This is something I’ve been thinking about for some time, but it finally crystallized just now while reading What Would Google Do? by Jeff Jarvis. The book is about new business models versus the old. Openness vs. closed environments. Google vs. the world. Jarvis makes the point that the old way of corporations, in which they create something where “Companies own customers, control distribution, make exclusive deals, lock out competitors, [and] keep trade secrets,” is no longer how to succeed, because the Internet has destroyed that paradigm. The Internet has empowered consumers. The blogosphere can alternately destroy or create companies based on what we say, and how the crowd gathers around a certain topic. To this end, we as consumers must take control over the power we wield, and we must take responsibility to drive out individuals, companies or products that we deem to be destructive to what we want for the future.
Obviously, and most detrimental to this undertaking, knowledge is power. Not just knowledge of the situation and subjects, but knowledge of those running counter to us, and how they may use misinformation or distractions to lead us to give them what they want, and, we must also have full knowledge about how our actions truly effect the situation. In many cases, gathering a group around an issue will effect that issue in direct relation to the spirit of the gathering (ie. support leads to positive effects, and opposition will lead to negative effects for the target.) But, the key that people forget with this line of thinking is that those effects are tied directly to the culture of payment in question. For example, if a group gathers around the recent issue with Toyota car safety, that group can directly impact Toyota because ultimately we, as consumers, decide whether or not to buy a Toyota. However, in the case of media, all groups lead to a positive effect for the target, except for a group of boycotters.
This connects me to the Limbaugh Corollary (alternately the Howard Stern Corollary, or Fox News Corollary.) When it comes to media, all attention, good or bad, is ultimately good for the target. If you love Rush Limbaugh, aside from being willfully ignorant on issues, you will listen to him and you will tell others to listen, leading to better ratings and more advertising revenue for Rush. However, the problem arises in that most people who hate Limbaugh will listen because they “want to know what he’s going to say,” thus making his comments newsworthy to those who don’t agree with him, their friends, and on until reputable news sources are even guilty of spreading links to content that is better off ignored.
I understand that even writing this blog connects me to this vicious circle, but only in the hopes that I may convince more like-minded people to follow my path. Because in the end, you cannot fight misinformation with the truth when the misinformation is being promulgated by everyone. If you want to go to every supporter of Fox News and Rush Limbaugh, you’ll have far more luck. Because the only thing that will kill Fox News and Limbaugh is if we all ignore them, and urge other influential sources to do the same. We all have to realize that Fox News and Rush Limbaugh are not pushing content that they actually believe in, they are simply pushing content that they know will sell. Whether or not Limbaugh or Hannity believe the bile that they spew forth is irrelevant. All that matters to them is growing their audience, and if you are part of their audience, you are part of the problem, in my opinion.
As Jeff Jarvis sums up so well: If I link to a story, “I’m recommending that you watch it. Even if I criticize the show, I’m saying there’s something worth seeing and discussing.” There is nothing worth seeing or discussing with partisan so-called “news”, this includes MSNBC just as much as Fox News and Rush Limbaugh. But, I’m willing to bet if you tracked the stories on both networks, MSNBC runs stories on Fox News much more often than Fox covers what’s said on MSNBC. And, in the end, all that does is bring more of the conversation towards Fox News.
Probably the best option would be to enact laws similar to England, where such stations wouldn’t legally be able to call themselves “news” organizations, but rather “entertainment” (one reason why BBC is one of the best true “news” organizations in the world,) but I have no faith in that ever coming to pass, because the people would never support government intervention into media like that. So, that leaves the work to us, and it’s not really difficult work. All you have to do is ignore it, don’t support it, and don’t support any supposed “news” outlet that does.
Pingback: The Argument Against MSNBC and Fox News | A Voice With Opinions
Good luck but the average person is already voting with their feet by leaving the left leaning news outlets and watching Fox News… So enjoy em while ya can before they disappear…
Other then that This article is an excellent example of Verbal Terrorism and hatred that is being promoted by the left these days…
Admittedly, I focused too much on Fox News in this post, something I’ve tried to rectify in my newer post. I’m not specifically against right-leaning news, and for left-leaning. I don’t want my news outlets, or any news outlet that is supposedly informing the “average person” to be leaning at all. I want it standing straight, and actually fulfilling its job of informing the public in an unbiased way.
That said, the phrase “Verbal Terrorism” does a wonderful job of highlighting your own hypocrisy. If you’d like to have a conversation about your views, I’m all for it. But, calling this post “terrorism” shows you are obviously threatened by true civil discourse and would rather quash it with mudslinging.
Had you called for a boycott instead of for killing Fox news I wouldn’t have labeled your article Verbal Terrorism and placed you in the same category as Sean Hannity and Glen Beck…
I am neither a liberal nor a conservative but an independent thinker who makes up his own mind on the issues being debated after listening to both sides.
Unfortunately both the left and the right in this country have proven to be little better then hate groups competing with each other to see who can hate the most.
Okay, I see the problem here now. The original title to this post had been “The Limbaugh Corollary”, but I quickly realized that title wouldn’t do very well in searches, so for a little SEO, I changed the title to the current one. So, you somehow found my blog post (I will assume you were drawn in by the new title, as it was designed to do,) then you didn’t actually bother to read the post, because a boycott is exactly what I am calling for.
Examples:
bottom of paragraph 3: “content that is better off ignored.”
middle of paragraph 4: “Because the only thing that will kill Fox News and Limbaugh is if we all ignore them,”
and let’s not forget the final sentence of the blog: “All you have to do is ignore it, don’t support it, and don’t support any supposed “news” outlet that does.”
If the death of “entertainment news” is the byproduct of such a boycott, then so be it. As an “independent thinker”, I would hope you would get to that conclusion yourself, but I suppose it would help if you read what I wrote and didn’t just focus on the title and assume the rest.
Once again it comes down to your intent to kill Fox news because you don’t agree with their political views instead of competing with them in the public square…
Not only is that promoting hatred but economic terrorism…
But then again I’m not surprised since the left (liberal democrats) morphed into a hate group years ago.
1) It’s not a matter of competing with Fox News, the problem is that they masquerade as a “news” organization, which is supposedly “Fair and Balanced”, when they are obviously neither. News organizations should be impartial and objective. Fox News and MSNBC tend to be neither, and therefore should not be allowed to take up the same space as true news organizations. They are political entertainment channels and should be designated as such, and not bundled together with real news channels.
2) For someone who claims to be an “independent free thinker”, you seem to do nothing but slam the left and defend the right. Hypocrisy.
3) You keep repeating that the left has become a hate group, and yet you never seem to mention how the right is also responsible for hate speech. Was it someone from the left who shouted “baby-killer” as the health care passed? Was it someone from the left who started the Birther or Tea Bagger movement?
4) Tagging the word “terrorism” onto anything that you don’t agree with is far more detrimental to society than anything I will ever say. All you do by tossing around the word “terrorism” all the time is to chip away at what makes democracy possible: free speech and open conversation. If you don’t like what I say, ignore me. If you want to label everything as “terrorism” go work for the Chinese government.