and better building that will be sustainable, and have solid foundations in truth.

[lutherj]

5. I've often wondered this myself. What's the point of going onto

one of these shows if they shout over you and refuse to engage in rational discourse?

[necso]

6. Many of the "liberals"

do this for "face time", you know.

They have various personal interests, you know... And what? -- They should abandon these?

We can only count on ourselves -- and how much we can even do this, I am uncertain.

[Maat]

8. I'm e-mailing CNN, MSRNC, and Faux News...

and telling them, that no matter how many liberals they put on, I won't be watching.

[necso]

11. Good for you.

Now if we can just get (lots of) other people to follow suit.

Boycotts of sponsors are good too, and divestiture has a place -- but timing is everything there.

[artistforpeace]

13. I admire you for doing this!

And I think everyone should. Problem is that is really not going to change much, but should be done anyways. Boycotts in the long run don't work.

I don't think it would really be very hard to convince the democratic party to tell its members to stop going on these stupid shows that don't do anything. I understand the reasoning. The idea that we should stand up and fight or we would just be pushed aside.

BUT what if we didn't even play? If we just walked away. People would be very confused and want to know why. Many would think us weak. And the conservative agenda would go uncheck for the near future. But the conservative agenda will destroy itself without an enemy (liberals) because it makes no sense unless in context of an enemy.

[necso]

14. Boycotts can work.

A boycott is like a siege. You have to cut off a goodly portion of the "supplies" before it begins to tell. And the more "supplies" that you cut off, the more effective the siege.

However, a lot depends upon the "reserves" of the besieged, and whether or not they can get any "outside" assistance.

But a good siege, carried on at even an incomplete level, will usually succeed eventually. And you might be surprised at how "soft" some of our potential targets really are.

But, yes, boycotts normally don't work. It is hard to get people to agree on a plan, harder to get adequate numbers involved and basically impossible to get them to demonstrate the patience, discipline and self control necessary for victory.

On the other hand, a few good victories can fire up the troops and give them new resolution for the fight.

[artistforpeace]

10. Yes they should...

The reason I say yes is because personal interests are being self-defeated if you are just giving them ammo.

Of course there would not be a 100% abandonment by liberals on FOX. But just picture it if tomorrow that happened. At first and for the near future, conservative agenda would go unchecked and maybe even gain in popularity...but then I think people would start to wonder why it is that liberals are not responding to this and go to other places for that information....that's the whole point to turn FOX into a tabloid, why not?

Of course neocons would in turn stop going to CNN, etc. but the ironic thing is that would help to because the liberal frame makes sense to most Americans. It's just not out there in the right manner.

[uhhuh]

15. Why would the neocon stop going on CNN?

They are as much a right wing enabler as Fox. In some ways, moreso, since their right wing bias is disguised somewhat.

If you think CNN is left leaning, they've already got you.