I have an idea on how to make media more respectful

[Ksec]

I started mulling around how come it seems that Democrats and Liberals are so villified and disrespected by media and the best I could come up with is fear of the right wing and the harm they can do to someone. How can we stop this swing to the right- media is brazenly taken?

Stop generalizing (like I just did)Take the offensive. Focus on one person at a time.
Lets say for example Chris Matthews says something that really ticks us off. We all focus on him and just crucify him. I mean take no prisoners gung ho,attacks. Make him wonder if his career is over and maybe even make him lose his job. All of a sudden media starts realizing that we have become a force to reckon with.

Instead of complaining about all media we narrow our aim to one at a time. The guys we take down will be an example. ie Dixie Chicked. How long before these guys start thinking twice about ignoring or dissing us. They no longer have a broad brush to hide behind. They now know they can get singled out for stuff they say .

Wouldnt this be a good way to finally get some long overdue respect ?

[Jacobin]

1. Paychecks are controlled by the junta, not the opposition

But I like that we are thinking of ways to deal with these cowards.

[deakonblues2k]

5. Understand what the media wants...

If it doesn't translate into ratings and subsequent increased advertiser revenue, then regardless of what you do it will have no effect.

If there is a swelling of left wing reaction to any particular host, program, etc, this may have an undesireable effect. By increasing the popularity of said host or program, increasing ratings, and obviously in the end, increasing advertising revenue.

Sorry, the only way to manipulate the media is to stop watching it, decrease ratings, and make the advertisers go away.

[ConsAreLiars]

7. Ratings do not bring profits

Corporate sponsorship through the purchase of of "advertising" is th income source, but what is necessary to get advertising is not ratings. What is neccessary is that the media provide a service that is of value to the the corporate money men. Ratings may increase the value of the service, since that means that their influence extends further, but whether the ratings are high or low the corporate owners and "customers" will continue to maintain control over the message be ensure that their short and long term financial interests are advanced.

Organized yelling at the sycophants is well worth doing, but in terms of objectives, remember that these media will not shift their alliances for better ratings. We ned to continue to build alternative networks for information and agitation.

[libview]

12. Well, that's a bunch of bullshit

Ratings is what sets the price of advertising, period. Company's buy advertising time based on ratings and demographics. Your offering up a lame excuse why conservitives have taken over the airwaves and thinking like yours does not help to straighten out the situation.
No alternitive network is going to be sucsessful if nobody is listening!!

[pennylane100]

2. I think that's a great idea.

We should start a volunteer media attack team. We could nominate a person each week or month that is the most biased against the democtrats and the democratic candidates and individually sent letters to different media outlets and sponsorsoutlining our complaints. You can sign me up.

[ParticipatoryDem]

3. maybe even make him lose his job

I don't think DU was intended to be used for getting people fired. I'm sure Will will attest that it's not a proper use for it.

[lostnfound]

11. Oh c'mon! We are trying to make George lose HIS job, aren't we?

Well, actually, we are trying to make him lose Gore's job, but you get the idea.

People in positions of power that waste them or use them for utterly destructive purposes need to be taken down and given jobs more appropriate to their character. No offense to paper carriers, but that would be a good one for Chris Matthews.

[Coldgothicwoman]

4. Isn't that how the Rethuglicans got so powerful in the first place?

By repeating the 'liberal media' lie over and over and over and over until it became ad nauseum truth, and anyone who tried to portray some fair reporting was villified by them?

<Edit: I'm not suggesting that the reporters are currently making fair reporting, just saying that that seems to me where it got started.>

On one hand, I say fight fire with fire. But is all the hatred between the opposition parties now because of that?

I don't know the answer to that last question. But all civility is gone in our political discourse (as a generalized statement). Should we contribute to it even more? Or is it already past the point of no return?

Am I focusing on the wrong point? I dunno...comments welcome.

[Ksec]

6. So who should be first?

A Fox jock? Hannity, Rush ? Cmon folks . Lets do something effective for a change and stop finding reasons why it wont work. Enough with the defeatest attitudes.

My vote goes to Hannity for all the crap hes lied about, the constant bashing, 8 yrs of Clinton destruction! I cant think of a better man to be wacked.

[arewethereyet]

8. an excellent idea, stunningly effective, difficult to implement

and they know it

[kentuck]

9. I like the idea with some fine tuning....

Our purpose should not be to try and get the person fired but to discredit him for his ideas and his lack of logic, etc. But I like your idea of going after one person at a time instead of the "liberal media". We should flood them with emails and calls when they are blatantly biased or stupid. If we can embarrass them, then all well and good.

[revcarol]

10. Which bat did you want to hit them with?

Seriously....

Great idea, not so difficult to implement using the net. Remember how we got "Flowers for Byrd?" We can do "Brickbats for________."

The squeaky wheel gets the grease. It is a standard axiom that for every person who writes, telephones,e-mails there are 100 who believe the same but just don't communicate. If we are to be part of the audience that buys the products they advertise, they better be aware that we are listening to the CONTENT of what they say, and that our patience is limited. Any day, we can just tune out permanently.The right has used this effectively by bombarding networks, commentators with their slime. Why shouldn't it work for the good guys?

Did I remember wrong...didn't a "Savage" camapaign produce some results?