Skip to comments.A Modest Proposal: Electing the Media (Vanity)
Posted on 02/06/2012 10:15:49 AM PST by Lazamataz
No one can honestly say that the mass media is not political. Furthermore, it would take a truly deluded individual to claim that the media is not biased towards the extreme left.
The mass media has been trying to manipulate and shift events since the time America was born. Unfortunately, the mass media has taken such a radical turn to the left, that we find them ignoring crimes by Democrats, while trying to make criminal out of innocuous acts by Republicans. We find them championing every form of socialism, and decrying capitalism and conservatism at every turn.
I have a modest proposal: I suggest we start ELECTING the heads of every media organization in America. Perhaps then, the media will more closely mirror our electorate.
There might have to be some thought given to the methodology, but it's long past time to strike at the worst enemy America faces: A leftist press. They are far more formidable because they are persistant, relentless -- inexhaustable -- in their pursuit of American communism.
Not weird, but still....
Chris Matthews entertained a Senate run in PA. What a laugher that would have been..
I remember the last debate between Hillery and Obama. I would have voted for Russert.
I actually think that people who run the media organizations could stand some election-year scrutiny.
The same process that gave us Barney Frank, Al Franken, Reid, Pelosi, and the whole clown crew up to and including a certain BHO??
What could possibly go wrong??
Not a bad plan.
Starting with the incumbents. Using machetes.
It also gave us Ronald Reagan, Alan West, and a host of other greats.
Act 3, scene ii of Julius Caesar by William Shakespeare
Mark Antony: “The evil that men do lives after them; The good is oft interred with their bones”.
We do vote, it is called “ratings”.
Normally, ratings would suffice to curtail the most egregious press excesses, except I remember reading the words of one Norm Lenhart (who, by the way, knowns nothing about reloading) in which he mentions he was in the media for a time, and that the members of this group are so ideologically driven, that they simply don’t care what their ratings are. They will pontificate for Socialism and Communism until their last dollar is spend and the company doors are padlocked.
Elect ? Wrong verb.
The answer, of course, is competition. Once upon a time cities had at least two newspapers. While the straight news was reported - editorials were clearly defined. Printed election results have no vocal inflections or facial expressions such as we witness on TV - very submliminal and very effective.
Competition in the market place is the only answer. An unbiased news channel would only be possible if it was owned by individual investors with no majority owner and a rotating Board of Directors. All employees would be contracted to a limited term.
I don’t think electing the media would be an improvement. Using the GOP primaries as an example - we would finish up with the same old stereotypes in the Boardroom and the anchor desks.
Smooth talking airheads and blond bimbos.
Will my shame ever end? (LOL!) ;)
Just to fill the background, I was a reporter/then page editor at a western tri-state paper for several years. Prior to that I was in Internet media (OHV/landuse issues).
My personal experience is that you have a couple dynamics at work.
1. Media outlets are fiefdoms for their owners. Period. I assure you that there is no honesty in modern reporting - at least reporting that actually hits the printed page/screen or TV newscast, for one simple reason. The modern ‘editor’ is nothing but an intermediary between the will of the ownership/publisher and what they WILL have written in their respective publications.
I have personally had several stories tanked in my career by the high command because the ‘truth’ of the story did not match the public position they wanted portrayed.
Second, the editors themselves are hired not for their skills, but because of their willingness to comply with edicts from above. The best Ed I ever worked under was pushed out for his refusal to cooperate and is still slimed to this day.
Third, I personally have experienced both sides of the fence - Internet and print journalism in a professional capacity - as an Editor and as a writer/reporter. I can tell you, and the facts we read daily (death of the Dino-media articles on FR), that the net is killing print/TV.
Now one must ask, in light of multi-million dollar losses and staggering declines in reader/viewership, why it is that the powers that be in traditional journalistic outlets refuse to change the game plan.
The answer is given above. Summed up, They do things ‘their way’ and their way is to promote two things - Agenda and personal profit.
“But Normie” you say, “If they are tanking in readership/ad dollars, where’s the profit?”
The top of the food chain slashes page counts and production costs mercilessly, but you notice they all get their bonuses at the end of the year. And you notice that in light of all the failing of their companies financially, they push ever harder to promote liberal ideals.
Regardless of liberal ideals and teaching to the contrary, 1+1=2 in reality.
Lastly, it is no secret that the vast majority of newsrooms are filled with libs. So one may ask, “They have to see this happening - budgets cut, layoffs ect., so why don’t they speak out in numbers? Why not expose the very people who screw them?”
Because as we all know, Liberal first, everything after. It’s for the cause. And it really is that simple.
Normie - Who vows to never reload again! ;)
And another thing! ;)
Some may remember an episode of All in the Family where meathead was denied a promotion to a black man who was not as qualified due to the push for “racial equality” in the workplace policies. He stood there alone talking to him self, shaking his head and muttering “I understand...it has to be this way” or something similar.
THAT is exactly the attitude the lib reporters have as they are laid off/fired/downsized and put to pasture, never to report again.
It never dawns on them that they created their own demise, nor that their whole ideology is responsible for it.
I am just stunned, every day, at the way people allow this propaganda to come into their homes 24/7.
You say the net is taking over but I don’t see an sign of it. I wish.
And no, I don’t have a television. I never liked it, even as a kid.
Look at all the “Huffington Post” style deals. Look at the recent report about ad dollars for the first time have been greater for net than traditional media.
I gave up TV years ago as it is 700 channels of BS. You and I are both living examples of why the net is taking over.
Why spend good money for crap you don’t want when you get most of it free or pay specifically for that which you do ‘a’la carte’ on the web? More people daily come to that conclusion.
I have a better idea...
Let’s take over the media.
No, not by force. By presenting an alternative that can get rid of the powerful media companies and delegates power to the people. Let the people decide who gets hired and who survives. Let the reporters and the columnists and the opinion writers have to please the people. Divorce them from the large media conglomerates and from the powerful publishers.
It can be done.
There is a way.
We can do it. It does
That last sentence should read:
We can do it. It doesn’t have to be complicated.
The easy part is creating the concept of an alternative. The problem is funding it.
My brilliant idea is creating a website called “Questions unasked” that thake the main articles of propaganda fed us by the MSM daily and giving voice to the questions the MSM SHOULD have asked, but didn’t.
Now that’s simple, informative, thought provoking...and utterly useless without financial backing to push it to ‘mainstream’ prominance. Then there’s developing a business model that would be able to function without relying on advertizing (that the libs can use as ‘pressure’ to kill it.
So even if you only had a staff of a few people, it’s still a 7 figure endeavor per year to promote it.
Then you have to promote it a lot to force it into the ‘mainstream’ of the net consciousness...
This and a thousand brilliant ideas of circumventing the MSM lack one thing. A Right Wing George Soros to fund them just like the media matters type groups.
Sucks, but that’s reality.
These people have largely been able to do their deeds with impunity. Until the Internet. Now they must compete or die. They will probably die. Good riddence.
And the what you describe about how the Higher-ups are only insterested in their personal profit and their agenda...just like the higher schools. With tenure, professors insulate themselves whilke protecting their LARGE paychecks. A dirty little secret about liberals is for all their altruistic pontifications, the first thing they will do when given power is loot the treasury.
Ratings don't count as much as you think they do. Glen Beck had fantastic ratings, but ultimately had to go because they only outfits willing to advertise on his show were the gold guys.
You and I don't vote for media. Advertisers do. The purpose of TV, radio, and print is to attract viewers/listeners for the advertisers. That's the business model.
The Left is sufficiently better than the Right in organizing boycotts and harassing companies over content that offends them.
“What? Write a letter to the editor to complain about bias? “
How to avoid legitimately publishing a Letter to the Editor that is not in the interests of the MSM outlet - A general guide:
1: Reject the letter for grammatical issues/word count and ask for a rewrite - Writer’s fault
2: Delay publication for ‘lack of space/abundance of other letters that day/week’ - Writer’s fault - had they not screwed it up to begin with it would have been published.
3: Refuse publication since the letter in question is untimely and the issue in question is ‘old news’. - See above.
Or just lose it.
Yes, that strangely happens when a letter passes through so many departments on the way to the Ed’s desk. Not that I ever saw it... but I heard stories....
The problem there is that it becomes just another Blog in the public eye.
Look at FR itself and imagine what it could be if JR was an insanely wealthy man or partnered with one for the venture.
I see what you’re saying, but the days of that kind of groundswell site are gone. The current political climate demands $$$ for credibility. Where FR has a legacy, an upstart with no funding has nothing but a prayer.
And I say this having been one of the founding members of what was once a monster ‘ground up” website - www.off-road.com
What I have in mind is not a “blog”. It would be a legitimate news and information site, with opinion/commentaries mixed in, and links to forums/discussion sites where the “articles” found on “my” website can be discussed (such as FR and DU and HuffPo and others).
In fact, if my idea takes off, it could, potentially, replace a lot of newspapers and information sites, and could replace the printed media, at least to a large extent. More importantly, it could take away a lot of traffic from sites such as Google and Bing and Yahoo and AOL, since it could be an alternative to search engines for look-up of news and information and opinion.
Don’t get me wrong, I understand your intent...It’s just that ‘perception is reality’. People make ‘news sites’ all the time. And they are news sites. But people just think ‘blog’ because there is no backing to differentiate them from the millions of others doing the exact same thing. Just some guy in his PJs. No it isn’t ‘fair’ but unless you buy your way into the market, it’s the reality. People equate $$$ with credibility.
FR is a thousand times the site that RedState could ever be from any angle. But ask why it is that Rush and the MSM always quote them and not FR.
Because regardless of the ‘truth’ people perceive FR to be something other than what it is. Money is the difference.
Any number of Freepers are far superior reporter/commentators to what they offer there as paid professionals. Again...why do they have ‘mainstream’ cred and FR is the redheaded stepchild in their (mistaken) view?
And I should have added this...
When the whole of the MSM comes down on you as a Right Wing Hate site on 7 channels in prime time and A1 across America, and locks you out from responding, you need cubic dollars to fight back.
Or you are Alynskied in small but everpresent ways to strip your cred and close your doors...when they come after your ISP....
A couple Conservative radio shows do not a strong rebuttal make.
You still don’t understand...
What I have in mind is not a right-wing web site, nor a left-wing web site, nor a web site based on any agenda.
It would be a “neutral” site, with news/information/opinion from all sides. The big deal being that, anyone could post an article, with any kind of agenda being represented. “My” web site wouldn’t care, and it would present the articles from all sides together. So, if people want to create articles regarding the unemployment issue, both the left-wing and right-wing opinions would show up, along with any other opinions regarding the subject.
It would be an attempt at presenting all sides, “side-by-side”, with the main purpose being, educating the readers/voters on all the issues.
Yeah, I know. There will be some who hate having the truth being represented along with the spin and lies that can be found everywhere, but, if one just gives up because of the fear of being “Alynskied” or being demonized, then we might all just be better off going into caves and letting the bad guys win. Your attitude sounds more like a “defeatist” than as a fighter.
In the olden days the media used to be openly partisan. There were Republican and Democrat papers.
No, I do understand. The people who don’t like an honest airing of reality will and do move heaven and earth to stop that from happening. Look at Fox of 2000 and Fox of today for an example of a semi-neutral outlet co-opted/destroyed by the Left. Today they ARE the left.
It is not defeatist to simply spell out the reality of life in these United States. I fully think it’s possible and wish it could/would happen.
But I have been down this road in reality, not theory. It takes lotsa’ $$$$$$ to make an impact. All the fact, truth, et all are nothing when no ears hear it and those that do, refuse to hear.
They refuse because they do not find credibility without money in enough numbers to swing elections.
As an experiment, look at the Global warming issue. Look at the groundswell websites filled with enough climatologists to make their own weather from scratch...and who does the gen pub believe?
Because the Gen Pub refuses to believe actual scientists on some website when they are barraged 24/7 that we’re all gonna die and the Today show is credible while a hunderd/a thousand scientists who do this for a living...aren’t.
Am I mistaken? Again, it sucks, but I defy you to prove that wrong.
Edit: “nothing when no ears hear it and those that do, refuse to listen/believe.”
As an aside, think of it like this...
The web is mostly populated by younger people who have the whole social network thing wired to a fine science.
Go to sites like Spotify/Beatport/Soundcloud to see the literally MILLIONS of wanna-be musicians out there using the web and their considerable internet skills to get noticed, seen, played etc., in the hope they will be discovered and signed by a professional record label.
There is some incredible talent there. Real, genuine world class takent vocally and on their respective instruments/as bands etc.
Now take a Niki Minage or pop starlet of the moment with little to no skill/talent outside physical features/a certain ‘look’
The record company finds these people through Agents who market them. They spread the word directly to the record companies A&R people who then put a team of professional engineers/musicians/songwriters/image consultants to work and a year later the pop starlet goes from waitressing at Denny’s to a Grammy. In 10 years she’s a legend, in 20 an icon.
Two of them just did the halftime show at the superbowl.
They have nothing on thousands of talented musicians who are far better at their craft. But money talks. Talent, or in the case of our discussion, truth, is meaningless without the means to get it in front of the general public.
People flock to buy Madona/Manage/Perry etc records while all the self promoters of the net remain unknown and unheard. Sure there are exceptions, but so few as to be almost non-existant.
Oops, that was meant for Adorno
Some of the media is elected though customer subscriptions, which is why so many biased newspapers are losing business.
You still sound defeated.
Your examples leave a lot to be desired, and, when examined with closer scrutiny, neither one of those examples were failures. Fox is a big hit, even if it’s not a conservative news channel. My purpose is not to create a conservative site. It’s intended to be a neutral site, with the hope of having all sides heard, equally, with the spin and the lies and the facts.
Even the global warming “conspiracy” is not a winner for the other side, since they’ve been denied any big victory and “our” side has the facts and the science to support us, which is a much bigger factor to overcome.
But, I’ll go back to your attitude, which, if more people took that way of thinking, the U.S. would’ve been doomed from the beginning. In fact, and you may not like this, you sound like what the other side would be doing in trying to discourage people from doing anything which is destructive to their agenda.
Fox is a failure as a news outlet because it is now as biased as CBS. “Fair and Balanced”? I think not. Thus Fail. The left hates it and the right recently abandoned it.
Saying I am incorrect does not make it so. Please show examples of how I missed the mark. I will be happy to admit any error in my assertions. I wish I WAS wrong but experience and the things I see tell me I’m not.
I do not see how you see an honest and informed assessment of the facts at hand as defeated. We CAN win if we stop living in a fantasy that people will just flock to us and vote in another Reagan. We NEED things like you propose...absolutely. Not one argument from me.
But if your way is correct, please explain to me how it is that people who win elections and change minds are spending like drunk sailors. How do you think Mittens won Fla.? It wasn’t with a website, it was with $17+ million in BS advertizing that people believed in opposition to any truth involved.
If all it took was a website and a vision, the site you propose would have long since been created and we’d have no libs in power. My sole point is that winning this war requires money. If you do not agree, then please explain in detail why I am mistaken.
No doubt, you’re very opinionated, but, that’s mostly what you are, and you’re not looking at the whole picture.
I too have been disappointed with the turn that FOX took a few years ago to try to be “balanced”, which by doing so, they actually started acting like the opposition. But, when it comes to having more balance, they are pretty far to the right of the left-wing media. We can be grateful for a few little miracles. Then, the conservatives still carry the bigger audiences on talk radio. That hasn’t changed for a long time, and, basically, it’s the message than carries the day on that media type; the democrats can’t touch us there.
Now, I could’ve have easily worked on creating what I’m doing with a conservative slant, but then, it would have been derided and attacked as just another “right wing” media source. That would’ve defeated the whole idea of getting people to “tune in” to the alternate side of the issues. By creating something that presents all sides of all the issues, it’s far more likely that people might visit and get the many different viewpoints. As it stands now, the majority of media is left-leaning, and people need a better balance. A site which would lean conservative would have people avoiding it from the start. I prefer to lure people in with their side, and to then have them notice that, there are other opinions on the same issues. People live in their own particular bubbles, and what I have in mind would expand those bubbles to at least get people to notice the other side(s).
And, once again, what I have in mind is not “just another web site”. There are perhaps millions of news and information web sites out there. Mine would be a one-stop center for all, including the readers and the contributors. In fact, the contributors would never need to be affiliated with any other media organization, since, most others could/would be represented within “my” site. If my idea takes off, there could be many media sources going out of business, such as the NY Times and the Washington Post and HuffPo and many others.
I’m looking to change the whole landscape for news and information and opinion. One media giant, with thousands of contributors, including independent columnists and even media organizations (yeah, I would allow them in as contributors). The service would be “free” to the users/visitors/readers, and, (here’s the kicker), the contributors/content creators would be the paying clientele. They’d be paying for “my” system to “host” their articles and to provide, hopefully, a huge audience from which they could get advertising to monetize their contributions.
It’s a lot more involved than I’ve explained, yet, to the users and the contributors, it would be simple to use.
Meanwhile, stop being so negative and so “defeated”.
Congrats, you just designed FreeRepublic.com.
Now in a number of posts you have studiously avoided pointing out any actual inaccuracies in my “opinionated” (yet based on proven/documented fact) statements and keep calling me ‘negative, defeatist ect.” I am of the ‘opinion’ that facts are in fact, factual.
Again, please show me where my so called ‘opinions’ are incorrect and I will be happy to admit my error and reassess my thinking. Simply saying I’m wrong in my Global Warming/Fox/Music/Ad/Newspaper/MSM et all examples (many also shared by personal experience), and all of which are proven true with a casual romp through articles right here on FR, isn’t very convincing to me or anyone else.
If this is a simple personality conflict, I have better things to do. But if you are serious about discussing the facts, let’s do that.
So, I just designed Free Republic?
Yet, you still don’t understand what I have actually designed.
The fact is that, what I have designed is completely different from FR, and if I were interested in doing another FR, it would be quite simple to just pick up a ready made internet software package and set up “another FR” in a matter of hours. But, no, what I have in mind is a completely different animal, and one which is not that simple to set up, and which is very different from any other out there.
Now, no matter how much you want to deny it, you still sound very negative and defeated with your attitude. There is nothing wrong with being very opinionated, but, opinions are not always the same as fact, and oftentimes, they’re not based on facts. You can’t make up your own facts in order to prove me wrong or you right. FOX, as an example, may not be a conservative station, but, it’s also very far from being just another left-wing media organization. When it comes to global warming, you do have some points, but, we’re very far from having those wackos and crooks winning the debate. Sure, the EPA has gone mad with massive and unneeded environmental regulations, but they’re not actual laws which have to stay in the books once a new administration takes office, and it’s not an indication of their global warming consensus showing the need for action.
BTW, I didn’t intend for you to take any of my posts personally. I’m simply pointing out a difference of opinion. You believe one way, I believe another. However, I believe we’re still after the same goals, at least politically. I’m trying to do it one way, you see it differently. I prefer to remain positive and will not allow the opposition dictate to me what I can or cannot do. Otherwise, there would be no reason to even exist.
We’ll just have to disagree on pretty much everything here.
I am not taking this personally per se, but you continue to discount and/or minimize factual examples and keep pushing some meme that I’m defeatist when I clearly said we need things like you propose, but that isn’t the answer. That’s not defeatist, that’s rational thought backed up by the functioning of the political process we live in..
RE: The FR comparison - The one thing that significantly between your plan and FR is the monitization issue. And even there, Bloggers monitze their articles they post on their sites and link to FR all the time, thus it’s not really that different after all.
As for the rest, well, as the saying goes, you are entitled to your beliefs, but not to your own facts.
I wish you the best in your endeavor and I hope it succeeds. I honestly do. But I maintain that Big $$$ are the driving force to get things done.
Once again, you fail to understand what it is that I’m designing/developing.
Like I said, it’s not at all like FR, although some bits of it might duplicate some of what FR and other blogs/discussion sites do. But, that would be between 5-10% of the functions of my idea.
FR, and other discussion sites are very limited in scope. FR, for example, does not have a facility for hosting articles by specific authors/columnists/publishers, and I would provide for “search” of articles via authors, publishers, date/date range, categories (up to 4 levels/sublevels), subjects/topics/issues, geographic location (country, region/state, city), article title (3 variations: 1) full title; up to 10 keywords within the article that must, 2) either all exist in title, or 3) just have any of them in the title), article type (news, information, opinion, etc), publisher type (newspaper, TV, radio, magazine, independent reporter/columnist, etc), a sort order. It would allow search specifications of any of the above, or any combination of the above, or even all of the above.
Articles could be hosted on “my” site, or off-site (publisher, author/columnist own site). A means is provided for linking to external discussion sites for each article, for up to 20 such links.
So, for example, if someone wanted to “find” all the articles written by Krauthammer, for all of December/2006, relating to Obama and Pelosi and Congress, relating to the elections, and where energy happens to be one of the topics, then the system would allow all of that criteria in one “simple” search, and would return any and all articles that meet the criteria.
Within the returned results, each article would contain links to web sites where discussions relating to the article are occurring. Anyone who reads the article could start a discussion on any other website, and then enter that website’s URL into the article so that other people could visit that other site to partake in the discussion. “My” site would not offer a discussion area, since, all discussions would be on “other” sites. FR is a forum for discussing issues, mostly initiated from quoted/linked articles. I could offer the facility for discussing any and all articles, but, I believe it’s better to just leave it to others, including FR.