From Ace of Spades HQ:
So, all else being equal, it makes perfect sense for the 15-20% of our population that barely knows anything at all to politics to stick to the safe harbor of the default script.
This is the MFM’s greatest achievement — that for this 15-20% of the population that has no serious, structure political beliefs at all, an adherence to the general basics of liberalism is the default setting. All ties go to the liberals, in other words, and that’s big thing, isn’t it?
And that is why I fluctuate between treating the Democratic Party and the MFM as our top opponents in politics. Yes, it’s the Democratic Party on the ballot every two years.
But, as Andrew Breitbart rages in his stump speech [here], it’s actually the MFM which props the Democratic Party up by delivering unto them 15-20% of the public they never had to convince or fight for. 15-20% of the vote is delivered to the liberal camp every election simply because the media has established that’s the way nice people who just want what’s good — and want the least hassle over politics — vote.
And I think a fair number of partisan liberals understand this (far more than would be willing to admit it) and that accounts for their rage at FoxNews and Rush Limbaugh and any other contrary voice. If the Democrats’ advantage among soft-liberal apathetics declined to 15-20% to 10% or 5% or (God Forbid!) no advantage at all, they could start seriously losing elections.
Makes sense to me!
The main body of the post is actually regarding why
Time Newsweek magazine is going bust. Spoiler:
If you look at television — the days of general interest programming are almost gone entirely. TV shows tend to skew, harder and harder, to one specific demographic and less effort to appeal to anyone other than that demographic.
At any rate — to be brief (ahem) — I think that is what has doomed Newsweek. Not really its liberalism, or its lying about it.
But the simple fact that Newsweek always existed for people who didn’t like or care about politics, but simply wanted to make some token gesture of being a well-informed citizen concerned about such matters. It was never read by people who seriously cared about these matters, but in fact played almost exclusively to those who precisely did not care.
It was pretend politics for the pretense of it.
But people are getting out of that habit. If someone is not interested in politics anymore, they feel less and less an obligation to even pretend to keep up with it with a fake news magazine like Newsweek.
If you really care about politics, you can read any one of a dozen magazines that give you a more substantive look at the news.
If you don’t really care about politics, you can read Newsweek, but then again, why the hell should you?
And Newsweek was a manner of “keeping up” with politics for someone who would rather be reading celebrity gossip.
Newsweek’s chief competitor wasn’t The Economist.
Newsweek’s chief competitor was actually People Magazine.