How Long Can Dem Pols Ignore the Need for MEDIA REFORM?

[snot]

Conservatives have severely hampered progress by the last 2, extremely popular Dem presidencies, mostly through ridiculous distractions and lies (while giving a pass to all kinds of devastation wrought by Repub administrations).

Do Dem pols really, still not understand they'll never get very far against a tidal wave of conservative propaganda?

Corp. funding for Dems is starting to look like kickbacks for throwing the fight.

[Fumesucker]

1. As long as their campaigns are funded by the same people who own the media..

As the last sentence in your OP implies.

[randr]

2. Obviously too long

After tomorrow it may be too late for them to do anything again in our life times.
Just imagine what it will be like if Obama has a Supreme Court Justice to nominate.

[pinboy3niner]

3. This is not an election issue

No surprise we're not heaing abou it now.

[MineralMan]

4. I'm not really sure how a political party is going to

reform the media. Seriously. I believe that's going to be up to us. We're going to have to create our own media to compete with the biased media. We can do that, you know, in a country that has the 1st Amendment. Why we have not done so is a huge mystery to me. Where is our competition with Fox News? Why doesn't it exist?

[Cosmocat]

6. $$$$

The Rs have the money behind their propoganda AND their propoganda makes more money than what we have to say ...

Sad reality is, you have 1000s of "conservative" profiteers like Beck and the countless local clowns who have an audience that just laps up the 1000th warmed over "how liberals are killing america" screeds ... You have a half dozen people at a coffee house earnestly concerned about environmental issues ...

As a "liberal" is is hard to justify any restrictions on speech ... I DO think some things can be done about campaigns, but as for the media, it just is not something that can be addressed legally ... He average joe has to WTF up, bottom line ...

[MineralMan]

9. Oh, the money's there. We're just not spending it on media.

Perhaps we should, you know. Complaining about right-wing media bias is useless. Creating a new media is priceless.

Despite all the hoopla about the internet-based "new media," there are more eyes on the TV, still, than on internet news. It's that simple. If we want to reach the average voter, we have to use the media they're viewing, not the media we like for ourselves. That will probably change, over time, but it hasn't changed yet. The internet offers too many options and viewership is diluted. What we need is to reach folks at 6PM and 10PM and over their morning coffee. TV is still doing that. We need TV and we need TV that just flat tells it like it is. We need news that is attractive to viewers and informative without being hyped. We need to study the right wing media and learn from it. We're poor learners, it seems.

Why this message hasn't been heard, I have no freaking idea.

[Fumesucker]

13. No one would watch "TV that tells it like it is"..

At least not enough to make any difference.

People by and large prefer comforting lies to uncomfortable truths.

"They hate us for our freedoms", a comforting lie that is believed by vast numbers of Americans.

[MineralMan]

15. OK, you've convinced me. It's hopeless. There's nothing we can

do. We might as well just give it all up.

Screw that, Fumesucker. Said with all due respect, of course.

We haven't even tried. Fox News has. If we cannot compete with that slurry of ill-smelling sludge, then it is, indeed, hopeless.

We can compete. We just haven't bothered to do that. The truth doesn't have to be boring. The truth can be as entertaining and compelling as anything else. We just don't try. Well, mostly, anyhow.

I'll give you The Daily Show and Michael Moore's films as examples. Both have created enormously popular media. We can do media. We just don't bother.

Maybe it's because so many have already called it hopeless. Ya think?

Again: Screw That!

[Fumesucker]

22. Funny how you didn't disagree with my premise..

Come on, tell me how people don't prefer comforting lies to disquieting truths.

[MineralMan]

24. Which people, Fumesucker?

I don't make such broad assertions. You tell me which "people" you're talking about, and I'll address your question.

Are you talking about the "people" who watch The Daily Show? The people who go to Michael Moore films? Those are "people." As long as you broadbrush the question, I can't answer you. Narrow your focus and rephrase, and I'll give you an answer, OK?

[Fumesucker]

26. A solid majority of the American public..

Those people..

[MineralMan]

27. Ah, you mean all those people under the bulk of the political bell curve.

OK. So, how do you propose reaching them? Or is your idea just to write them off as a lost cause? You see, the problem with that is that they do show up and vote. If you don't find a way to get them to vote on the correct side, then you lose. So, if they insist on being entertained with their news, then don't you think we'd better start finding ways to do exactly that?

Again, you're missing my point completely. Bombarding people with inconvenient truths is now how we you do it. Lying to them is not how you do it. Fox is already doing that. What I propose is a venture to provide an alternative for all those people - a place where they can get their news in the way they seem to insist that it be presented, but truthfully, rather than with lies.

Doing this is going to require that the left learn how to do that, acquire the means to do it, then follow through with it. Nobody's tried that one, you see. There are bits of it here and there, but there is no actual outlet that is attractive enough to pull people in so we can show them the true information, but in a way that keeps them coming back. Unless we do that, Fox wins. The corporate influence on the news wins. Everyone wins but us.

Think it's hopeless? Then step aside and let others do the job. Let others find a way to present spokespeople from the left on a regular basis, instead of the current stream of right-wingers we see on every news outlet. Let others find a way to present the news and commentary in a way that is exciting, interesting and, yes, entertaining, but with an emphasis on progressive concepts. Naysaying won't cut it any more, Fumesucker. Whining that it doesn't exist won't cut it. Saying "It can't be done" won't cut it. So, unless you have a suggestion for how to do it, your input isn't useful, to be quite frank.

A negative attitude does nothing but produce negativity. We don't need any more of that...there's already plenty. What we need are some new ideas that are positive and that can reach the very people we need to reach.

[Fumesucker]

28. I'm not in the way..

If you think you can do it, go ahead.

If you succeed then more power to you.

But my point is this, to a big extent the entertainment media (and I include the "nooz" in this category) gives people what people will watch, the great majority of the time that works out to be the lowest common denominator, American Idle, Dancing With the Starz, "Reality Shows" and the like.

The media market is just too fractured today to capture more than a small percentage of any given demographic, those who are really interested in knowing what's going on beyond the lying headlines already have the means to seek out the truth if they wish to do so.

How do you reach my son-in-law, a bright and reasonably well educated man (he has an MS in CS) who never watches anything other than sports and ESPN and maybe every once in a while a movie or local nooz and who told me shortly after the last election that he "voted for anyone with an R next to their name"? My SIL is in many ways the average American, he's a good guy but has swallowed so many right wing memes from the media without questioning them that turning him around politically is impossible I think.

[MineralMan]

29. It's not possible to reach everyone, of course, and I don't care if

we reach your SIL. The problem is that we're not reaching a lot of people who DO watch television. We're not reaching them at all. And we must reach them, or we'll lose them. We're not telling them that Social Security isn't bankrupt. We're not telling them what HAS been accomplished by the Obama Administration that benefits them. There's so much we're not telling them. And we must.

I'm not a media expert, by any means. But, I know that it can be done. It's going to take a lot of money, a lot of time, and will requiring buying at least one of the major networks. After that, we have to find ways to pull people from what they're currently watching to watch our network. Once we do that, the advertising dollars will follow, since advertising doesn't give a crap about what's on, just the number of eyes watching it.

How do we do that? I do not know, but there are people who do know. We can do it. We must do it. We need desperately to do it. This country needs an alternative source of information, and if the Democrats don't come up with one, we're gonna get buried eventually.

[Fumesucker]

30. The Democrats won't do it and couldn't even if they were motivated to do so..

Most of the Dems money comes from the same people that fund the Republicans, there is no way those people are going to provide money to counter the message they so carefully craft in order to get average Americans to consistently vote against their own best interests.

Now, assuming that the Democrats actually had the money to do what you envision, anything such an effort said would automatically be discounted by a huge percentage of the population simply because of the source.

I figured out a long time ago that just because a situation is desperate and things look grim doesn't mean a solution to the problem(s) is necessarily going to be found. Sometimes the ship sinks and the people on board just drown.

I think I remember you saying you have no children, well I have grandchildren that I care about a lot more than my own life, I wish I thought there was some way to save this situation but I honestly think it's gone too far, the rot is too deep.

And you'd better be trying to reach my son-in-law, like I said he's not far from being the average American, thirty years old, three kids, intelligent, educated and yet uninformed to a fault about many things.

[snot]

8. There used to be restrictions on consolidation of media ownership, and

there used to be a Fairness Doctrine. These worked fairly well for many, many years. Repub. admin. appointees eliminated these restrictions over and against the largest public outcry in FCC history.

Gore created Current TV -- how many people you know watch it? Per Wikipedia,

"In July 2009, 80 in house staff were laid off, about 25% of Current's staff, and plans were announced to air licensed TV series and films and other content that is not produced by Current in-house or by the VC2 system. Hollywood Reporter's Andrew Wallenstein predicts Current will . . . add more less-serious entertainment programming . . . . Comcast Corporation owns a ten percent stake of Current Media LLC."

Air America went bankrupt this year.

I.m.h.o., fighting back under rules of the game established by conservatives CAN'T work, bec. progressives aren't willing to fight unfairly against people who have no qualms about fighting unfairly.

What we must do is restore the rules of the game to point where a fair fight is possible.

[MineralMan]

11. Both Current TV and Air America were cosmically boring.

Sorry. Unless you were a serious, serious news junky liberal, they were unwatchable. If we want to reach voters who are just looking for interesting information, news, and commentary, we've got to remove the broomstick from our butts and give them something they want to see. We can't continue to expect people to be as serious about our issues as we are. We have to bring the issues to them in a way that is compelling, entertaining, and effective.

Look at The Daily Show. There's a model. If we bore people, the message doesn't reach them. It is that freaking simple. Even I couldn't stand to listen to Air America for more than about a month. It was boring, repetitive, and uncompelling radio.

[Fumesucker]

14. Right wing radio is boring, repetitive and uncompelling also..

I used to listen to one of the right wing radio talkers before he got nationally syndicated.. Boortz was an asshole but an entertaining asshole, as soon as he got syndicated nationally he had to do away with all the elements of his show that were actually entertaining to me, he became just another right wing talker.

For instance, Boortz used to poke some hilarious fun at the Christian fundamentalists, as soon as he became syndicated I never heard another word out of him critical of fundies.

[snot]

10. There used to be restrictions on consolidation of media ownership, and

there used to be a Fairness Doctrine. These worked fairly well for many, many years. Repub. admin. appointees eliminated these restrictions over and against the largest public outcry in FCC history.

Gore created Current TV -- how many people you know watch it? Per Wikipedia,

"In July 2009, 80 in house staff were laid off, about 25% of Current's staff, and plans were announced to air licensed TV series and films and other content that is not produced by Current in-house or by the VC2 system. Hollywood Reporter's Andrew Wallenstein predicts Current will . . . add more less-serious entertainment programming . . . . Comcast Corporation owns a ten percent stake of Current Media LLC."

Air America went bankrupt this year.

I.m.h.o., fighting back under rules of the game established by conservatives CAN'T work, bec. progressives aren't willing to fight unfairly against people who have no qualms about fighting unfairly.

What we must do is restore the rules of the game to point where a fair fight is possible.

[Marr]

12. Media ownership laws.

The consolidation of media is the problem, and that could be reversed through the political system, just like breaking up a monopoly.

[snot]

19. Exactly. Info monopolies are even more dangerous than business monopolies.

I know a lot of people on DU realize all this; but I'm appalled at how many DON'T.

[deaniac21]

5. Clinton was very popular

Obama, not so much

[spanone]

7. like asking congress for term limits...ain't gonna happen

[MadHound]

16. Just what kind of "media reform" are you looking for?

I can see reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine, but I can't join you if you're going to go beyond that.

[snot]

20. Again, there's no reason we can't bust up Info Monopolies.

Esp. considering most of them depend on use of the supposedly "public" airwaves and other rights of way.

[Fumesucker]

21. Sure there is...

The media monopolies own our politicians, they damn sure aren't going to do anything to bite the hand that feeds them.

[MadHound]

25. Do you honestly think that the Dems are going to bust those up,

When it's Clinton's '96 Telecom Act that helped create them in the first place?

[unblock]

17. the media know how to play the game, and the hapless pols soon learn.

you want airtime? you don't bite the hand that gives you airtime and slants the news.

any democratic politician who challenges the media will quickly find themselves getting negative coverage, non-coverage, scandals, and fawning coverage for their primary and general election challengers.

as long as there are a few liebermans and such who will allow themselves to pretend to be on the left, the media wins.

only a unified party can stand up to this crap, and since when have democrats been unified?

[bvar22]

18. If the "Centrist" Dems reform the Media....

...like they "reformed" Health Care or Big Banks,
I would prefer that they just leave it alone.

[d_b]

23. Propaganda tears down our leadership

Failed policies bring down pubes.

It's been time for corporate media reform for too long.