Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

WaPo Media Writer: How Can Journalists Get More People to Support Impeachment?

WaPo Media Writer: How Can Journalists Get More People to Support Impeachment?

“How should journalists respond to the stalemate, other than to keep doing exactly what they’ve been doing?”

https://twitter.com/tomselliott/status/1177211952344510465

Liberal bias in American media has been a problem for a long time. One of the benefits of the Trump era is that the mask has been ripped off for all to see. The vast majority of journalists working today are nothing more than Democrat activists.

A recent column by Washington Post media reporter Margaret Sullivan makes this crystal clear. In her piece, Sullivan openly wonders how journalists can get more people on board the impeachment train:

Wall-to-wall impeachment coverage is not changing any minds. Here’s how journalists can reach the undecided.

The diplomats have been inspiring, the legal scholars knowledgeable, the politicians predictable.

After endless on-air analysis and written reporting, pundit panels and emergency podcasts, not much has changed.

If anything, weeks into the House of Representatives’ public impeachment hearings, Americans’ positions seem to have hardened on whether President Trump should be impeached and removed from office.

So, is the media coverage pointless? Are journalists merely shouting into the void?

After telling a couple of pointless anecdotes about far left writers Michelle Goldberg of the New York Times and Carl Bernstein of the Washington Post, Sullivan goes to work:

How should journalists respond to the stalemate, other than to keep doing exactly what they’ve been doing?

The hint of a possible solution appears in the tracking of public opinion on impeachment at Nate Silver’s fivethirtyeight.com, under the headline, “Plenty Of People Are Persuadable On Impeachment.”

A paradox arises herein, and a weird one, at that. There’s a group the trackers call “less-certain Republicans” — about 12 percent of the sample, not huge but given the even split in support for impeachment, mighty important.

Here’s the rub: This group is persuadable, but not particularly interested:

“There’s one big hurdle for anyone looking to persuade this group . . . they’re not following developments in the impeachment inquiry very closely,” the site reported. “Only 34 percent of people who aren’t as certain about their stance on impeachment are following the process somewhat or very closely, compared with 66 percent of respondents who are more certain.”

You see, this is all about persuading people to support impeachment, not changing the minds of people who are already backing it. She even suggests delivering the news in the form of movie trailers:

Columbia University journalism professor Bill Grueskin suggests the movie-trailer approach.

In a message, he explains: “Studios spend a $1 million or more on a trailer, because they know it’s essential to boil down the essentials of the film — explaining but not giving away the plot, providing a quick but intense insight into the characters, setting the scene with vivid imagery — to entice people to come back to the theatre a month later for the full movie.”

Similarly, most people (especially the less convinced or more persuadable) will never watch seven hours in a row of congressional testimony, but, as he notes, “many of them would be open to a targeted, well-informed ‘trailer’ approach that is cogently told.”

Here’s Katy Tur of MSNBC, a news anchor, not an opinion host, tweeting out Sullivan’s column:

Here’s a reaction from Brit Hume:

Ace of Spades wrote an excellent piece about Sullivan’s column this week:

Former NYT “Public Editor,” Now WaPo Hack: How Can We, The Unbiased Fact-Finding Media, Convince Our Deplorable Fellow Citizens to Do What We Want and Impeach This Motherf***er?

Does the media think there’s any coming back from this?

I think they don’t think there’s any coming back from this — I think they realize that they made it all too obvious three or four years ago.

No one believes them any longer — not even their progressive customer base actually believes them; their progressive customer base merely supports their lying to others for shared goals — and they’re now just an all-but-admitted propaganda industry, and the only way out is through…

Note that that poll that has struck her fancy also says that an identical number of Democrats support impeachment, but are “persuadable” to not support it.

Does Margaret Sullivan discuss how to change the minds of her wishy-washy Democrat allies to be anti-impeachment?

Of course not — she’s a journalist. She serves the Democrat Party exclusively.

I will presume to answer Ace’s question. There is no coming back from this.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Not even subtle about it anymore, are they? This is what collusion really looks like 🙂

Comanche Voter | December 7, 2019 at 12:27 pm

Sad to say Adam Schiff has been my very own Congress critter for almost twenty years now (having turned out Jim Rogan (R)) in the 2000 election. Rogan’s sin was leading the floor fight to impeach Bill Clinton.

But when I see a photo of Schiff with a caption “Intelligence Committee”, I have to ask myself, “What does “intelligence” have to do with Adam Schiff?” And the answer is “not much”. That may also be a verdict on the collective intellect of the people in his gerrymandered district who will keep re-electing him as long as his breath can still fog a mirror.

Antifundamentalist | December 7, 2019 at 12:33 pm

How about by reporting the facts: all the facts, not just the ones that support The Agenda. If there is evidence to support impeachment, then people will support it. If there isn’t, then they won’t….but then, that’s the problem, isn’t it?

There is no coming back from this. I will never, never, never forgive any Democrat, journalist or liberal for what’s taken place over the last few months. It’s been too over the top unAmerican.

Fewer and fewer people are trusting anything “journalists” write or say.

I am absolutely mystified why not a single adult executive says ‘enough of this childish bias. Fire the juveniles and mental misfits in the news room and find me some reporters’.

Trump tweeting is how he gets around this, if you don’t like his tweets, too bad! Get over it…

What’s a journalist? Do we have those anymore? All I see in the “news organizations” are political advocates and partisan hacks. Nothing more than propagandists for their liberal causes. They don’t even try to hide their biases anymore.

Maybe they could try opposing it? I don’t know if anyone would reverse themselves and favor impeachment if the media opposed it, but the other way hasn’t been working, so…

Secular incentives. Threats of violence. #Labels #Judgment #AbortionCulture

Journolistic bullhorns will not work. As the nose level progresses, people will simply ignore the braying.

That said, this isn’t [political] science, where inference, [social] myths, consensus (e.g. democratic), and empathetic appeals are viable instruments of justice. Show people the evidence!

“Are journalists merely shouting into the void?”

“Journalists” are shouting from the void.

They should be afraid. Their job is to deliver the narrative but they are no longer capable of doing that effectively. When the utility of a leftist goes to zero, they are disposed of by the powers. Starbucks will have a surplus of applicants (many not qualified for the job).

    CorkyAgain in reply to TX-rifraph. | December 7, 2019 at 5:57 pm

    It’s beginning to look like they’re afraid of what will happen to them when their masters decide that they’re not getting the job done and will never get it done.

    Heads will roll!

What about a Blade Runner trailer? Only substitute a few things for Trump. That may work.

Deckard isn’t a replicant. He’s cold sushi. At least that’s what his wife said.

Deckard isn’t a replicant – but what’s the bit about a unicorn, and Deckard’s glowing red eyes and the armada of black and white photographs placed on the piano?

Deckard is a replicant, but Ford claims to have played it straight because Scott told Ford Deckard wasn’t a replicant. Ridley tricked Harrison.

Deckard is a replicant and he and Rachael live forever since they are special replicants [later] Rick buys a replicant sheep and puts it on the top of their house.

And after that the plot gets murky and things fall apart….

I’ve been watching “The Crown” on Netflix. It’s a biography of Queen Elizabeth II. It also stands in as a very good essay on the impact of the British version of the Deep State.

They have two Houses of Parliament and The Crown, which is, or could be, and immensely powerful chief executive. However, there are also tons of mostly-faceless bureaucrats who have all been in high public (but unpublicized) office all of their lives. These bureaucrats exert the kind of power the State Department witnesses in the “impeachment” “process” think they should exert over the US President. In the US, we see the same for the FBI, CIA, EPA, and DOJ, at least.

And how has the British model served its people and the Crown? It has neutered to Crown and presided over the managed decline of a once-great empire.

One has to wonder how much better or worse off Britain would have been, with a strong king or queen.

After eight years of managed decline, the American people decided to elect a strong President, one that did not owe the Deep State anything. To my surprise and absolute delight, he also turned out to be dazzlingly competent or amazingly lucky, take your pick.

Our greedy, corrupt and arrogant Deep State comprises lifetime politicians and bureaucrats who not only think they have the right to govern instead of the President, but some of their families think they have the right to enormous amounts of taxpayer funds. China has found them, and is one country making economic war on us through them.

The Democrat Party at the national level needs to be cleaned out. So does the Executive Branch.

We either do this, or lose our country to China the way the Brits have lost their country to Germany, disguised as the EU.

    The Friendly Grizzly in reply to Valerie. | December 7, 2019 at 2:56 pm

    Miss Valerie, that was a great read. The only exception that I take to it is this colon I believe the decline began back in Wilson’s time. Or within my living memory, the day after the JFK assassination.

    Eskyman in reply to Valerie. | December 7, 2019 at 5:12 pm

    Your comment about the “mostly-faceless bureaucrats” reminded me of the marvellous series “Yes, Minister” which is a humorous but generally accurate depiction of how the bureaucrats actually run things, as opposed to the elected “public servants” who head the departments.

    Most episodes are now available on YouTube; well worth a watch, this program really does demonstrate how the faceless army actually determine & carry out policy, even when the titular head wants a change!

      MajorWood in reply to Eskyman. | December 8, 2019 at 2:32 pm

      I typed my comments before reading yours. “Yes, Minister” is a warning to one side and an instruction manual to the others.

    Milhouse in reply to Valerie. | December 7, 2019 at 8:55 pm

    They have two Houses of Parliament and The Crown, which is, or could be, and immensely powerful chief executive. […] It has neutered to Crown […] One has to wonder how much better or worse off Britain would have been, with a strong king or queen.

    The Crown is not the Queen. It’s the elected government. The Queen is required to act on the advice of her ministers, and only on their advice, regardless of what she thinks of it. The Queen is neutered on purpose; her job is to be above politics, so that everyone can respect her, and so that in the rare event that she must step in to cut a Gordian knot everyone will accept her decision.

    “Yes, Minister” which is a humorous but generally accurate depiction of how the bureaucrats actually run things, as opposed to the elected “public servants” who head the departments.

    The bureaucrats are public servants. Ministersare not public servants; they are members of the elected government. Which is a collective, not one person; the prime minister is the government’s head, but has only one vote in it, the same as any other minister.

The diplomats have been inspiring, the legal scholars knowledgeable

Sounds like somebody has an alt.universe problem.

but, as he notes, “many of them would be open to a targeted, well-informed ‘trailer’ approach

And put in cartoons of talking animals, too. Those are always convincing anchors to reality.

Yep, alt.universe for sure.

2smartforlibs | December 7, 2019 at 1:59 pm

How about doing the (insert expletive) business of the PEOPLE? I guess Drug pricing, border security, Infrastructure, Healthcare, and a BUDGET don’t make the lefts radar.

Democracy Dies with Crooked Leftist Press.

How about a catchy tag: #ImPeachTheOrange, #Peach, or a bumper sticker with the image of a peach, or an orange crossed out.

“Democracy Dies In Darkness – And We Are The Murder Weapon”

What editor thought this was a good look for the paper or the profession? Even if it’s a good idea (which it is, if you’re a propagandist), does it make sense to confirm the beliefs of your opponents in your partisanship, revealing even to your supporters (who, at least until now, could always fob off claims of “media bias”) that their opponents are right about the media?

OneVoiceInAmerica | December 7, 2019 at 3:44 pm

Here’s a novel idea. Tell us exactly why President Trump should be impeached, and then stick with that reason.

Lucifer Morningstar | December 7, 2019 at 4:22 pm

I was under the impression the democrats really didn’t care if the public supported impeachment or not. Mamma Pelosi has sorrowfully declared that Articles of Impeachment will be drafted and these Articles of Impeachment will be voted upon in the House of Reps. No if, ands, or buts about it.

So why are the members of the democratic propaganda wing (aka “journalists”) worried about at this point is beyond me.

I might think about what they have to say after they do what Thích Quảng Đức did in 1963. Probably not, but it would be fun to watch.

Queen Pelosi has spoken; wisely or not, she has spoken…

As before, shout lies LOUDER! Cry more on camera.

Great economy, great employment figures, Christmas, impeachment. Is this a timeline, or what?

How? Simple. They need a convincing case.

I can’t stand Trump. But all I’ve seen from the hearings is legal opinions that disagree, speeches from people whose integrity I have no faith in and evidence that is impeachable if one guy says it is or not impeachable if another guy says it is.

Without a clear cut convincing case … this is just a fight between the titians. Meanwhile congress isn’t solving one damn problem (which may be a good thing … considering that they make everything worse most times)or making anyone’s life better. They’re just pissing in the wind for no other reasons than they have a dick.

“How do we get more people to support impeachment?”

Perhaps – just maybe – if there was an actual impeachable offense …?

The Democrats are making a very weak calculation that hanging an impeachment charge on Trump is enough to damage him even when cleared by the Senate.
They remember that the media not only saved Clinton’s bacon after his hind was guilty of felonies but they pushed the entire Party into power.
They believe they can use the same formula in reverse to destroy Trump and the Republicans in Congress.
The last Republican the press even respected or feared was Eisenhower.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend