American leftist entirely missing the point shocker

Still, the rap against progressive media remains that it preaches to the choir, and the choir ain’t that big. Kaiser fields the question again and again from potential donors: Why don’t her member organizations reach more people? “Well, they would,” she replies, “if they had the funding for marketing and promotion.”

Yep, still not getting that the majority isn’t in fact an aggrieved snowflake and thus won’t tune into a channel for aggrieved snowflakes.

30 comments on “American leftist entirely missing the point shocker

  1. I get the feeling from reading the article that she is complaining that the left need to persuade and force people back to the left. Totally missing the fact that people have abandoned the left because it has failed to provide them with the answer they want. The left is just interested in furthering the careers of their chosen few at the expense of the worker.

  2. George Soros is putting billions into Marxist agit-prop outfits. If he’s not managing to indoctrinate people it’s not for want of trying. And the output of almost the entire US media is “progressive”, if by progressive you mean monochrome Leftist pabulum.

  3. They can get the funding for marketing and promotion. They can make the money, they can ask their supporters for money, they can put their own money up…. lots of ways to get funding.

    If churches, charities, businesses and individuals can do it why is this snowflake not?

  4. Progressives Need to Build Their Own Media

    Typical Leftist – do everything twice at four times the price.

  5. No one is forced to watch “Fox and Friends”. That people choose to do so maybe that F&F are more entertaining, more convincing, or maybe cheaper.
    So either make CNN etc more entertaining, more convincing or cheaper.
    Of course making a case sound convincing is a whole lot easier if it is sound.

  6. Telling:

    “It’s puzzling, to put it mildly, that progressives have not drawn the obvious lessons from the right-wing media’s enormous successes over the past quarter-century.”

    You’d think that ‘the progressives’ would bynow have realized that their skill lies only in attacking, not doing the hard graft (and spending the long green) to actually **do** something.

  7. Remember Air America?

    Remember Current TV?

    They didn’t die for want of money. They died because they sucked to an extent that even aggrieved snowflakes couldn’t stand them. Kind of the same reason nobody actually reads The Nation.

    The folks who can’t understand why MSNBC can’t touch Fox can’t understand that the likes of Al Sharpton, Melissa Harris-Perry and Chris Hayes do not make for a compelling viewing experience.

    The other thing these folks cannot understand is that progressives tend to be exclusionary. If you cannot tolerate the opinions of others that deviate from progressive groupthink, it really shouldn’t come as a surprise that the others aren’t going to bother listening to your nothing but progressive groupthink opinions.

  8. Isn’t the Daily Show pure snowflake material these days? It was actually quite enjoyable under Jon Stewart – despite being a strident lefty, he was quite funny – but it has become insufferable under John Oliver.

  9. Guys,–

    Bear in mind that FOX is not a right-wing network or news source.. It’s merely one whose owner (Rupert Murdoch) is
    ) of the opinion that popularity (and money!) lie in the direction (in formats involving news and opinion) of even-handedness
    and truth. And, to a large degree, Fox’ success is, in large part, due to understanding what people find desirable in their consumption of “news and views.”

    Fox, like the others, is free to make political contributions to
    either side (or both). For whatever reason, FOX has, year after year, been the SMALLEST contributor to the Democrats.
    Yet, during that time, the Democrats have received more than
    90% !!! of FOX political contributions. And Murdoch himself threw Hillary’s “hat in the ring” party (to the tune of $300,000)–
    when she originally decided to run against Obama for the party’s nomination.

  10. “the right-wing media’s enormous successes over the past quarter-century.”

    A great illustration of the Left’s utter intolerance of any opposition. The “right-wing media” has hung onto a small enclave in the US but even this is intolerable to the True Believer, so must be exaggerated, demonised and destroyed.

  11. “Progressives Need to Build Their Own Media” = the State should build a media that we control.

    Rob,

    “Typical Leftist – do everything twice at four times the price.”

    Why would they worry about costs, its always money belonging to people they hate because they are incapable of seeing that taxes damage the people they are allegedly helping – the poor and dispossessed.

  12. OT, but could some of the esteemed tax experts who comment here have a butchers at the unfolding wonderfulness that is Jeremy Corbyn’s tax return?

    Details here: https://order-order.com/2017/03/05/40000-missing-from-corbyns-tax-return/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+guidofawkes+%28Guy+Fawkes%27+blog+of+parliamentary+plots%2C+rumours+and+conspiracy%29

    It appears that JC has just published his tax return in an attempt to shame Phil Hammond into doing likewise, but has ‘forgotten’ to put about £40k income as Leader of Labour from Sept 2015 to April 2016 on the forms. The line being taken at the moment is that he took the salary and the tax was taken off at source so no underpayment of tax occurred. However his other income totals 114k, putting him in the 60% marginal tax hole, thus would I be right in thinking that even if he had the correct tax code for the additional Leaders salary, and 40% was removed at source, there would still be an additional 20% due on the income between 114k and 121k? Which would not have been paid at source and should have been paid with the tax return on 31st Jan this year?

  13. The Left is not very good at building institutions. They usually just take them over. Look at the BBC. Or NBC. Or the Times – both the London one and the New York copy.

    It takes a very firm owner to keep an institution in the centre.

    Presumably it is because the Left is the ideology of losers who aspire, at best, to be drones in some low-pressure (that is, government) office where they don’t need any testosterone. While founders, makers, creators, are usually larger than life men. Who vote to the Right.

  14. Andrew M:

    John Oliver has his own show once a week, the Daily Show is presented by Trevor Noah.

  15. “The Left is not very good at building institutions. They usually just take them over.”

    The old Left were very good at building things. Our great cities were built by municipal socialism building basic infrastructure, and some of our great newspapers were built by campainging liberals of the left. But then those carefully-built institutions were taken over and used as assets to play politics.

  16. jgh – “The old Left were very good at building things. Our great cities were built by municipal socialism building basic infrastructure”

    Oh f**k off. No they were not. In places like Birmingham Chamberlain nationalised existing gas companies. He did not build them. Indeed one of the objections to those gas companies was that they were competing too hard and laying too many gas mains – causing roads to be dug up too often. A case might be made for Birmingham’s water supply but I would like to see it. Chamberlain certainly decided that, having saddled Birmingham with enormous debts, the faster he got out of town and into national politics the better.

    “and some of our great newspapers were built by campainging liberals of the left.”

    Yeah. The Guardian.

    This is ignoring the fact that the liberalism of those days would now be on the Hard Right.

  17. This is ignoring the fact that the liberalism of those days would now be on the Hard Right.

    Bingo. If Trump had stood as a Labour candidate in the 70s, he’d probably have won with a landslide.

    Labour used to be the anti-EU, anti-immigration party, because they knew that unskilled immigrants would take their working-class supporters’ jobs. It was only when they realized they could push their policies through the EU and bring in millions of new Labour voters that they became the Anti-British Party.

  18. No they were not. In places like Birmingham Chamberlain nationalised existing gas companies.

    Someone paved the roads, built the schools and hospitals etc. It wasn’t, for the most part, right-wing private enterprise.

    Private enterprise will build roads, schools and hospitals — but not for the poor.

  19. Chester Draws

    Private enterprise will build roads, schools and hospitals — but not for the poor.

    What’s the point of being in business if not to make a profit?

  20. Someone paved the roads, built the schools and hospitals etc. It wasn’t, for the most part, right-wing private enterprise.

    Well, right wing wasn’t really a term then, outside of whatever Republique the French had managed to mangle themselves into by whichever point we are discussing.

    A lot of the infrastructure was built by philanthropy. And most of the contributors had the money – these were the cities not the country gentry – because they had made it in that evil, despised “right wing private enterprise”.

    It wasn’t “municipal socialism”.

  21. “According to this theory, coverage by Democracy Now! or Mother Jones or, yes, The Nation is all very well, but it preaches to the choir.”

    So you DO already have that progressive media you are calling for, it’s.just that nobody is tuning into you. And quite how is this new media going to be different from the stuff you are already putting out there?

  22. Chester Draws – “Someone paved the roads, built the schools and hospitals etc. It wasn’t, for the most part, right-wing private enterprise. Private enterprise will build roads, schools and hospitals — but not for the poor.”

    Really? Shakespeare went to the King’s New School as a boy. It would be interesting to argue whether that was private or not. The King eventually gave them some money. Christopher Marlowe went to another King’s School but this one was founded by a Bishop – allegedly Augustine of Canterbury. Harrow was founded by a rich farmer to educate local boys for free. Rugby was also founded as a school for the local poor. A lot of them were.

    Incidentally Harrow was also responsible for building and maintaining the road to London.

    Hospitals? By the middle of the 18th century there were five voluntary hospitals in London (St Barts, Guy’s, St Thomas’, Westminster and St George’s) which provided free medical care to those who could not afford it, however there were none in the east of the City, serving the rapidly growing, and comparatively impoverished population there; this was the void that the London Hospital was to fill. The institution that was to become the Royal London Hospital was founded on 23 September 1740, when seven gentlemen met in the Feathers Tavern in Cheapside in the City of London to subscribe to the formation of an “intended new infirmary.”

    Not one of those six hospitals was founded by the government. All were built and funded by rich men for the poor.

    So you are making a claim contrary to the entire history of the British education, health and transportation sectors.

  23. “Not one of those six hospitals was founded by the government. All were built and funded by rich men for the poor.”

    We had a discussion on here about when the first Govt hospital was built, the conclusion IIRC was some time in the ’60s.

  24. Not wholly and exactly. The first NHS built hospital, yes. Government, well, quite possibly municipal ones before that? Dunno myself.

  25. “You’d think that ‘the progressives’ would bynow have realized that their skill lies only in attacking, not doing the hard graft (and spending the long green) to actually **do** something.”

    Not quite true. There are a lot of leftists who will do ‘the long march’ through the institutions, showing a lot of patience in doing so, and greatly advancing the leftist cause as they gradually assume positions of power. (As others have said, they don’t build much themselves, they usually take over existing institutions — but they are, unfortunately, good at the latter.)

  26. “Someone paved the roads, built the schools and hospitals etc. It wasn’t, for the most part, right-wing private enterprise.”

    Chester, I suggest you have a read of James Bartholomew’s book ‘The Welfare State We’re In.’

  27. Chester Draws: The first good roads in England since the Romans were privately built toll roads beginning in the late 18th century.

    Previously the local council thieves of that century were paid money by the central state to maintain local roads. The councils put the money in their pockets and the roads were quagmires in winter and dustbowls in the summer.

    Private toll roads had by the 1830s ( when the also private railways came along to challenge them) reached a point where you could go from London to Edinburgh by coach and horses faster than you and traverse that distance today by electric car.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.