Against MSM Bashing: We've gotta find a different way.

[Sensitivity]

Every since Jacques Ellul's penetrating trilogy on the workings of modern societies -- The Technological Society, Propaganda, The Politicl Illusion -- it has been well understood that the mass media are the vehicles for political opinion formation and change. THAT'S THE WAY IT IS, in insiduous, subtle or overt ways, especially are it relates to the all-important "INDEPENDENT VOTE."

We are the smart ones. We should understand how things work and be able to figure out how to beat the Repubs in using the MSM channels. The Indies and the "stupid voter" are getting their messages, if at all, via the MSM. They are not going to search out channels for partisan views. THEY ARE NOT PARTISANS. GET IT!

The time for grass-roots teach-ins and person-to-person persuasion spanned the last 4 years. If you missed out it is now a little late. GOTV efforts is about all that can be done on a person-to-person level that will affect the independent vote.

Between now and election day, we Dems have to learn to shape the MSM environment -- to get the attention, the cycles, the endless punditry, and WIN, or fail to do this and LOSE!

[Jackpine Radical]

1. This is like planning to fight the Nazis in 1939 by getting the radio stations in Berlin

to carry anti-Hitler messages. Great idea, but I don't think it's gonna happen.

(Sorry 'bout "Godwinizing" your thread so early, but...)

[chascarrillo]

2. I think you learned the wrong lessons from Ellul.

Honestly, he'd be appalled at what you're saying.

[Sensitivity]

3. You mean rolling in his grave? I think not. He was a realist. Face the facts. Don't pretend

that there are alternatives that don't exist.

For Elull, real politics is highly constrained.

Protect your own intellect by finding strong roots elsewhere, but accept the realities of how PROPAGANDA works.

[chascarrillo]

17. Ellul was an anarchist who despised mainstream politics.

His criticism of the media was not an endorsement of the media. Really, now.

[Sensitivity]

25. Wow, a contemporary. What a priviledge to get first hand insight.

[threadkillaz]

4. 1. Elect a president 2. Reverse merge their stranglehold.

.

[last1standing]

5. Way too simplistic.

Your opinion gives no acknowledgment to the fact that 95% of the media (TV, movies, billboards, newspapers, radio, etc..) are owned and/or controlled by only four conglomerations (FOX/NewsCorp, ABC/Disney, NBC/General Electric, and CBS/Viacom). Nearly everything we watch, read or hear comes from only four voices, all of whom have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo.

As long as this persists as our major influences we will always see "nutty leftists", "patriotic conservatives" and "centrists" who support reactionary policies while claiming to be Democrats. This is why these corporations exist now - to influence our beliefs.

I was just talking to a friend today about the role the media has in shaping the national dialog and how we view things and each other. He said that he knew that "there are some people out there pushing class warfare..", after which I stopped him and asked "Who? Name one person pushing class warfare". Of course he couldn't but the media keeps telling people like him that the "loony left" is trying to grab his money to give to welfare recipients. I then asked when the last time was that he hear someone called an "intellectual" in a context that wasn't an insult. Of course he couldn't think of one. To be intelligent in this country is the worst of all sins. It means you're an "elitist".

So the answer isn't as simple as "getting out message out" to the MSM, it's about changing the rules of the game. Unless we can somehow break up the information monopolies that have strangled off debate in America, there is no way to get that message out to begin with.

[Sensitivity]

6. Agreed, Agreed! There is NO WAY around it as things stand -- THE POLITICAL ILLUSION'S THESIS!

[last1standing]

11. But there's more to it than that.

I haven't read "The Political Illusion" so I won't debate it's merits, but I can say that accepting the situation as it stands is not the way to go.

In any political debate there are three sides, the status quo and two sides of change. First, the status quo. This group maintains that the current structure is acceptable (the center).

Second, the elite. Not like Obama is supposedly "elite" but those who will argue for change in a way that helps those who already have the most (the right).

Lastly, the masses. This group will argue for change in a way that helps the most people (the left).

Right now the status quo is already tilting far to the the elitist side of the scale and is therefore being aided by the elite to maintain the status quo while slowly moving it evermore to the right. The left is at a disadvantage because they have to come up with a compelling reason for moving the center back toward the masses while the center and right merely have to keep that compelling reason from being heard.

This is where the media comes in. Before consolidation, there were thousands of voices allowing intelligent discourse on ideas. Now, no such venue exists. This makes the left's task much more difficult because there is an inherent fear of change and unless the people can be convinced that change is absolutely necessary they will not support it. By the time this occurs, however, the status quo is usually so far to the right that the demand for change is overpoweringly strong and tumultuous. This is why there has never been an instance of bringing power back to the masses without some sort of revolution.

In the case of the United States, we need to find a new way that does not culminate in violence. As the world's first modern democratic republic, we need to also be the world's example in non-violent power change. We can only do this by using the methods of communication still left that have not been absorbed by the elite, the internet, social and religious gatherings, guerrilla advertizing, etc...). This would be the foundation of changing the message and is something that Howard Dean has popularized within the Democratic party.

That doesn't mean we leave it at that. The first step is to build a power base. This means electing as many of the left as possible and holding them accountable for their actions while entrusted with the power be have provided them. We can't be afraid to remove those representatives who betray our trust and our message like Joe Lieberman and Debbie Stabenow. The second step, once we have some power, is to focus on those things that can be done to limit the power of the right such as enforcing current anti-monopoly laws and restoring the Fairness Doctrine. Only then can our message be properly broadcast and real action taken to move the status quo back toward the left.

I will agree that for the 2008 campaign it it too late to accomplish all of this, but I would also argue that the 2008 is part of the overall plan. This election, just like that of 2006, is all part of building the power base. We can't expect to jump to the third step before we complete the first. Impatience will lead to failure.

If "The Political Illusion" says all of this, then I agree with it.

[Sensitivity]

21. Just read this. You are on target. Obama campaign worked hard to build a new basis

for organizing opinion change, just as you note, via the internet, social and religious forums etc., but could go just so far before being faced with the stress of the powerful Clinton onslaught.

Again, I agree that for the rest of the 2008 campaign there is no time to rely on those channels especially for reaching the independent and the unconnected.

Good discussion. Wish more here were thinking on these lines.

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

10. I would like to point out...

That the radio syndicates that provide the squawking hate-mongers are the ones that plow the fertile earth for the 4 Stooges to plant their seeds.

Wanna break the cycle? Stop the pollution of our radio airwaves.

[last1standing]

12. That's definiately part of it.

But it goes beyond that. As a nation we have become acclimated to thinking of the status quo as always being in the center between left and right, when actually the status quo is currently very far to the right. The messages we receive from nearly all the media reinforces this concept.

As an example, when the term "Class warfare" is brought up it is always, 100% of the time, used as a way to suggest that the person advocating for the masses is a Communist seeking to forcibly redistribute the wealth of the middle class to those too lazy to work. This isn't just done on the radio talk shows, it's done on the Tonight Show and Good Morning America. It's a unified theme that runs through our TV shows and movies. How many positive depictions of welfare recipients in the media can you name? Even though the majority of the American people would benefit from leftist policies most of us support a status quo that has the real life effect of redistributing our wealth to the elite.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

7. If Hagel was VP we would of have had a chance at wrestling the propaganda machinery to the gorund.

"... the endless punditry ... "

[Sensitivity]

8. How creative! However, I think that was one of the reasons for Biden as V.P. -- Every talking head

has already been co-opted by their past relationship with Joe.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

9. I plaguerized from a sensitive genius!

[last1standing]

13. Can you explain how Hagel as VP would have helped?

n/t

[A-Schwarzenegger]

15. I was kidding my good pal Sensitivity about HIS pushing Hagel for Dem VP.

:hi: :puke:

[Sensitivity]

16. Hey Friend: I know YOU could answer this question. Be creative. No cop-outs!!

[A-Schwarzenegger]

18. Are you now trying to deny that you are the smartest person on DU?

Don't you dare, you wicked kidder, you.
If you dont have the answer for taking over the media,
it's safe to say that nobody does,
unless it's, you know, Hagel.

[Sensitivity]

19. Wouldn't want to compete with you or Nancegregs

[A-Schwarzenegger]

20. Have you ever gone down to the media and asked politely to take it over?

Well, have you? You get a lot more honey with flies than with viager.

[Sensitivity]

23. I think your Hagel idea was more relevant to the global conglomerates that control the MSM

Please develop it. You piqued my interest more than I let on.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

28. It's "piqued".

Now, don't you go ahead and get shy & humble on me pretending
it wasn't you and sensitive Karl who dreamed up The Hagel Plan.
I ask you again: did you go down to the global conglomerate media office
and ask nicely if you could have it? Yes or No? Don't wait for the translation. Yes or No?

[Sensitivity]

29. No. You have to creatively co-opt these forces until you can change the ground rules.

Assuming that is possible. But I am still waiting for your Hagel theory.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

30. No, no, please, you first, Madam.

It's your Hagel Agenda. He's going to be peaked at you for
throwing him under the bus like this, Bud. Tut tut.

[last1standing]

14. What? Did I kill this thread, too?

I seem to be doing that a lot these days. Sorry. :shrug:

[Sensitivity]

22. No. see #21. Just read you brilliant comment

[Median Democrat]

24. So, You Are Saying That If We Don't Get Fox To Say Nice Things About Us, We're Hosed?

I guess we are doomed.

Personally, I think that while you can fight the good fight, the MSM and ITS CORPORATE SPONSORS have strong economic reasons for supporting the GOP. It is not a clever strategy on the part of the GOP, rather the MSM and its corporate sponsors have a distinct interest in the outcome of the election. For example, the composition of the FCC.

What magical strategy is going to cause the five major networks to ignore their economic interests and the desires of their sponsors, and support a liberal viewpoint?

I don't think there is one. So, we need to fight the good fight, but recognize the need to take advantage of alternative media and grass roots support AND continue to fight for an independent and diverse media, and AGAINST further consolidation of the media.

Silvio Bescolini, the Italian Media Mogul, is prime minister of Italy due to his control of the Italian media. We are not too far from this reality here with only 5 networks controlling the majority of all media.

[Sensitivity]

26. NO, NO, NO. Just that we need to be realistic about how public opinion is formed esp. in for those

not already in our camp. I, for one, am not in the "mainstream" of American society, so I have to pay attention to how others are developing their opinions.

[knixphan]

27. K&R