Republican (Media) Wins!

“Perhaps because Fox continued to dominate the sector both in audience and financial terms, it did not change its formula or experiment with new methods of content delivery.”

(The Pew Research Center, State of the News Media 2012).

In the wake of the election, partisans and pundits on both sides have been opining about what went wrong for Republicans. An emerging narrative in the media is that the Republican Party must change.  From MSNBC to FOX to CNN to The NY Times to The Wall Street Journal, pundits have been calling this election a “wake up call” for the GOP. The electorate has changed, demographically, and the Republican agenda simply isn’t representing a majority any more.

Normally, when an electorate shows its colors on election day, political parties look at the results in order to inform tactical decisions.  New strategies are constructed; corrections and alterations are made.

But I think the Republicans will have a hard time changing because of the incredible financial success of Right-leaning media companies. The financial success of a place like FOX News speaks to its dominance of its own market-share: members of the Republican Party. The Republican Party no longer seems to be led by politicians; it seems to be led by vendors selling product. I know this is a broad simplification—but my point is logistical. I don’t think Republicans are stupid. I think the Party has bought into an incredibly profitable, media business model.

When Balance Becomes The Enemy

Right-leaning media sources such as FOX News have inoculated themselves to correction (or even reflection) because sources like Rush Limbaugh and Bill O’Reilly encourage their audiences to discredit and disbelieve any other news source.

According to many of the loudest on the Right, every other bit of media is liberal, wrong, and/or downright deceitful.

This is not a small deal. Imagine having a doctor who not only tells you that all other doctors aren’t as good, but that all other doctors are also liars.  What happens when another doctor has a treatment that you actually NEED?  You would be tempted to believe that no one else could help you. 

There's no better evidence than this election.  Many of my Republican friends were SHOCKED that Obama won.  They were absolutely flummoxed.  That’s because somewhere in the past 4-8 years, the core of the Republican Party switched from being members of a party into members of a market.  Right-leaning media audiences are huge and loyal, but they have bought more than the news. Customers have not bought the “most trusted” news; they've bought the ONLY trusted news of the Republican Party.

The News Isn’t Good

Can you blame FOX News, Limbaugh, or the rest?  They have an incredibly profitable business model. From a success point of view, you have to admire them. They have, literally, destroyed the competition. But the collateral damage is to the Republican Party-- and to political debate itself.  

With profits like FOX's, can the rest of the press far behind? 

The day after election night on FOX’s "The O’Reilly Factor," the show posted a fresh poll of their own viewers, asking “Do you believe 'The Factor' has been fair covering the election?”  'The Factor' is the show that had FoxNews regulars (and Republican insiders) such as Charles Krauthammer, Dick Morris, and Karl Rove on the day before the election—all who predicted a Romney win.  On 11/06,  O’Reilly himself said, “Romney will win Florida, I just don’t know about Ohio.”

80% of their audience said “Yes, 'The Factor' had provided fair coverage."

You can’t make a happy toothpaste brusher change his toothpaste.  And until wildly successful news sources such as FOX News and Limbaugh fail as businesses, the Republican Party doesn’t look like it's going to change. There's just too much money to be made.

And that’s bad news for everyone-- especially Republicans. 

image credits: The Pew Research Center, ABC News, and FOX News

Occupy: Political Party or, Well, Just a Party?

May the best narrative win.

Looking around in the golden glow of the wall sconces at the Roebling Tea Room, I found Anthea and Vanessa at the bar talking about Occupy. Anthea, in for a short stay from the UK, and Vanessa, from Venezuela, were recounting a conversation with a protester from earlier in the evening.

Still damp from a fine and chilly mist blowing around in the November evening, I just wanted a little whiskey in a glass. But I was all ears.

“She was young, yes, but so very eloquent,” said Vanessa. “These people have no agenda but to say 'there is a problem.'”

“But is that enough?” asked Anthea. “When I asked her what they wanted, she couldn't answer. What kind of protest movement has no goal?”

Vanessa thought for a moment. “I don't think there is a goal in the traditional sense. They just want to be heard. They have reasonable complaints, I think. Companies have too much power.”

Anthea smiled. “I just don't think I understand exactly what they want. What would it take for the protestors to say they achieved something?"

It's a good question. What is happening down there at those Occupy protests? I contend that how you answer that question says more about where you get your Narrative than it does about what is actually happening.

Narrative: A Working Definition

We are not Fact or Data Driven. We are Narrative Driven.

Here's how it works: something happens. People talk about what happened. People who weren't at the event must rely on how other people talk about the event. Different versions of the event are passed around. One or two versions rise to the top and become the “Narrative.”

The Narrative need not be fact-based or fair. These are incidental. It merely needs to be believed. It's often shocking, scary, sexy, or funny and almost always has a spin or slant to it.  When the event is political in any way, like Occupy, there are often at least two competing Narratives battling for your support.

It's American Idol for Stories.  It doesn't matter who can sing better.  It only matters if we like the singer.

Occupy: Waterloo or Bonnaroo
As far as I can tell, the Narratives told by supporters of the Occupy protestors include:

1. The 99% of America wants the 1% to pay more. These percentages refer to the proportional amount of total US wealth that individual people have.

2. Wall Street and Washington are corrupt, filled with criminals who use power and influence to “game” the system to unfairly and unethically amass wealth.

3. American democracy is broken and until drastic changes are made in how people are allowed to participate in politics, the US will continue to decay.

4. College debt is burying young people; education should be a right, not a burden.

Those who are critical of Occupy largely seem to think that there is NO legitimate protest at Occupy-- the only story is about the protestors themselves:

1. The protestors are anarchists and communists, interested in destroying order in America.

2. Most people involved in the movement are drug users, criminals, or opportunists who want a free lunch and state-supported unemployment.

3. Many protestors are college kids out to get wasted and bang on drums.

4. A significant number of protestors are hypocrites: wealthy kids who are “slumming” with the unemployed for the sake of adventure or to collect great stories.

There Is No "Truth," Only Narrative

In this, I see a larger view of all conversation about politics in our country.  The battle lines of politics are not idealogical; they are anecdotal.  Most people form opinions about the President, Congress, candidates, political parties based on the dominant stories in the media.  Because people tend to get their media stories from one side of the political spectrum, we are in a constant state of story battle.

Subsequently, the strongest Narratives are the ones that transcend media lines:  killing Osama was great for America, Congress sucks, unemployment is too high. When the Narrative differs across different media, the story gets less strong.  Is Obama a failure?  Are taxes too high?  Is there too much regulation? Your answer is merely an extension of the Narrative that you believe. 

Which story will solidify the Occupy Narrative?  Will it be rich, hypocritical protestors staying at the W hotel?  Filthy, violent communists raping naive coeds and pooping on cars?  Evil Corporations swinging sweetheart deals with politicians?  How about the police brutalizing protestors?  Maybe it'll be well-intentioned emergency officials getting attacked by crazed protestors.  Perhaps it'll be bailed-out Wall Street execs awarding themselves huge, end-of-year bonuses while unemployment numbers creep higher.

Which brings us back to the charming Vanessa and Anthea, two foreign nationals with the perfect amount of objectivity. Their conversation, on a stormy night in late autumn, affords a telling glimpse of American culture.  They don't know what Occupy is because there is no dominant Narrative. The competition over the successful Narrative is still in full swing.

Which Narrative will win your vote?