On Tue, 31 May 2011, Doug Henwood wrote:
> That RS piece says that some study claimed that it shifted 200,000 votes
> to Bush in 2000, but that was 0.2% of the votes.
True enough. But again, I think the vote mechanism is not through the broad electorate but through the Republican primary electorate. I think part of Dickenson's argument is that Fox was a sine non qua for the Tea Party to become a force. And this produced primary candidates to forcefully challenge Repugs from the right. In this way, a propaganda machine mobilized real votes in a way that strategically changed the discourse.
I think much of the history story in this article is that although Ailes invented many of these forms 40 years ago,, he didn't truly achieve his goal until last few years. And that this is why the Repugs are suddenly utterly dominated by the batshit wing that for decades was a constant fringe.
Michael