A Modest Proposal: Electing the Media (Vanity)

2/6/2012 | By Lazamataz

[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.

[adorno]

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

[adorno]

That last sentence should read:

We can do it. It doesn’t have to be complicated.

[Norm Lenhart]

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.

[VRW Conspirator]

Thanks for the insight Norm. I have often wondered what the hierarchy was in a newspaper and the like. You confirmed what I suspected. The challenge for us unwashed masses is that these towers of propaganda were/are virtually impervious to anything that we could do. What? Write a letter to the editor to complain about bias? It would have done no good to try to expose the editors or reporters, regardless of their political affiliation, because they serve at the will of the publisher or lose their jobs. The only way to "hurt" the print media was through revenue loss.

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.

[PapaBear3625]

We do vote, it is called “ratings”.

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.

[Norm Lenhart]

“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.

Rinse/repeat.

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....

[adorno]

The easy part is creating the concept of an alternative. The problem is funding it.

You are correct to an extent.

The concept is not that easy, at least not the way I mentioned in my original post above.

The concept for an alternative has to be one that is not already out there, and I think I have the formula.

The funding is another good question, but, there have been many websites which have been started with minimum funding or no funding at all, and which have existed for months and sometimes years, without monetizing. In the end, if it's going to be as large as I envision it, it's going to have to be monetized sooner or later, and preferably sooner. Advertising will keep the site "free", or at least create the perception of it being "for free". Funding through private sources tends to politicize the process, and it might be less desirable than through regular advertising.

Promoting of the service doesn't have to start with large funding, or even any funding. Perhaps a few links here and there, and word-of-mouth will get people into the site, and hopefully, the popularity builds from there.

Like I hinted in my prior post, the website idea is not very difficult, and it could serve as an alternative to all other news/information/opinion sites. I already have a working model, but, like any other website, it's never finished and will need changes and improvements as it goes, but, for the most part, it's fairly "complete".

[Norm Lenhart]

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

[adorno]

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.

[Norm Lenhart]

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?

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

[Norm Lenhart]

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.

[adorno]

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.

[Impy]

In the olden days the media used to be openly partisan. There were Republican and Democrat papers.

[Norm Lenhart]

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?

The MSM

Why?

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.

[Norm Lenhart]

Edit: “nothing when no ears hear it and those that do, refuse to listen/believe.”

[TheOldLady]

He didn't donate
Click the Pic

Sign up to donate monthly
A sponsoring FReeper will contribute $10
For each new monthly sign-up

[GOPsterinMA]

You’re right!

[Norm Lenhart]

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.

[Norm Lenhart]

Oops, that was meant for Adorno

[Clintonfatigued]

Some of the media is elected though customer subscriptions, which is why so many biased newspapers are losing business.