It is true about the pundits, ours are willing to say what they think and theirs will always say what they think helps their cause. That can affect perception, i.e., Romney "won" the first debate and Obama may have "tied" the second. The good news is that the low-info people this has the greatest effect on are both less likely to vote and way less likely to even know there was a debate, much less watch it and the pundit spin following.

The pundits are increasingly preaching (screaming) at the choir and decreasingly having any chance of influencing voters. What they can and still can do is get the various bases excited. What the smarter pundits know, and what no pundit will really admit, is that they are most effective at giving the bases their playbooks.

It isn't Rachel, or O'Reilly that has the biggest effect on the "masses"...the vast majority of Americans simply don't watch the news channels regularly. The majority of people are much more affected by friends, family, coworkers and others who do watch cable news. That doesn't mean that if you watch Faux News you'll always be able to convince your BIL to vote Romney, but you have a better chance. Listening to Rachel may help you "win" the kitchen table debate over the economy ans sway your sister to Obama.

The biggest lie out there is that there is anything called mainstream media and that it is extremely powerful. Add the ratings from all the cable news pundits together and they don't come close to a typical saturday or sunday football game, a vapid Thursday night sitcom, or the formulaic cop drama on Tuesday.