We need to take back the media

[Hawkeye-X]

But how? We need to take back the control of the message of the media.

[ladjf]

1. Either the government would have to regulate the partisan activities

of the media, which isn't likely to happen or they would have to be paid more money than they now are getting from Republicans to cease their partisan political activity and that would take more money that the Dems could raise.

It's interesting to note that when H.Dean was running for the Presidency, one week after he stated publicly that he intended to curtail partisan activities of the media, the famous "Dean Scream" situation occurred, ending his campaign abruptly. The networks admitted that the depictions of Dean doing the "scream" were deliberately distorted.

[HowHasItComeToThis]

7. HOW TO STOP THE LIES AND LIARS

[golfguru]

16. You mean we want Soviet style Pravda Land?

Heck no! Freedom of press is the single most important item in
preserving democracy and avoid a dictator taking over.

[ladjf]

20. No to dictatorship. However, we don't now have freedom of the press because

the press prints whatever it is told to print by the super rich. That bad practice is one of the major reasons our political situation has deteriorated so much. As a result, the rich are getting richer faster. There will be a point in the not too distant future when 95% of all wealth in America will be owned by .005% of the citizens. Where will you "freedom" be then? (Unless you are in the top .005%)

[golfguru]

27. I do not believe NY Times, WA Post & LA Times are in any

rich man's pocket. Neither are the TV networks CBS, NBC & ABC.
But you are right there are other media controlled by rich people.

I don't care if only 10 persons own 100% of the wealth. It won't
matter so long as we have a NON-CORRUPT government who will impose and enforce rules.
And we will never have non-corrupt government until we have 100% public
financing of all election campaigns. Otherwise rich have a dis-proportionate
advantage over the poor.

[ladjf]

29. Well, if we could ever have "100% public financing of all election

campaigns" and we could be assured that the voting process itself is not corrupt, then the problem would be solved. Presently, the rich are in control of enough of the media messages to be able to influence American politics in their favor.

If 10 people had 100% of the wealth, what would be the living conditions for the other 309,000,000+?
What would keep the destitute masses from simply dying of starvation?

[golfguru]

32. Not necessarily

For example India has two dozen super rich families who control 50%
of all corporations. Yet the middle class is more prosperous than ever.
I think the reason is these families have enormous capital pools and
are acquiring assets all over the world and expanding job opportunities
for middle class. Manufacturing plants are expanding at double digit
rates in India and that would be impossible without large chunks of
capital available to risk into new ventures.

At this time every 3rd person IN THE WORLD with scientific or technical
background is an Indian. And all are making good middle class income.

What it boils down to is that without capital pools no viable industry can
take root. Wealth can not be distributed unless it is created first. The
government does not create wealth, they are the overhead.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xjB_Tf7Cy3A&feature=related

[vaberella]

34. Really? My sister loved the Dean scream.

He became her President of choice at that point.

[japple]

2. How? Reinstate The Fairness Doctrine. But that's probably

impossible these days.

[pansypoo53219]

3. they have to stop loving zombie reagan.

they can't see the forest for the trees.

[mtnsnake]

4. I agree. I think the first step is that we need to win the war of soundbites

because we have been losing the war of soundbites to Republicans for decades.

Repukes somehow find ways to get their talking points perceived by average Joe Blow voter in the manner they want them perceived. Democrats have never learned how to play this game. We either don't dumb down our message enough or we don't do enough to explain why we do the things we do.

on edit: Why on earth would anyone unrec a thread like this?

[jotsy]

5. You want the whole list or just the top 10?

Try not to worry, I generally suggest a pm after going on endlessly for the first half of that if I haven't made my point, so get comfy.

The how of it lies in those other legendary journalist's queries. The when, the what, the why, who and where of it is a suitable tool to convey a few approaches. And all are subjective to what matters to you, be it homelessness, the environment, the economy, education, or employment, there exists a great many options as venues to act on those interests.

1. Engage
When and who being the easy two, that's now and you. Hate to answer a question with a question but what's it worth to ya? A day a month? An hour a week? That's the first biggest difference IMHO, a committed and continuing effort that doesn't fizzle out because it doesn't pan out as imagined. The job from there is making the notion a contagious condition.


2. Learn
Where; that's the big challenge, isn't it? You want near or far? Audience sizes range from local community radio to to the vast amount of viewers at Youtube. Get out your local directory and see what you can find, explore the blog rolls of your favorite sites and check a few out once in awhile. Get a feel for who is who in the vein you choose and identify where your talents do them the most good.

<http://www.journaliststoolbox.org />

<http://www.freepress.net />

<http://www.newpublicmedia.org />

3. Convey and 4. Pitch
The best advice I ever got about crafting communication was to have a message and make your words work. Through the drafting you get subsequent clues as to who your audience is and thus through the first two steps know where it will be best heard.

5. Spread.
Whether through effective networking or casual conversation encouraging the crowd with the benefits of being part of trying to make a difference as such might serve to make the notion contagious.

I gotta great first cause, by the by. Why are corporations paying good advertising dollars for marathon weekends of Lock Up when such venues could open those time slots to more locally produced community coverage. It would certainly enhance their image, which I bet they know they need.

[Drix]

6. It's easy.

You just make public affairs news gathering and publishing/broadcasting tax free. The only caveats being you cannot have financial interests in any other business outside of public news gathering and publishing/broadcasting and you devote 10% front page/prime time to critical review by your peers such as Media Matters, CREW, FAIR, Heritage Foundation, etc.

Problem solved!

[Drix]

8. Why doesn't some politician doesn't pick up and run with this?

It's the perfect solution. It doesn't trample anyone's rights. Virtually no cost to taxpayers or government. It would promote quality journalism.

Look at it this way. As far as I know there are only two institutions explicitly protected by the Constitution. Religion and the press. One is tax free the other one isn't. That needs to be rectified.

I have yet to hear a coherent argument why this couldn't or shouldn't be done.

[snot]

14. +1

[formercia]

9. The same way the Right-Wing Reactionaries did it:

by buying up a controlling percentage of the shares.

[Drix]

10. Won't happen.

Liberals/progressives will never be able to outspend Murdoch, Koch Brothers etc.

[Odin2005]

11. The only way to take back the media is to overthrow Capitalism.

Until Capitalism is transcended there is nothing that the Elites cannot corrupt, under capitalism the media is BY DEFINITION the propaganda wing of the capitalist elite.

[golfguru]

17. I grew up in a socialist country

and I ain't going back to it.

[Odin2005]

18. So being anti-Capitalism means supporting Stalinism?

:eyes:

[HughBeaumont]

19. Of course. This sort of thing is ALWAYS "either/or", donchaknow.

:rofl:

[ladjf]

22. I believe that Capitalism could be wisely regulated so as to provide

fairness to the working class while allowing entrepreneurship to thrive. nt

[Odin2005]

24. The last 30 years has shown that doesn't work.

The Capitalists will just claw their power back when the popular enthusiasm for reform burns out, and they have the populace brainwashed.

[ladjf]

25. It was definitely not "well regulated" and consequently became

the number one problem. However, Communism and Socialism have their pitfalls as well. I would rather we continue to make Capitalism work.

[Odin2005]

26. Don't confuse "Socialism" with "Command Economy" and "Capitalism" with "Markets".

Capitalism or Socialism is about who controls the means of production, parasite Capitalists or the workers themselves, how goods and services are allocated are a totally different thing, I have no problem with a market economy, as long as the workers own the business they work for. In fact such a market would be a truly free market, free of the distorting tendencies towards cartels and monopolies found in Capitalism.

[golfguru]

28. Capitalism is full of flaws

But strictly measured as overall prosperity creator, nothing else comes close.

Socialism/communism whatever you call it has not created prosperity
in a single country. Examples abound...

West Germany, capitalist, prosperous. East Germany not even close.
South Korea, capitalist, prosperous. North Korea, a basket case.
Above examples are so striking because the people are the same yet results so different.

My own country of birth followed the Soviet model, with 5 year government plans for progress,
and every major industry run by the government (railroads, Airlines, banks, insurance, machine tools, electricity generation, steel, telephones, and so on).

Result? No prosperity. The service was abominable, corruption was rampant.
Then something happened. India discovered capitalism. Watch this short YOUTUBE video
on how India is transforming with nascent capitalism. Corruption still exists and poverty
still exists, but it is impossible to eradicate that in a country of 1 Billion people in
a short time. But things are now moving in the right direction.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xjB_Tf7Cy3A&feature=related

[Tesha]

37. And those Scandinavian/Nordic countries? Hell on Earth.

Right? (NT)

[golfguru]

38. Have you seen news clips from Malmo, Sweden lately?

It is full of rife and turmoil. It is unsafe to even walk the streets
of Malmo alone by women. Sweden will be majority muslim in a few short
decades based on currrent birth rates and immigration policies.
It is not hell on earth yet, but it is getting there.
See the video and believe your eyes if not me.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KzLECtFT4aU

Also remember these Nordic countries are small populations. My first wife
was born and raised in Sweden. I visited Sweden a few times many years ago.
Their standard of living was not upto American standards of the time period.
My in-laws were paying over 50% of their income in taxes. Their discretionary
buying power was much smaller than mine even though we had similar professions.
But Sweden was functioning well because Swedes in general have good work ethic.
I have not visited Nordic countries recently so not sure what is going on there.
I do recall reading that they are reducing taxes on corporations to increase
employment.

[Tesha]

39. You have an "interesting" perspective.

I doubt it is shared by many people in the real world, or there'd
be a lot fewer people left in Scandinavia.

Tesha

[golfguru]

41. So you do not believe what your eyes can see

in actual video's? Hmmm...that is strange. If Scandinavia was such heaven
on earth Americans, Canadians, other Western Europeans would be breaking
doors down to get in. Instead only people getting in are from 3rd world
muslim countries.

[akbacchus_BC]

12. How you gonna do that?

[snot]

13. Ownership is key.

Who writes the paychecks, who can hire and fire.

We used to have FCC restrictions on excessive consolidation of media ownership. But those were drastically weakened over the years.

I believe Gore's understanding of this may have been what led him to found Current TV. Not sure what's happening with that now.

Rep. Maurice Hinchey had a bill some years ago, for which I tried to muster support here on DU, but few were interested.

I.m.h.o., we need an antitrust law of information (in addition to strengthening and enforcing commercial antitrust laws).

[ladjf]

21. You have made important points in your post about the FCC

restrictions of media ownership. Please continue to remind everyone that formerly, we did have some control of media partisanship.

[WiffenPoof]

15. Peripheral to This Issue Is...

the amazing lack of message control by this WH.

Many were so worried about the appointments that the President was making early on in his tenure. My first worry was noticing that this Administration was either unable or unwilling to frame the arguments to the American people. For the most part there was silence from the WH when it came to appealing the the American people. They had the momentum and did not seem to understand that they had to maintain control once the campaign was over.

The issues faced by this country due to Bush were so severe that (in my opinion) it mandated that serious measures be taken. This could only have been accomplished if the Administration understood the need to rally the people. The American people understood the seriousness of our situation. That is when they would have been most likely to accept strong measures.

Instead, the messaging from the WH was weak or non-existent. This allowed the Right Wing to enter the vacuum filling it with the kind of rhetoric that could only energize the once deflated Republican voter.

It wasn't that long ago that the media was predicting the death (or serious illness) of the Republican Party. Remember? How could it take less than two years for the Right to regain the momentum? A part of it was a lack of a coherent message from the Obama Administration.

-PLA

On Edit:

I might add that understanding the importance of controlling the message is such a basic political rule that I am baffled that this administration did not make it one of their highest priorities (along with jobs).

-PLA

[ladjf]

23. The Country was already in serious political and economic trouble

before Obama was elected. But, I don't think he as done enough to improve the media bias problem or the transfer of wealth to the rich.

[lonestarnot]

30. What should he do?

[briteleaf]

31. HOW TO CHANGE THE MEDIA... 3 steps

There are 3 steps Americans can take to change the media:

1. Disconnect your cable. I get about a dozen channels for free from the airways and watch PBS. Join Netflix and stream unlimited movies. Get news online.
2. Let the cable company know why you're disconnecting and saving that money every month.
3. Educate your friends and family about how to get media to change. This is the most important step in beginning the change.

The media are controlled by wealthy, corporate interests. They control what pablum they wish to spoon feed to you as news. They also give you 20 minutes of commercials every hour. So, if you don't accept "news" coverage that skips important controversy, DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT. You have to change to make the media change.

[vaberella]

35. Do you really believe people will give up their Showtime or HBO tv shows?

People aren't that serious. I don't watch cable shows---but I already people on this board must have gasped in horror to suggest disconnecting the cable. Not to mention in New York, if you don't have cable you don't get clear television. So even basic tv is dead.

[vaberella]

33. We never had it in the first place to take it back.n/t

[Tesha]

36. Several tens of billions of dollars would help.

The media does what their owners demand.

Tesha

[mkultra]

40. keep the media free

the last thing we need is government censorship of the media.