Revolutionary forces always seize the TV and radio stations first

[Cyrano]

We saw it during every revolution of the 20th and 21st centuries.

But we somehow missed it when it happened here, perhaps because it happened at a slower pace and over a period of time. But, let's face it. Giant corporations own the American media. And their front-line troops are the Republican Party along with their millions of camp followers.

We can bitch all we want to about Obama, the Democratic leadership, and the entire Democratic Party. We can call them wimps, cowards, sellouts, whores and everything else in the world, but there's one fact that can't be changed. Democrats can't get their message out because the enemy owns the vast majority of the main stream media.

This one simple fact puts us in a war that we cannot win by conventional methods. The internet may some day level the playing field, but not soon enough to help us out of our present servitude.

So if you see some way out of this dilemma, or if you disagree with it, let's hear from you.

[SpiralHawk]

1. Cut the cable

If you have cable you are basically paying the RepubliCorps month after month to pump propaganda crapola into your brain.

You will save money. You will starve the beast. And you will improve your soul and your family life.

Cut the cable. It's the patriotic American thing to do.

[w4rma]

2. Well, you've gone and created a solution for which there was no problem.

The OP, clearly, has no problem telling propaganda from honesty. The problem is with everyone else who get's their world views from the TV.

[BeFree]

4. Right

You should cut your neighbor's cable.

Just joking. But that is a solution in a roundabout way.

So.......when is DU TV gonna go on the air?

[SpiralHawk]

5. My exhortation was not to the OP, but a general call to CUT THE CABLE

As for the response below, don't try to sell me on the idea that doing something is doing nothing. Everything matters -- whether it is one person cutting the cable, or 100,000.

You will never convince me that that my 'little contribution' to a cause has no meaning. I know differently. Everything matters.

$40 a month to feed the Beast makes the Beast $40 stronger, and makes you $40 weaker.

[Orrex]

3. If you and I and everyone that we both know decided to "cut the cable"

it wouldn't make the slightest bit of difference and certainly wouldn't "starve the beast."

It's tantamount for calling for a boycott of Walmart--an almost certainly futile gesture that does nothing to the target of the boycott and can do a lot to inconvenience the effectors of the boycott who may very likely be struggling already. And I see no evidence that it will "improve your soul and your family life," either.

[Warpy]

6. While I resent part of my money going to provide lousy content

and I would greatly prefer a system in which I paid for the content I actually watch, I have only had access to what everybody else always took for granted for only the last 4 years.

I'm keeping my satellite for now and as long as there is still good programming to be had and that's all I bother with. I kicked the broadcast news habit completely 6 years ago and can't think of any reason I'd want to watch it again, cable or not.

It all comes down to personal choice. While I'd prefer my choices to be respected at the front end, only that content I actually use being paid for by my own money, I fully respect the right of my fellow citizens to make stupid choices.

I just wish I didn't have to pay for them.

[Cyrano]

7. Don't overlook radio in your responses

Millions of people spend countless hours a day in their cars. And in many places around the country, the only talk radio you can receive is right-wing talk radio.

There are regions that have six or seven stations broadcasting Limbaugh, and no stations broadcasting anything resembling sane thought. And at those weekend barbecues, peer pressure makes it really hard to tell your friends and neighbors that they are being brain washed.

[Boojatta]

8. "the enemy owns the vast majority of the main stream media"

First, are you sure that you want to use the word "enemy" rather than "opponent"?

Second, you seem to be assuming that owners use their ownership position to control the management of mainstream media. However, if the media is like other industries, then there is reason to suspect that owners don't exercise control over management even for the financial benefit of the owners:

Graham beings his original (1949) discussion of "The Investor as Business Owner" by pointing out that, in theory, "the stockholders as a class are king. Acting as a majority they can hire and fire managements and bend them completely to their will." But in practice says Graham,

the shareholders are a complete washout. As a class they show neither intelligence nor alertness. They vote in sheep-like fashion for whatever the management recommends and no matter how poor the management's record of accomplishment may be.... The only way to inspire the average American shareholder to take any independently intelligent action would be by exploding a firecracker under him.... We cannot resist pointing out the paradoxical fact that Jesus seems to have been a more practical businessman than are American shareholders.

from:
The Intelligent Investor
by Benjamin Graham, updated with new commentary by Jason Zweig

[Cyrano]

12. Ummm, yeah, Boojatta, I want to use the word "enemy" rather than "opponent."

I didn't choose that word lightly. All I've done is look at what's happened in this country in the past 48 hours (not to mention the past 30 years).

Look at the congressional votes of the last few days. Do you really think the Republican Party and blue dog Dems (who are nothing more than Republicans under a different name) really care what happens to us? Do you actually believe they give a damn whether we live or die?

Many of them not only don't give a damn whether we live or die, but actively endorse policies that just might ensure that our deaths come about sooner rather than later.

So, yes, I call such people my enemies.

Regarding your comments referring to shareholders having a say about anything, such concepts are no longer operable in today's world.

[Boojatta]

16. "such concepts are no longer operable in today's world"

That's a bit vague. How would you describe the status quo of corporate governance in America today? For example, how would you describe the relationship between shareholders and management?

[Cyrano]

18. Good question, but I really don't want to change the topic of this thread.

[Boojatta]

21. You wrote: "the enemy owns the vast majority of the main stream media"

Did you intend to write: "the enemy works as the highest level managers of the vast majority of the main stream media"?

[Cyrano]

24. One of the best examples I can give is Rupert Murdoch

He owns a vast multi-media empire. And he also controls the propaganda spread by that empire, from Fox "News," to The NY Post, to each and every other piece of garbage he possesses.

There's no need for him to manage each entity on a daily basis. But anyone who didn't "get the memo" as to what Murdoch Inc. represents, is out very, very quickly.

[Boojatta]

25. "One of the best examples"

Do you mean "best" in the sense of being representative of corporate governance in media today or do you mean "best" in the sense of having features that are especially troubling?

(Of course, "both" is a possible answer.)

[Cyrano]

28. I mean best, as in, Rupert Murdoch is the best example I can think of as

an enemy of truth, and a peddler of dangerously divisive propaganda.

[Dr Morbius]

9. I want government to mandate independent ownership of media.

In every radio and television market, there must be at least one independent station, and in markets containing many stations, at least 20% must be independent. I don't see how the press can be claimed to be free when it is not independent; you cannot be free unless you are independent. These independently owned radio stations could then all choose to air Rush Limbaugh or Ed Schultz, as they prefer; the choice always ends up with the ownership. There's no need, as I see it, for any kind of fairness doctrine or government interference with the substance of media, provided the independent voices are protected. And for those who might object to government regulation of media ownership, when the corporations turned the press into commerce, they invited such regulation.

[onenote]

23. how do you define "independent"?

[Dr Morbius]

30. As owning perhaps six stations or less.

My concern is principally the expanse of control over large segments of the media by very few players. Editorial policy is always set by ownership. When a half-dozen boardrooms decide what 90% of us see and hear, that's a problem - even if they're completely benevolent, which they're not. By limiting their expanse so they don't choke off independent media, we ensure that more interests are represented. That beyond the interests of the super-wealthy, the media will also bear the interests of the somewhat wealthy.

When you think about it, not too many Americans could afford a printing press in the eighteenth century. But those who had the means and a way to get it sent to the new nation were able and no law denied them. Today, if you want to buy a small radio station, or a few of them, are there any still around that are worth buying (as opposed to suburban stations with low power in huge markets)? It's like someone bought up the printing presses, or maybe that paper can't be had. Or someone has a monopoly on ink.

This country has many thousands of radio stations. One could perhaps go as high as ten stations and still be considered independent for the purposes of this proposed measure. Local media should represent and defend local interests. If it's locally owned, we can count on that happening. If this local station is just one of thousands playing Rush Limbaugh followed by Sean Hannity followed by Mark Levin, the interests of the people in that area get nothing. The benefits they should enjoy from their local radio station have been replaced by the talk model of the corporation which owns it.

[flamingdem]

10. Do we have to tie up Tweety when we take over, that's kinky! nt

[Blue Owl]

11. Operation Toto

We gotta find a way to pull the curtain back farther and expose the illusion.

[Cyrano]

14. The problem is that this time around, "the man behind the curtain" actually

owns and controls virtually everything. If only we were dealing with such a snake oil salesman who would be so much easier to ignore.

[inna]

13. media is the effect, not the cause.

Propaganda is just one of the tools used by the ruling class to control us.

[Cyrano]

15. True. But they've got the "propaganda megaphone" and we don't

Our version of the "truth" is meaningless if no one gets to hear it.

Unfortunately, propaganda is not just "one" of the tools they use. It's THE tool. Someone probably said something like: You don't need a gun if you control their minds.

[inna]

17. At least we still have the internet...

Enjoy the internet neutrality while you can, right?

[Cyrano]

19. Amen to that

[jotsy]

20. I see the development of the internet as a news source, slightly

accelerated in comparison to what it otherwise might have been, largely due to a lack of usefulness and credibility, most especially after the way Dan Rather went down. If we had another 2 to 4 years, I'd claim the two venues will be going to neck and neck as it were, I don't think we have that long. Demographics are also playing a role in the equation of public perception. The bulk of Fixed Noise' audience is at or near retirement age.

I'm sure the PTB understand their open window by which to program a people will close, and soon. Meaning (to me at least) that completing their agenda of creating a nation of serf cities is not an open ended proposition. The two key issues of the moment are about net neutrality and the kill switch. The corporatocracy can not run the risk of a united citizenry hailing from different parts of the globe, too much dissent in as many directions. They, like Kahn in Star Trek II believe we 'simply have no choice'. As much as I would beg to differ, the fact that folks are still chasing day to day baubles while the ocean floor is having the life in it and of it destroyed by way of an arterial bleed no one seems to know how to stop.

If events in the gulf aren't enough to bring about a serious game changer, I don't see the rats will come to before the piper blows them off the cliff and into the abyss under any circumstance. Folks talk a lot here about revolution, but few go beyond the talk. I have asked what be considered is a something of a bloodless coup, not through violence, but the ambitious pursuit of justice EQUALLY applied and enforced. The judicial branch has since however, left little room for doubt that governing is less about the rule of law and more about the rulers of apparent order. So the one road I saw with a chance to reassert the will of the people being the driving force faded from accessible view in January with the Citizens United decision.

Too many factors in play to call an outcome. Hope battles doubt and my position ebbs and flows with the tide of consideration.

[Lurks Often]

22. Don't agree

I hear similiar things from those on the right that TV & Cable news lies and never tells the truth.

Regarding TV & Cable news, if you talk to those on the right (from moderate right to far right), they view CNN, MSNBC, CBS, NBC & ABC as liberal to very liberal. Perhaps you fall farther to the left of the spectrum then others, which from your perspective would make the above listed news stations appear to be conservative.

As for radio, conservative talk radio is what brings listeners, which leads to more radio ads, which leads to more money for the radio station. If conservative talk radio wasn't profitable, it wouldn't be on the air. Air America went under because it kept losing money.

[Cyrano]

27. To those on the right, the so-called main stream media will never be

conservative enough. For them, Rand Paul, Sarah Palin and Sharron Angle (the insane senate candidate in Nevada), are the new "normal."

As for talk radio, rabble rousers have always led to "more money."

However, we're going to have to agree to disagree on the different world views that we hold. I consider today's American right wing to be a great threat to our country, our freedoms, and our very existence.

[KonaKane]

26. Given the state of our media today, maybe that's not such a bad idea.

[Cyrano]

29. Actually, it is a bad idea.

Were we to somehow seize all the TV and radio stations, who would "we" put in charge? My point is, that in doing so, we would be no better than those who currently control the media megaphone.

A different solution is needed. And at present, the internet seems to offer that solution, assuming time doesn't run out on us first.