Media’s Potemkin Village rattled?

Says PJ Media’s Michael Walsh:

The Leftist MSM may seem like a monolith, but mostly it’s a collection of rueful men and women who wish they were doing the things they’re assigned to cover, instead of actually covering them. Like groupies, they derive satisfaction and self-worth from orbiting the heavenly bodies they watch, and around whom they revolve. As I wrote on Twitter last night:

Dirty lil secret of MSM is that most would really rather be doing what the folks they cover do, Serious jealousy and fanboydom at work here.

What the candidates did the other night to the MSM should not be underestimated. At last, it was not just a lone Newt Gingrich bashing the ideological inanity of his interlocutors, but a number of them, including Cruz and Rubio. By presenting a relatively united front against the clear animosity emanating from the three CNBC hosts, the candidates were able to keep the focus off the stupid questions (“are you a comic book version of a campaign?) and onto the biases of the moderators themselves.

Which is why the morning-after headlines were not so much about who “won” but how CNBC — and by extension the entire MSM — disgraced itself. Bashing the media may not be a policy platform, but it’s nourishment and sustenance to a long-suffering conservative constituency which doesn’t much care whom or what is being bashed so long as somebody or something is being bashed. They’re tired of being punching bags, and especially tired of getting smacked around by folks like Reince Priebus (who approved the CNBC debacle), who are ostensibly on their side.

And which is also why the cracks around the foundations of MSM hegemony are a bigger story than most realize. More.

But then … unbelievably … Walsh seems to think that the solution is for non-progressives to try to get in at these declining behemoths.

First, the principal reason Potemkin is toppling is not that the Republicans showed some integrity for once, in refusing to play the media game, but that the Internet has steadily eroded the MSM fan base.

Attention, hence jobs and money, are going elsewhere.

The Republican establishment that will probably walk back any demand for rational balanced discussion cannot reverse that decline. They can, with luck, get engulfed in it.

Indeed, things could get so bad that American voters who used to be forced to vote for the GOP will start forming alternatives, using the Internet. Messy but the only hope of reform.

  • simus1

    Mandatory urine tests for all those participating in any way on the MSM side would probably tend to raise the intellectual level of discourse closer to that of a prison classroom.

  • David Murrell

    Perhaps I am the only one on the BCF boards here, who actually watches CNBC on a regular basis. I have about 2/3 of my investment portfolio in US stocks, so I watch CNBC. The is very little pure politics on the the network. They do discuss macroeconomic policy, and the bulk of the discussion is technical, from different viewpoints. Nearly all of the guests and staff are from the New York City area; they speak with New York accents; the only bias is trying to sound “New York cool”.

    I watch Becky Quick in the morning. She plays the role of the neutral moderator between two male hosts, one a liberal and one a conservative. But both men soft-sell their biases. The only real bias on the show is that of making money on the stock market and looking and sounding cool in New York.

    The only other remarkable thing on CNBC is that everyone is over-caffinated and most people interrupt each other.

    • disqus_PwGxBXHn8l

      Why are we supposed to wonder? In an age of progressive government, wealthy people protect their investments by going along individually in return for reduced chance of confiscation. They knew that they were doing, and they know who their audience is. I wish people like Michael Walsh would quit trying to fool readers.

    • simus1

      Do they regularly break stories about how the US is being looted and by whom? That would require considerable nerve or foolhardyness.