Tilted
05-30-2012, 11:20 AM
or maybe it's cognitive dissonance or maybe it's just old fashioned irony...
The likes of MSNBC or the New York Times (or Fox News for that matter) lamenting the impact of Super PACs on the political process. Are these people serious with this nonsense? What the hell does Ed Schultz think that MSNBC is? Not technically, but for practical purposes it's a Super PAC - or, at least, that's one of the things that it is. The money being spent by 'Super PACs' pales in comparison to that which is spent, and has for a while been spent, by the likes of MSNBC, CBS, Fox News, the Washington Post, the Washington Times, and hundreds and hundreds of other networks, newspapers, radio stations, internet sites, etc. - and that money influences elections.
The flood of money supposedly coming in in the wake of Citizens United - the amount of influence supposedly being bought by these Super PACs - this supposedly new, nefarious phenomenon - is nothing compared to the influence exerted by traditional (and new) media. MSNBC's 24 / 365 coverage of, and commentary on, issues has a lot more impact on voters' decisions than the $10 million or $20 million or $50 million that some Super PAC spends buying ads to try to sway voters (at least, it does when you combine MSNBC with other media sources that reach broader audiences). This Super PAC money is a minor concern - of minor importance - when compared to ongoing media coverage. That's where the real political influence is.
Just stop Ed, you have no credibility. None. You, and the likes of you, are the mother of all Super PACs.
The likes of MSNBC or the New York Times (or Fox News for that matter) lamenting the impact of Super PACs on the political process. Are these people serious with this nonsense? What the hell does Ed Schultz think that MSNBC is? Not technically, but for practical purposes it's a Super PAC - or, at least, that's one of the things that it is. The money being spent by 'Super PACs' pales in comparison to that which is spent, and has for a while been spent, by the likes of MSNBC, CBS, Fox News, the Washington Post, the Washington Times, and hundreds and hundreds of other networks, newspapers, radio stations, internet sites, etc. - and that money influences elections.
The flood of money supposedly coming in in the wake of Citizens United - the amount of influence supposedly being bought by these Super PACs - this supposedly new, nefarious phenomenon - is nothing compared to the influence exerted by traditional (and new) media. MSNBC's 24 / 365 coverage of, and commentary on, issues has a lot more impact on voters' decisions than the $10 million or $20 million or $50 million that some Super PAC spends buying ads to try to sway voters (at least, it does when you combine MSNBC with other media sources that reach broader audiences). This Super PAC money is a minor concern - of minor importance - when compared to ongoing media coverage. That's where the real political influence is.
Just stop Ed, you have no credibility. None. You, and the likes of you, are the mother of all Super PACs.