question, re: penetrating the RW bubble

[reflection]

I watched some talking head a couple of nights ago bemoan the fact that RWers have created this safe echo chamber space for themselves to live in, an alternative reality. Which I completely agree with. But the tone and tenor of the complaint was that the bubble is impenetrable.

On it's face, this may be a dumb question, but why couldn't the HRC camp, which is flush with money, buy ad time on the Fox News Channel, or even their website? I'm pretty sure I've seen Trump ads on MSNBC. If the answer is that Fox News simply would not accept her money and refuse her ads, then I would think HRC could just keep a tally of all the rejections and show them to discredit Fox News... stating that turning down ad revenue from only HRC tells you all you need to know about that "fair and balanced" channel.

I guess what I'm saying is that you either spend money to advertise inside the bubble and peel the few off who aren't totally brainwashed, or try to spend money and build the airtight case that Fox News is lock, stock and barrel owned by the GOP.

Am I missing something? Does anyone know if Clinton ever tried to advertise on Fox?

[orwell]

1. I would think...

...that they are placing ads where they think they will have the most impact on winning the election. Your strategy seems to be more of a long term effort akin to brand building.

The RW media monster is mainly driven by their dominance on radio. I could argue that radio is a more important delivery mechanism than television as TV is rapidly losing ground to online media.

The two targets for emphasis going forward if you want to build brand would seem to be radio first, online second.

As far as the election at this stage they are concentrating resources on getting out their voters and trying to peel off independents.

The hard core RCon is unreachable at this stage.

[tonyt53]

2. The people that religiously watch FoxNews would never vote for her, so it would be wasted money

It would be fun to antagonize them though.

[reflection]

3. I'm talking about the ones

who are not completely lost. There's some of them out there. And in response to the earlier poster, yes I agree it would be a wasted effort now. But early in the campaign, it might have been a good strategy, even if all it did was convince some RWers that Fox was no longer to be trusted, that they were no different than CNN, MSNBC, et al.

[tonyt53]

5. Very few would ever change their minds.

[BlueCaliDem]

6. If they religiously watch Fox "News" Channel and listen to H8te Radio, they're lost.

As I've always said, you can lead a RWer to facts, but you can't make them think.

[Agnosticsherbet]

4. People reject any message that does not reflect their ideological beliefs.

That is the core reason why people vote against their own interests. They are trapped in their ideology.

In right-wing strongholds, Clinton could spend a billion dollars and get very little change. I don't watch Fox, so I do not know if she advertises there, though I suspect she does.

[get the red out]

7. Absolutely

People who support him see any outside thought as a conspiracy.