Zitat

---

The dirty little secret of liberal media is that it doesn’t work

---

I guess one has to define "doesn't work."

While liberal media might not sell a lot of advertising or gain a lot of viewers, it's pretty good at getting statists and fascists elected, and rigging elections.

I'd say Soros is getting a pretty good bang for his buck.

Thank you for the ping, Justme.

Thx Thx

Zitat

---

It’s the agenda that has always been the issue. What conservatives understand and most of the country does not, is that the issues being debated are not singular events. It’s not just about an individual tax hike or gay marriage or background checks for gun owners. It’s about a larger agenda being put into place piece by piece. And that agenda is the ultimate taboo topic. It’s the thing we aren’t supposed to talk about.

---

Quote: Justme wrote in post #1

---

@/Greenfield@FP123@Sanguine@algernonpj@Palinista@W-Girl



The dirty little secret of liberal media is that it doesn’t work. Outlets that identify explicitly as liberal usually play to a very marginal audience. Mother Jones begs money from its readers in the same obnoxious way as PBS. NPR relies on donors. The New Republic is flailing. Liberal mags that succeed do it by focusing on a topic that overlaps with a liberal target audience and embeds their articles there.

It works for magazines like Rolling Stone and the New Yorker. Online sites like Huffington Post and Buzzfeed succeed by filling themselves with so much trash that the politics becomes a sideline. The liberal brand is fine when it’s stuffed into culture, elitist or trashy. It doesn’t however stand on its own two feet. It can’t, because it has no real appeal.

---

Quote: sneakypete wrote in post #5

---

Quote: Justme wrote in post #1

---

@/Greenfield@FP123@Sanguine@algernonpj@Palinista@W-Girl



The dirty little secret of liberal media is that it doesn’t work. Outlets that identify explicitly as liberal usually play to a very marginal audience. Mother Jones begs money from its readers in the same obnoxious way as PBS. NPR relies on donors. The New Republic is flailing. Liberal mags that succeed do it by focusing on a topic that overlaps with a liberal target audience and embeds their articles there.

It works for magazines like Rolling Stone and the New Yorker. Online sites like Huffington Post and Buzzfeed succeed by filling themselves with so much trash that the politics becomes a sideline. The liberal brand is fine when it’s stuffed into culture, elitist or trashy. It doesn’t however stand on its own two feet. It can’t, because it has no real appeal.

---

Not entirely true. It REALLY appeals to snobs and others with inferiority or guilt complexes.

In fact,the truest thing you can say about leftism is that it is based on jealousy and class warfare.

---

The problem with the liberal media is that there's just too much of it. They're 90% of the media trying to cater to perhaps 30% of the population.

There's just no market to support them anymore.

Quote: Sanguine wrote in post #6

---

[quote=sneakypete|p42374][quote=Justme|p42366]@/Greenfield@FP123@Sanguine@algernonpj@Palinista@W-Girl



\
@sneakypete

I ran across this comment in something that i was reading some time ago, and it really resonates. Would love to hear some opinions on it.

Lippman's Lies DakConserve • 9 hours ago
o
o
Hardly Marxist. Progressive is more correct. It's an important item to distinguish. Progressivism historically was a false (faux) Marxism that was employed by very powerful European elites who were terrified of all the revolution going around. They constructed an alternative: the Master (or feudal lord) will give you those social benefits Marxism promises, like income security, health care security, etc., if you just empower the Master to be all powerful.

The result is a war by the elites on the middle class, intended to seize and redistribute their wealth to the lumpenproletariat (dirty, useless lower class consisting of criminals, slackers, frauds, welfare cheats, etc. In other words, the 47% Romney spoke of that are the ObamaPhone types. The masses on food stamps that won't work). Like Mao, progressives pitch one subordinated class against another. Progressivism keeps the lower class from coming to chop off the heads of the elites, tricked in believing Jews, merchants, white collar mid-level professionals in the Tea Party, soccer moms, etc. are the enemy stealing all their goodies.

This is not Marx. His ideology is fatally flawed too, but we need to keep the enemy in focus. Progressives are the rich elite nobility (Al Gore, George Soros, Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, the Google founders, Hollywood, Obama's rich grandma who owned banks, etc.), etc.

---

Quote: Justme wrote in post #9

---

.sneakypete and everyone

Sorry for the threadjack but the pings here are in a very VERY beta stage. Please try to remember to not quote pings. I'm trying to improve it, thanks for your help and patience

---

Oh....

Quote: Justme wrote in post #9

---

@sneakypete and everyone

Sorry for the threadjack but the pings here are in a very VERY beta stage. Please try to remember to not quote pings. I'm trying to improve it, thanks for your help and patience

---

thanks for the post and ping

Quote: Rufus T Firefly wrote in post #2

---

Zitat

---

The dirty little secret of liberal media is that it doesn’t work

---

I guess one has to define "doesn't work."

While liberal media might not sell a lot of advertising or gain a lot of viewers, it's pretty good at getting statists and fascists elected, and rigging elections.

I'd say Soros is getting a pretty good bang for his buck.

---

This is a very good point. The MSM has proved to be a major agent in replacing our traditional culture and ethics with Cultural Marxism / Political Correctness.