The Message Machine in Action

[RecycleMichael]

Actually, they are just trying to make themselves more acceptable to the more liberal voters in this country.
 
 

If that were true, that would be funny.

[Gaspar]

Extraordinarily weird.....

Extraordinarily primitive!  

I like the contrast in eccentricity that the two movements offer.  

[Townsend]

If that were true, that would be funny.

I'm curious how long you could go tit-for-tat naming a busted conservative and then a busted liberal.  They'd need to be well known.

Televangelists would take a considerable amount of time if you don't consider them an act.

[we vs us]

One of the major differences between the right and left in this country is the ability to market ideas.  The right has an exceptional structure built for that, while the left is still struggling.  This article was interesting to me because it showed in striking detail how some of the verbiage and ideas get created and disseminated.  And to whom.  What's even more interesting to me is how some of Luntz's constructions show up on this forum in arguments that we have.  What that tells me is that the right in this country is able to package their ideas and get them to people on the ground almost immediately.  There may not be a sense of where the argument originates -- it may be Luntz, or the National Review, or Fox News, or Neil Boortz, or XYZ -- but folks who are generally conservative will hear them, fit them in immediately into the general right worldview, and then start arguing them in chat rooms and lunch rooms across the country.  

The left has much less of that kind of structure built out.  The so-called liberal media is still a group of outlets put together explicitly as news organizations, and so the messages that they put out aren't necessarily marketable. Even the folks who you'd think would be liberal message people -- aren't as tuned into the general leftie psyche as you'd think.  Olbermann left his perch at MSNBC (which, in viewership still pales in comparison to Fox News) and went to an even more obscure network; Michael Moore had his 15 min and is now only barely listened to.  Maddow and Krugman are probably the most popular thought people on the left, but even they have a really limited reach compared to talk radio + Fox News.  

[Conan71]

One of the major differences between the right and left in this country is the ability to market ideas.  The right has an exceptional structure built for that, while the left is still struggling.  This article was interesting to me because it showed in striking detail how some of the verbiage and ideas get created and disseminated.  And to whom.  What's even more interesting to me is how some of Luntz's constructions show up on this forum in arguments that we have.  What that tells me is that the right in this country is able to package their ideas and get them to people on the ground almost immediately.  There may not be a sense of where the argument originates -- it may be Luntz, or the National Review, or Fox News, or Neil Boortz, or XYZ -- but folks who are generally conservative will hear them, fit them in immediately into the general right worldview, and then start arguing them in chat rooms and lunch rooms across the country.  

The left has much less of that kind of structure built out.  The so-called liberal media is still a group of outlets put together explicitly as news organizations, and so the messages that they put out aren't necessarily marketable. Even the folks who you'd think would be liberal message people -- aren't as tuned into the general leftie psyche as you'd think.  Olbermann left his perch at MSNBC (which, in viewership still pales in comparison to Fox News) and went to an even more obscure network; Michael Moore had his 15 min and is now only barely listened to.  Maddow and Krugman are probably the most popular thought people on the left, but even they have a really limited reach compared to talk radio + Fox News.  

Perhaps if the left could find more credible messengers than Algore, Olberdoosh, Madcow, Stewart Smalley, Alec "YOU PIG!" Baldwin, and Jeannie Garafalo they might gain traction.

[Townsend]

One of the major differences between the right and left in this country is the ability to market ideas.  The right has an exceptional structure built for that, while the left is still struggling.  This article was interesting to me because it showed in striking detail how some of the verbiage and ideas get created and disseminated.  And to whom.  What's even more interesting to me is how some of Luntz's constructions show up on this forum in arguments that we have.  What that tells me is that the right in this country is able to package their ideas and get them to people on the ground almost immediately.  There may not be a sense of where the argument originates -- it may be Luntz, or the National Review, or Fox News, or Neil Boortz, or XYZ -- but folks who are generally conservative will hear them, fit them in immediately into the general right worldview, and then start arguing them in chat rooms and lunch rooms across the country.  

The left has much less of that kind of structure built out.  The so-called liberal media is still a group of outlets put together explicitly as news organizations, and so the messages that they put out aren't necessarily marketable. Even the folks who you'd think would be liberal message people -- aren't as tuned into the general leftie psyche as you'd think.  Olbermann left his perch at MSNBC (which, in viewership still pales in comparison to Fox News) and went to an even more obscure network; Michael Moore had his 15 min and is now only barely listened to.  Maddow and Krugman are probably the most popular thought people on the left, but even they have a really limited reach compared to talk radio + Fox News.  

The politically conservative crowd support group?

[we vs us]

Perhaps if the left could find more credible messengers than Algore, Olberdoosh, Madcow, Stewart Smalley, Alec "YOU PIG!" Baldwin, and Jeannie Garafalo they might gain traction.

Well, see . . . all of those folks are just as credible as O'Reilly, Beck, Hannity, Coulter, etc etc but for whatever reason the talk radio/TV folks on the right have been able to keep a strong core audience and remain pivotal launching points for how the message is disseminated.  The folks you named on the left aren't coordinated, aren't pushing out a singular message, and are in some ways isolated to their small parts of the leftie firmament.  

Also, IMO:  the left tires of its messengers a lot quicker than the right does.  Case(s) in point:  Michael Moore, Janeane Garafolo, Cindy Sheehan, even Olbermann to a degree.  In general most of the leftie folks that were active during Bush II are nowhere to be seen.  

[Conan71]

Well, see . . . all of those folks are just as credible as O'Reilly, Beck, Hannity, Coulter, etc etc but for whatever reason the talk radio/TV folks on the right have been able to keep a strong core audience and remain pivotal launching points for how the message is disseminated.  The folks you named on the left aren't coordinated, aren't pushing out a singular message, and are in some ways isolated to their small parts of the leftie firmament.  

Also, IMO:  the left tires of its messengers a lot quicker than the right does.  Case(s) in point:  Michael Moore, Janeane Garafolo, Cindy Sheehan, even Olbermann to a degree.  In general most of the leftie folks that were active during Bush II are nowhere to be seen.  

Sure, there's a singular message: SoaktherichglobalwarmingblameBush.

[we vs us]

Sure, there's a singular message: SoaktherichglobalwarmingblameBush.

That's, like, three different things. And it's not even a sentence. 

There's a difference between simply stating a single policy belief and being able to successfully market those beliefs.  One of the things that interested me about OWS is that it's been very active in marketing its ideas -- rather than simply stating them.  It's one of the other reasons that Obama's presidential campaign (as distinct from his administration) was fascinating:  it crafted messages and marketed them very successfully.  (FWIW, I think he's completely dropped the ball on the marketing/messaging end of things during the last 3 years; his brand is mostly trashed at this point, partly because of the GOP and partly because of his own failure to engage). 

[Red Arrow]

One of the major differences between the right and left in this country is the ability to market ideas.  

Another is the acceptance of those ideas once they've been marketed.

[Red Arrow]

Sure, there's a singular message: SoaktherichglobalwarmingblameBush.

You forgot Gogreenatanycostregardlessofthebenefits.

[we vs us]

Another is the acceptance of those ideas once they've been marketed.

"Once they've been marketed."  

EDIT:  Not that I think there's anything inherently wrong with marketing.  As Luntz proves, it's crucial to define yourself in simple terms for easy consumption. 

[Red Arrow]

"Once they've been marketed."  
EDIT:  Not that I think there's anything inherently wrong with marketing.  As Luntz proves, it's crucial to define yourself in simple terms for easy consumption. 

You either missed or intentionally are ignoring the implied message that even a well marketed idea can be rejected. 

You could make an advertisement for liver and onions that would have some people drooling in anticipation. I don't care for liver.  I would not buy your liver and onions.  I do like onions.  I would not buy onions cooked with liver though.

[heironymouspasparagus]

 What's even more interesting to me is how some of Luntz's constructions show up on this forum in arguments that we have.

It's that 'script' that I keep talking about.  Now we have the concrete example of one "how-to" class they offer.

[Red Arrow]

It's that 'script' that I keep talking about.  Now we have the concrete example of one "how-to" class they offer.

Think you can make it work for you?