When Charlie Gibson with ABC News acted ignorant of the booming ACORN corruption story while it was breaking, the pundits on the right were stunned that a major new anchor could be so insulated that he could miss such a story.

The rumors of John Edward’s notorious affair was buzzing in the alternate media for months before it was broken by….. the National Enquirer.  Yet the New York Times did not seem to hesitate to give front page coverage to a rumor about an affair between John McCain and a colleague that proved untrue.

Critics of those that oppose the health care proposals, fearing death panels and rationing, are deemed liars and paranoid lunatics, yet they are reacting to the actual words spoken and written by the likes of Robert Reich and Ezekial Emmanuel (Rahm’s brother), and others.

The proliferation of media outlets has drowned us in information. While many question the lack of professional credentials on the internet it seems to me that the professional media has much to answer for.  It was Dan Rather who reported lies about Bush that was discovered by an internet amateur, It was the New York Tines printing lies about McCain, It was Gibson at ABC who knew nothing about ACORN and it was all of them ignoring what so many already knew about Edwards.

Even at a professional level , reporters hear and see what they expect to see and hear- what they want to see and hear.  And with a media centered in locations far from the heartland, educated at universities far from the heartland, they tend to surround themselves with like minded professionals whose collective universe is far from the heartland.  Like media consumers the professionals tend to read for confirmation not information.

They are like a school of fish swimming in the same direction, fearing that the errant independent fish will end up on a hook.  Responding to a question as to how a media professional can miss a story in what appears to be an obviously biased fashion, Bernard Goldberg noted, “Does a fish know he is wet?”

It is a perfect metaphor for a media that is oblivious to a world it is centered in but cannot see.

Carrie O’Connell writes in American Thinker “I am not supposed to exist” read the entire article here.

A 26 year pro life Catholic woman, Carrie writes how her profile is totally absent from the collection of media stereotypes either in the news or in the entertainment sector, which  has become more difficult to distinguish.  She basically described herself as intelligent, educated, thoughtful and conservative- yet young and female.

The reason her article struck me is that it explained why one side is so surprised at the election outcomes.  When a voter profile that did not exist, or is deemed to be an extreme minority, sweeps an election, the other side is stunned.  They then dream up conspiracy theories and elitist stereotypes to explain the totally illogical outcome. They write involved analysis such “What’s the Matter with Kansas” to explain why Americans vote conservative even when it is against their best interests to do so (in the writer’s judgment).

This becomes even more true as the left and right isolates themselves further in their own media bubble, shutting out reasonable voices from the other side.   Without some cross pollination from the different camps there is no middle.

Whether you agree with Ms. O’Connell’s opinion is less relevant than the fact that many do not realize that her opinion exists, at least not in her demographic sector.

Some excerpts from her article:

“If I based my identity on how I see women my age represented on television and in the movies, my only conclusion is that I am not supposed to exist.”

“I don’t have cable television or an iPhone and I do not feel entitled to either. I do not feel that the government should have to provide me with necessities while I refuse to give up luxuries.”

“If I was voting on popularity and glamour, I would phone American Idol, not visit the ballot box.”

“Educated, well-read women who are pro-life are never written into character plots. I am told time and time again that art imitates life. When will they stop thinning the paint?”

An old show business adage is that bad publicity is better than no publicity at all.  In politics a corollary of that adage is that you never openly acknowledge the power of your opponents.

This holds double from the POTUS. When Obama demonizes Rush Limbaugh from the highest of the bully pulpits, he infuses him with a power he did not have before that moment. America still loves an underdog; it is one reason Obama won. You can run as an underdog, but you cannot successfully govern as one.

But now he is no underdog and to put a name and a face on the enemy is foolish and unprofessional. If he had left his amateurish mistake at Rush Limbaugh it would have been soon forgotten.

But now he has demonized an entire network.  You may or may not like Fox News, but for the POTUS to single handedly determine Fox News is not a legitimate news organization and to block it from critical coverage crosses a line from clumsy politics to threatening a free press.

Unlike demonizing Rush, demonizing Fox may also threaten their sponsors.  How far of a stretch is it from boycotting Fox to boycotting their sponsors. How easy would it be to use such power to squelch any political opposition?

This is dangerous territory. Even my most liberal friends should consider how they would react if their conservative counterparts wielded such power.  Never bestow power in a political entity that you would not want in the hands of your worst nightmare.

Unlike Rush which is largely followed ONLY by the party faithful,  Fox has a large number of independent viewers. To demonize Fox is to demonize their viewers. This could be a very costly political mistake.  Fox viewers cover a much bigger demographic content than Rush.  Plus this attack imbues Fox with a very powerful position as the only network willing to stand up to the president.

But possibly worse than demonizing Rush and Fox is openly criticizing the U.S Chamber of Commerce. Not only has the Chamber supported some Obama initiatives, but their membership includes many Democrats as well as independents. He now risks alienating his own party members.

Obama stands to die the political death of a thousand cuts, mostly self inflicted. Every controversial bill, which seems to be about all of them, has whittled away the support he enjoyed on inauguration day.  To demonize media critics, and institutions as American as apple pie, is to distance himself so far from the mainstream that he may not recover.

To be happy you need friends; to be successful you need enemies.  Obama’s amateurish statements stand to make his enemies successful.

I am a recovering twitternizer.

Twitternize is a word I made up; it is a combination of the words Twitter and patronize.

To twitternize is to play to your Twitter audience by either posting an entry you think the Twitter readers will like even if you do not agree with it or to avoid a subject you do believe in because you are afraid you will lose precious followers.

For example if you are a constant source of right of center political commentary and your followers almost all come from the right side of the spectrum and you want to post an entry critical of Sarah Palin you may be concerned that many of your followers are likely Sarah Palin followers and will drop you for trashing their right wing darling. You are so concerned over losing followers you decide not to post the criticism.

I finally realized that the broad freedom to share ideas with an unlimited supply of twitterers is worthless if I am to avoid topics or opinions that will cause followers to drop me.  My goal is not to collect the most number of followers. It is counterproductive to be so concerned with losing followers that I censor myself to appease narrow minded ideologues even if they lean conservative and may be a follower of my blog.

If one of my posting loses a follower because of content so be it. If you find my postings and thoughts worthy of following even if you disagree with some of them, then I am proud to call you a follower and I will be proud to follow you.

“Bill Maher is not a libertarian. He’s not even close. He’s a P.C. liberal.  The fact that he called his show Politically Incorrect is an absolute lie. If you watch Real Time and watch what he does to those that don’t tow the left-wing line, it’s a crime.  He’ll have a professor, Michael Eric Dyson on for hours to talk for hours on this post modern crap, and then he’ll go to Andrew Breitbart (creator of Breitbart.com and former editor The Drudge Report). Then when Andrew Breitbart starts talking, he’ll make a joke and everybody will laugh.  His trained seal audience of retarded nutbags will clap. And then the segment will end. So it looks like you saw two voices, but you really didn’t.  You heard this very long diatribe.”

“Libertarianism is a very cool thing to use as a disguise.  Bill Maher does not say he’s a liberal.  He says he’s a libertarian. I think Glen Beck is a libertarian, but he’s also got a very strong religious component, and it’s hard to put those two things together. I  think that “libertarian” provides cover for a lot of people.”

From Greg Gutfield  ”What You’re Left With Is Libertarianism” in the October 2009 Reason

One of the most valid criticisms of this blog is that I am only preaching to the choir. I may be voicing legitimate points, but it is not accomplishing much since few opposing my viewpoints will read it..

When I started writing Rebelyid is was not with any intent to persuade others to follow a different path.  Most of the time I wrote to just to clarify my own thinking whether it was to summarize books and articles or to explore ideas out loud. Writing helps bring disparate ideas to a logical conclusion.

I have no strong loyalty to the Republican Party, but I have less for the Democrats.  I mostly espouse libertarian thoughts, but I even find their party functionally sterile.  I find economics and history to be enlightening and I try to apply those perspectives on controversial issues; that is why I find the left and right descriptions to be irrelevant.

One of the compliments I value is when readers claim they cannot discern if I am liberal or conservative. When I approach an issue those are the two least important thoughts in my head.  I am sure that my recent posts make that seem unlikely since I oppose so much of Obama’s programs. If I am able to have any influence it was not my original goal.

But how does one have any influence on the readers? First of all I doubt if anything can have any influence on the extremes from either side.  I believe only the middle third are even open to an original or questioning thought. Most people read for confirmation not information. Once someone claims any party loyalty their thought process seems to focus on defending that position rather than to entertain any thought that would question or doubt their belief.

While I like to debate positions I am only interested in an open discourse.  Once the word ‘liar’ or ‘idiot’ is inserted into the debate I am done. When the person associated with a statement is the target more than the statement itself, I realize a debate is futile.

But the reality is that most people react and choose emotionally, not logically and few logical ideas will change them. To the extent that current myths can be debunked and more people will question their own positions I guess writers and bloggers may have some influence, but perhaps the best we can do is to continue to clarify in our own minds our positions and to continue to think them through so we are better prepared to promote and defend those ideas when the opportunity arises.

There probably isn’t much more a writer can do.

The best ads are those that deliver a direct benefit, that quickly and clearly deliver the compelling reason that you should choose that product or service from among its competitors.

“When it absolutely, positively has to be there overnight.” Fedex.

“We can save you 15% or more on your car insurance.” Geico.

Often creative orgies that win advertising awards only obscure the message and do not serve to sell the product.

Similarly an ad may try to borrow your interest in some sexually appealing, humorous, or emotionally triggering ad that really says nothing compelling as to why you should buy that product over others. It is a weak position and is an admission that there is really nothing unique or valuable about your business or product.

Even an attempt to “reposition” your competition (“We’re number 2 so we try harder”- Avis) which can be effective is weaker than having that singular position that distinguishes you from the crowd.

Rush Limbaugh is the “borrowed interest” that Democratic strategists have used to obscure their own message. Seeking to position their opponents by attaching them to an unpopular figure is another way of saying they do not have a compelling message and reason to maintain support.

Dealing with mass publicity and figures carries an uncontrollable risk that may easily backfire. Rush’s audience is growing from the attention and while he may be polarizing he is likely also gaining converts. Increasing the size of an audience to a show that constantly replays the unpopular actions of a president with declining poll numbers may not yield the results that such smug criticism of Rush anticipated.

Since it is still early in the game, Rush may be expanding the opposition in advance of another Republican leader who can galvanize the GOP well beyond the ditto heads.

The attacks on Rush may be easier than trying to explain why promoting broader unionization, creating huge deficits, increasing taxes, creating a new energy bureaucracy, a new health care bureaucracy, reducing charitable deductions, reducing home mortgage exemptions, allowing mortgage cramdowns, and bailing out irresponsible businesses and homeowners are good and responsible ideas.

After the litany of Bush blaming for the financial crisis has tired itself, one must explain why these approaches are a reasonable solution.

One also has to explain why the Treasury Department which should be the epicenter of the solution is still so understaffed while we address the questionable problems of global warming, the need for more unionization, and a need for universal college education.

Borrowing the voters’ interest by attacking Rush may give some sense of smug satisfaction but it is no substitute for generating rational support for your own policies.

Rush may be the General Patton who quickly punches through to the front, but there are many more that will cement his victory as they bring up the rear. There is much more to the opposition than your immediate target.

Media power is political power. Berlusconi is the prime minister of Italy and the owner of the dominant media outlets in the country. He can control his image in the press as few people can.

Michael Bloomberg, the mayor of New York, is the very successful owner of Bloomberg Media and he also has the advantage of a significant media outlet although there is more media competition in the United States.

It is hard to control the political benefit of media power without interfering with our cherished freedom of the press.

Critics have accused Rupert Murdoch of printing several similar editorials making the case for the war in Iraq in his 160 plus newspaper outlets. It is reminiscent of Randolph Hurst using his newpapers to influence the call to the Spanish American War.

Tips to Mark Deuze in the media department at Indiana University.

Facebook has added a whole new dimension to social networking, in fact reinventing it. Like any new media certain protocols develop; like learning not to capitalize all the letters in an e-mail message for fear of appearing loud or angry.

There are those who engage continuously through their iPhone or Blackberries and seem interested in sharing what seems to be the most trivial activities of their day. There are those that share links to entertaining videos or interesting articles.

There are those that engage through questions and lists about yourself.

I find that it is a fascinating place to add some depth to otherwise casual relationships, to rekindle old relations, and to get to know authors and readers with similar interests.

I follow my daughter and some of her friends but I am cautious to avoid ‘conversations’ with them less I appear to be intruding on her social network. I am cautious of appearing predatory towards women that I do not know and avoid ‘friending’ strangers unless we share at least 12 common friends.

While I share articles that I find offers some insight I try to avoid blatantly political and partisan attacks since I pride my ‘friend’ pool on its political diversity.

Facebook clearly is used by many to promote business interests and that is largely why I got involved. Combining business and social networks can have some real potential as long as it does not get overwhelmingly and blatantly commercial. People do like to do business with people they know and like.

To me Facebook is like a living Rolodex where you can get constantly updated information on your ‘friends’ and contacts. The new media has developed so fast that its uses are just being discovered, and every user gets to set his or her own rules.