Friday, May 24, 2013

With News That Fox News' Bill O'Reilly Pulling 10 Times The Viewers @ 8PM As MSNBC's Chris Hayes - Black Progressive Blogger Chauncey DeVega Organizes A Protest To "Bring Ed Back", Reviving His Personal Goal Of Being A Television Guest Host Because Tom Hartman Is Not On A Prime Network



Article By Noah Rothman
With nearly three months having elapsed since MSNBC host Chris Hayes took over at the helm of his network’s 8 p.m. block — previously occupied by Ed Schultz — the show has regularly delivered disappointing ratings. His innovative weekend program Up often earning the applause of opinion leaders, Hayes was thought to be bringing his refreshing style to what had become the stale routine across the cable news spectrum in prime time. But in the weeks that followed his debut, MSNBC has been hemorrhaging viewers. They regularly finish third or even fourth behind their competition. What can Hayes do to turn his ship around? He must begin by recognizing that a cable news studio is not a classroom and that he has a duty to entertain as well as to inform. If he fails to adapt to the demands of a prime time audience, Hayes’ program will prove to be a short-lived experiment.
On the day that MSNBC announced Hayes would become the network’s new prime time anchor, I warned conservatives to take this development seriously. Hayes and Rachel Maddow know how to advance an agenda. This pair’s fact-based argumentation, I submitted, would trump the bombast that often suffices for a line of reasoning on the right. Every night, Hayes and Maddow would be arming their viewers with information and reasoning designed to advance liberalism. This has proven true. What I did not anticipate was the extent to which Hayes would drive viewers away with his consistent snubbing of what is driving the news cycle on any given day.

ANALYSIS

 Noah Rothman is pleased by the "fact-based argumentation" of Rachel Maddow and Chris Hayes for no other reason because they KEEP THEIR ENEMY ON TRIAL SO THEY DON'T HAVE TO INDICT THEIR FRIENDS.

Thus their "brilliance" is less in their "argumentation" or "facts" BUT in the fact that they FRAME the issues, always allowed to make an indictment against the "Right-Wing".

The "dark matter" that resides at the end of their argument are as follows:


  1. As they advocate for "The Least Of These" who are still downtrodden at this interval of time - they are predisposed to avoid making note of the fact that the Progressive-Fundamentalists have collected the "DEVELOPMENT FUND" from the Least Of These for many decades prior.  Thus instead of having a debate about the RELUCTANCE OF THE RIGHT to support "Social Justice" - a debate about the "Return On Investment" for the DEVELOPMENT of "The Least Of These" would expose them.
  2. Maddow loves to make reference to "Blue State North = GOOD", "Red State South = Bad" with respect to the misery index.   State-level granularity is where Ms Maddow prefers to stop because it allows her to evade a discussion about the "Mission Accomplished Cities".   The people who were compelled to put "Favorable People In Power" locally in the past are now driving for NATIONALIZED SOCIAL JUSTICE.   The same machine that made the promise about local development are now leveraging these seats of power as launching pads in their fight against the right at the national rungs of power.   MSNBC is NOT fighting for "The Least Of These'.  They are USING the grievances of the Least of These to FIGHT THE RIGHT WING.   The "fighting argumentation" provides the Least Of These with both A PURPOSE  for their "Struggle Motion" but, most importantly a motivation to COMPROMISE the normal demand of "What Happened To The Valuables I Already Gave You For My Development?  I Want You To SHOW ME That I Am Developed Before I Take Another Step"
  3. Immigration From The Vantage Point Of The Progressive Fundamentalist Is The Fight Against Right-Wing Xenophobic Intransigence.  If they can gather together a high minded, tolerant coalition they eventually slaughter the unevolved right-wing.    If you thing more globally - the issue is the granting of ACCESS TO OPPORTUNITY for foreign people into this, the most wealthy nation in the world.  Thus the progressive is positioned as the gateway to this opportunity.   BUT WAIT.   If the Mexican does not have access to opportunity in his country - what are the competencies of the caring American progressives at opening opportunity in Mexico?   A fraction of aggrieved Mexicans will ever migrate to the USA and receive the benefit.   Where are the voices of "Social Justice" who see what is going on down in Mexico, mounting "Social Justice Religious Missions" down to Mexico to provide structural support?

No comments: