Make-believe "political" strategists of TV
[font size="18"][font color="red"]H[/font][/font]ere's what it looks like when the "manipulators"
are out manipulated by the MSM.
A 2006 article at Politico illustrates the absurdity
and blatant manipulation of voters perceptions
through the use of perceived authority.
MSM frequently presents people as "authorities"
or "insiders" using the term "analyst" or "strategist".
Truth be known, even the supposed "analysts" don't believe their own hype!
However, the "real" manure shoveler are upset that the MSM's
BS shovelers are injecting their own spin before the
"bona fide" strategists can spread their talking points.
Jane Fleming Kleeb went on The OReilly Factor two weeks ago to talk about global warming, a topic on which, by her own admission, shes hardly an expert. So who, then, is Jane Fleming Kleeb? Well, according to the Chyron that flashed across the screen after Bill OReilly introduced her, she is a Democratic strategist. But shes hardly that, either.
The first time they called me a strategist, Fleming Kleeb recalls, I literally laughed on TV.
Interesting? How did that happen?
Thus, Fleming Kleeb was anointed a Democratic strategist and made regular appearances on cable news shows as such, before decamping from Washington for Nebraska, where her husband is running for a U.S. Senate seat. She now makes about one appearance per week via satellite feed from the heartland.
Oh, that makes sense in a disingenuous manipulative way
But what do "real" strategists think about all that??
Its like Noahs ark. There are a couple of these people, a couple of those people, with no skill and no real analytical ability.
Yeah Ed, that's right!
Who are these people?
Well Ed, they are people who look good AND....
will say EXACTLY what the MSM expects them to say!
You know, spout talking points favorable to their paymaster.
If you are a professional political strategist, says CNN Political Director Sam Feist, this is what youve done for your career. You have worked on a campaign or been a significant member of a campaign team.
Aparently the problem the "bona fide strategists" have with
"fake" strategists is that they are in competition for talking points.
The paid political, bona fide strategist, want to frame the issues
and control the narrative while the fake strategists are hired guns
for the MSM that undercut the party narrative. Interesting.
Meanwhile, we are awash in electronic media propaganda...
Scuba
(53,475 posts)Cosmic Kitten
(3,498 posts)The Politico article goes on how the "strategist's"
framing changes depending on the host show.
On O'reilly some are called "Political Analyst"
while the same person is identified as a
"Democratic Strategist" on Hannity and Colmes.
aspirant
(3,533 posts)Maybe we should go back to stopping people on the street and asking their opinion. The everyday guy/gal would be just as informative and free, but we're missing the control factor.
Cosmic Kitten
(3,498 posts)The thrust of the thread is about "political strategists"
Not so much about polling, although polls are a tool of analysts.
Polls are fine if presented EXACTLY what results reflect.
The problem with polling is, a "percentage"
is given to "validate" a political narrative.
For example: 60% of "liberals" support TPP.
What does that mean?
60% of how many people, from what place, of what demographic?
Then there is the "weighting" of results to reflect national demographics ;~/
Now if the poll was reported as 300, middle-class, mostly white males,
with college educations, making over $50,000, living in southern states,
out of 500... support the TPP that would be honest.
Saying 60% sounds soooo much more persuasive.
Polls are essentially lies of OMISSION.
aspirant
(3,533 posts)If you read any of my GD posts you will know I've gone beyond your accurate poll analysis.Predictions,estimates and guesses and the difference between inferential stats vs descriptive stats. Finding there is no govt oversight, just AAPOR who asks polling companies to sign an oath. I've even called pollsters and asked for the names and contact #'s of the sample to verify their results, response "absolutely not." Called AAPOR and asked with their signed oath are you able to verify opinion surveys, response no. Then asked, how do we know they don't make these #'s up out of thin air, silence on the phone.
We could ask the street people questions on political strategy and not present it as a poll, just your neighbors point of view.
Polls are only as reliable as the person(s) who commissioned and Paid for them is honest
Scuba
(53,475 posts)Blanks
(4,835 posts)Cosmic Kitten
(3,498 posts)Asking open ended questions versus closed questions
has little bearing on how informed the respondent is.
Isn't it possible the people who actually participate
in phone polls are even LESS INFORMED?
After all they wasted 10 minutes replying yes/no
somewhat/not at all/neutral to a barrage of questions
from a complete stranger.
aspirant
(3,533 posts)Maybe the pollsters just pick #'s out a hat.
Blanks
(4,835 posts)Just based on the shit that appears on my Facebook news feed, people have all kinds of perceptions about what is going on in the world.
In that video that I posted, I got the impression based on the sounds that the audience made that a lot of them had no idea that the ACA and Obamacare are the same thing.
The interesting thing is how often conservatives tout opinion polls as facts. As though it's significant what people 'think'.
Cosmic Kitten
(3,498 posts)we see it here at the DU everyday?!?!
The TPP and HRC's "50 point lead"
are very apropos examples.
The ACA-Obama Care asininity reminds me
of the tee party demanding that the "gubmint"
keep it's hands off my Medicare... bwahahaha
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)'fake strategists'. After all it was people like Rollins who 'strategized' us into Republican policies which include ensuring the maximum Corporate profit margins by paying workers as little as possible.
He just got out-strategized by his own 'work'.
They don't call it 'infotainment' for nothing.
Cosmic Kitten
(3,498 posts)Nice ;~)
It is ironic how TPTB struggle to control the narraitve
and how economic interests dictate the direction
of the conversations.
fredamae
(4,458 posts)come in handy and are Well exercised IF I choose to turn on the "tv machine" for "my daily dose of corporate messaging", at all.
There is simply Nothing to learn from Any MSM Corporate source anymore.
Cosmic Kitten
(3,498 posts)It's just a matter of "retuning" our antennas.
The MSM often "telegraphs" their agenda
and "projects" it's own fear and concerns
onto the opposition.
That alone is worth a listen once
you pass through the looking glass ;~)
fredamae
(4,458 posts)Once and I came back I heard all I needed to hear "over-there". Have they changed? Or have they just been more creative in finding new ways and people to project the same thing they said in 1969?
Cosmic Kitten
(3,498 posts)Yes, they have changed.
And so has the "media" landscape.
Social media is inherently Populist.
It affords opportunity to interact in ways
that were inconceivable in 1969.
Just ask the founders of EFF
Scuba
(53,475 posts)Scuba
(53,475 posts)Cosmic Kitten
(3,498 posts)before the 2016 elections