Posted on 09/03/2012 9:01:44 AM PDT by TheZMan
There has been a rather endless list over the years of "things we can do to fix this mess". Some of it is obvious, some not so obvious, but the common theme is that it will take many years and a fair amount of luck.
I'd like to focus on one item in the list - our Activist Media. Whether to the right or the left it is a fact that the MSM is today largely damaging to the citizenry. The 24-hour news cycle, "opinion" news, and biased reporting (read: lying) is a daily problem that I believe is the greatest reason behind an uninformed, or worse, misinformed populace. I have friends that go vote based on what CNNABCCBSNBCMSNBC tells them.
In that vein I'm seeking Freeper input on things that can be done to fix our media. I miss the days of turning on the news and being presented with (God forbid) actual news, and not what the reporter *thought* about the news.
Keep in mind, of course:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
It would be quite easy to say "the news media is no longer allowed to insert opinion into its reporting", but that isn't possible without also "abridging the freedom of the press".
It is this conundrum that brings me here today, asking for your input. Maybe we just wait for them to go out of business, but that tactic hasn't panned out like we hoped it would. At near sub-basement ratings they keep on trucking, spewing their garbage to a gullible audience.
So, thoughts?
It starts with the individuals. Educate children better and when they grow they will have better BS meters. when there are no ratings for false news it will go away.
This process will take a while but it is the best way.
You cannot change the MSM. They cannot help what they do. They simply don’t know any better and education will not help. The only thing to do is to discredit, marginalize and ultimately, throw them out of jobs due to their irrelevance. That means activism on out part. When MSLSD comes out with a load of crap, you discredit the garbage AND you ridicule them. The second part is important because CONSTANT RIDICULE WILL LEAD TO LOSS OF REVENUE. That is the only way to get through to the people that hire these Red Guards.
Witness the events of the past few days. Clint Eastwood "reported" what most ordinary Americans knew in their hearts should have been reported in recent years than all the major networks and "talking heads."
For instance, a President of the U. S.--whoever he/she is--doesn't immediately respond to what he/she and his/her team consider to be a second-rate "performance" by a senile 82-year-old man!
Further, all who have worked in the "conservative" movement for decades know for a fact that a primary tool of so-called "progressives" and the media which supports them has been to ignore challenges to their ideology--believing that by ignoring, they delegitimized such challenges.
Yes, Eastwood made a real "mark," because he carefully dissected and exposed what has been camouflaged and ignored by the media hacks who now pass for journalists in America.
As an example, one wonders at the often self-described “intellectual” “progressives” who support an "elderly statesman" image of Biden’s Vice Presidency status while, about Clint Eastwood’s brilliant satire, they flocked to the TV cameras these past few days to offer faux “pity” and sincere criticisms of what they described as everything from senility to chants that his "sad" appearance of being a “doddering old fool.”
Correct. Money talks...BS walks!
Only prayer can defeat that media monster.
yes, revenues are shrinking a bit due to innovation, etc. Be sure all the companies that you own/manage do not advertise in the NY Times.
Find a virus that kills whatever makes people RINOS, liberals, progressives, democrats, socialists and communist.
Short of that we’ll always have the mess we have.
Every freeper (and I speak to myself as well) should make a list of 10-20 media outlets.
Every freeper should write two letters a day, addressed to just 2 of the outlets on their master list.
Each letter should be very short and blunt, and should merely point out the blatant left-wing bias in a news story covered by that media outlet in the previous 24 hours.
By rotating topics and outlets, you will not be perceived as a constant irritant, and will be less likely to be ignored.
If every freeper did this. there would be an avalanche of mail to the media.
Step 2
Every freeper (and I speak to myself as well) should make a list of 10-20 advertisers who support media outlets.
Every freeper should send copies of two letters a day ...
But don't hold your breath waiting.
Thank you all for your replies.
But don't hold your breath waiting.
That last is the only thing in your post that I agree with. Conservatives will not invest in conservative journalism because there is no market for conservative journalism. It is a fool’s errand.The Market for Conservative-Based NewsJournalism is about bad news, which means that journalism is criticism. Conservatives believe that “It is not the critic who counts . . . the credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena . . .” Conservatives believe that although it is possible to attempt objectivity, no one can know that he/she is objective. The only way to even attempt objectivity is to openly address all known reasons why you might not be objective. Accordingly no one can even attempt objectivity and simultaneously claim to actually be objective.
You can't attempt objectivity while belonging to a mutual-admiration society knowing it will claim objectivity for you, either. And that is in part what the Associated Press - that is in part what any wire service - is. Because the business model of wire service journalism requires it. Wire service journalism is pseudo-objective journalism, inherently.
I emphasize wire service journalism because IMHO if there is a solution to the conundrum of tendentious anti conservative journalism it must attack the central thing which connects journalism into a single institution. Before the advent of the AP, newspapers were fractiously independent and notoriously didn’t agree about much of anything. In our lifetimes, however, that has never been the case. If there is to be a solution to the leftism of wire service journalism, it can scarcely come by buying a newspaper and using “barrels of ink” to counter the liberal message. Talk radio reaches millions, and although it is a help it has not broken the back of the AP monopoly on the hearts and minds of the median voter.
If not direct competition, what? IMHO it needs a civil lawsuit. Triple damages under RICO. Naming the AP, and each of its members individually. The tort? That is a challenge to articulate, but it starts with the fact that (according to a web site which has changed and isn’t as accessible as previously, the AP was held in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act back in 1945. Back then, the AP was too big to fail, and nominally it still is. And yet, with the advent of cheap bandwidth via satellite and fiber optic cable the core mission of the AP - the conservation of expensive bandwidth in the transmission of news - is obsolete. It is a commonplace to FReepers to find that stories can suddenly become big "news” days after the initial reports were already hashed out on FR.
But what can we actually claim as a tort, other than the homogenization of news and destruction of ideological competition (not that that is nothing)? What we know is that the flattery and derision of wire service journalism intimidates people who theoretically work for we-the-people into de facto working for wire service journalism. You show me someone journalism labels “liberal” or “moderate” or “progressive,” and I’ll show you someone who is being flattered by journalism for being critical of “the man in the arena” and not being critical of journalism. You show me someone journalism labels “conservative” or “extreme” or “right wing” and I’ll show you someone who is being derided for not criticizing “the man in the arena,” and/or for criticizing journalists.
You show me an absurd abuse of prosecutorial judgement such as the attempted railroading of the Duke Lacrosse Team, and I’ll show you “the public’s watchdog” wire service journalism cheerleading for the prosecutor. The Trayvon Martin case looks like another example. In such cases the responsibility for the tendentious stories is often diffuse, or seemingly so. But if you sue the AP and its membership individually, you should be able to hold the correct institution accountable and let the membership fight among themselves to avoid the blame they all richly deserve in such cases.
Another commonplace is the smearing of “conservative” candidates or even individuals who may not all be conservative (SBVT) but who promote a cause which helps conservatives in a particular case.
Then there is the infamous case of broadcast journalism’s calling states much faster for Gore, margin of victory being equal, than for Bush in 2000. The extreme was of course calling Florida for Gore while Bush was ahead in the popular vote and the polls were still open in a conservative section of the state. A call which was ultimately proven wrong, but transparently was intended as a self-fulfilling prophesy. Had the result in Tennessee and Arkansas been reported as quickly as a Gore win by the same margin would have been, voters in some close states ultimately won by Gore would have been treated to the knowledge that Gore had lost his home state, and that Bush had won Clinton’s home state, while the polls were still open. A long shot, of course - but it was possible that those tendentious behaviors of broadcast journalism could have been the difference between Bush or Gore winning even if Florida had in fact been won by Gore.
What would the Republican Party have perceived to be the value, if under counterfactual circumstances it had had the ability to raise funds to buy off broadcast journalism from making an erroneous call of Florida for Gore until after the polls closed in the Florida Panhandle? Assuming that no “campaign finance reform” law were operative, would it not have been in the billions of dollars??? It was a tremendous tort. And yet, the talk on the retrospectives after the event dropped the premature and erroneous call for Gore into the memory hole, and focused on the idea that the correct call for Bush over nine hours later was “premature.”
The special characteristics of broadcast journalism are that
As we have seen, journalism (or anyone else) which claims to be objective is on that very account highly subjective. Journalism and Objectivity
- broadcasting is regulated and licensed, in direct contravention of the First Amendment. For that reason, even more than print journalism, theoretically owes objectivity to the public. And,
- broadcast journalism is accessible to the public in real time. The tendentious possibilities in variability of delays in calling states for Bush or Gore is dependent on this fact. We would, ironically, have known sooner who would be the POTUS in 2001 if there been no broadcast journalism.
Journalism which, by its business model or, worse, as a condition of operation without let or hindrance by the government, claims to be objective is inherently illegitimate. Why Broadcast Journalism is
Unnecessary and Illegitimate
You hit the nail on the head.
First step to INSTANTLY fixing the news media is getting rid of the FCC. The result of having the FCC is that our entire freedom of speech media capability is neutered by government control. This turns all media into government run operations.
Another thing I'd like to see is a "Truth" amendment passed which empowers anyone who can prove that the media is lying or purposely misrepresenting an issue or event to sue that media for damages and part of the punishment would be an equal presentation of what the truth really is/was. Provide a penalty of loss of broadcasting ability for multiple offenders.
This is just about the most long winded and pointless blow I’ve read in a while.
You hit the nail on the head."broadcasting is regulated and licensed, in direct contravention of the First Amendment."
First step to INSTANTLY fixing the news media is getting rid of the FCC. The result of having the FCC is that our entire freedom of speech media capability is neutered by government control. This turns all media into government run operations.
Another thing I'd like to see is a "Truth" amendment passed which empowers anyone who can prove that the media is lying or purposely misrepresenting an issue or event to sue that media for damages and part of the punishment would be an equal presentation of what the truth really is/was. Provide a penalty of loss of broadcasting ability for multiple offenders.
The fundamental problem is that the FCC systematically promotes the value of its licenses by making them scarce. Technologically, there is now no scarcity of bandwidth - but what there is is a scarcity of licenses to allow every Tom, Dick, and Harry to be on an equal footing with the broadcast networks. The problems are twofold - one is the governmental imprimatur which is granted to licensees, and the other is the inability of Tom, Dick, and Harry to compete on a level playing field. The governmental imprimatur is a serious issue, because it leads ineluctably to tendentious claims of objectivity, and when the license is granted it means that the government says that the broadcaster, who has just proven himself a liar, is a truth teller.With cell phones and especially smart phones it is technologically possible for Tom, Dick, and Harry to podcast, and yet we have the phenomenon of journalists being able to claim that Tom, Dick, and Harry are “not journalists, not objective.” As if wire service journalism were objective. There, the problem is as Adam Smith defined it:
The wisest and most cautious of us all frequently gives credit to stories which he himself is afterwards both ashamed and astonished that he could possibly think of believing . . .Breaking the general public of the habit of “credulity” is indeed a challenge.It is acquired wisdom and experience only that teach incredulity,
and they very seldom teach it enough.
Sensationalism and "yellow" journalism is better suited to "progressives"; conservatives need not apply. Maybe it's in part a cultural thing; that is, progressives invariably want to make the world a better place for all of Mankind via the utopian dream and getting other people(producers) to pony up their hard earned cash for various and sundry social causes is right up their alley. Conservatives(producers) on the other hand are actually DOING things to make the world a better place: Creating and growing companies, providing for their families and generally keeping their noses to the grindstone. Their(our?) efforts maintain the economic engine that truly makes the world go round so there's little time to meddle in others' lives. FWIW...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
