America is half-starved to death for a source of news that is truly INDEPENDENT from

[Cal33]

influences of all shapes and forms.

It's obviously quite clear to all that the news media have a tremendous impact on
informing, misinforming, as well as exposing or hiding facts from the general public.

We also know that 90% of the news media are Republican-owned. This is one of
the issues that has given the Republicans an incalculable political advantage over
the Democrats. There is not much we can do to successfully counteract the
Republicans' twisted info, half truths and outright lies. In short, it helps them to win
elections.

Running a news media company (newspaper, magazine, TV, radio ..... ) is an
expensive enterprise. It will be very costly, especially at the beginning. It will also
take a long, long time before any profits can be expected.

There are many wealthy Democrats who are known to be philanthropists. It occurred
to me that if they were to join together and combine their resources, couldn't they
start up a news media company (and a very large one at that) that would be totally
INDEPENDENT of any outside influence, and spread REAL NEWS, the truth, and also
counteract any and all misinformation that have been deliberately spread by dishonest
news sources?

This could help to defeat the present one-sided lopsided nonsense and garbage that
has been dished out as news, and which has been used to brain-wash and dumb down
the American people for the past half-century. It is also destroying our democratic
way of life - which is exactly what the 1% Oligarchy is doing. These psychopaths
are trying their best to rule the world and make it into their own private fiefdom!

What would DU members here think of making up a suggestion of this nature? If
one wealthy Democrat could be found who would be interested in this idea, s/he
would probably know others, and these in turn would know still more others, who might
be persuaded to join.

I would like to bring up this as an idea only, and leave it entirely up to those who
would be willing to participate. If it should become a great and prosperous company
in the future - more power to them. Our democratic way of life will have been preserved.

The American people are half-starved to death for want of real, true and accurate
information, because this situation has been foisted on them by the Oligarchs who see it
as a means of getting to their own selfish greedy way.

I'm just tossing out an idea to be discussed.

[Prophet 451]

1. The problem is advertising

In order to support itself, such a news source would have to take advertising and advertising means having to be appealing to advertisers. Advertisers who will tend to be corporate (hence, conservative) and will be risk-averse. There's a reason the BBC, with a reputation for objectivity, is publically funded (I'm British but don't watch any domestic news).

You'd also have the problem that nothing is going to break through to those in the conservative bubble (who are constantly told that all media but Fox is liberally biased) and the danger that the news source would just end up corporate owned over time.

[Cal33]

4. Since the founders would be wealthy philanthropists, making a profit from this source

would not be a matter of primary concern to them. It wouldn't matter to them
even if the company were barely getting by financially. It would be just
another charity case. But, if the company should do well in the future, as I said,
more power to them.

It's true that with some, nothing is going to break through the Conservative
bubble. These won't ever change. But there are also some who became
Conservative because of the decades of brain-washing. They've rarely heard
anything else. With these there could be some possibility of change, when they
have the opportunity of being exposed repeatedly and long to the truth, backed
up with evidence and logical presentations. At least, I hope so.

I've heard that millions listen to the news on radio when they are driving to and
from work. So, radio is important. I haven't listened to the radio for decades.
I am hard of hearing.

[Cal33]

18. "...the news source would just end up corporate owned over time." No, it could be made to stay

Last edited Tue Nov 18, 2014, 10:46 PM - Edit history (1)

in the ownership of the philanthropists only.

[Blue_Tires]

2. We've had some opportunies, but they weren't supported and died on the vine

[Cal33]

6. If there had been enough wealthy backers, the support might not have died. Yes, money

is often the issue.

[Kelvin Mace]

3. What I have wanted one of the few liberal-ish

billionaires to do is to endow a "News Guild" with sufficient funds that it could publish a weekly magazine online and in print that is nothing but hard journalism with NO advertising. Probably could manage podcasts as well.

[Cal33]

5. That does sound like a good idea. Although it would be on the smallish side, every bit helps.

[Kelvin Mace]

12. Perhaps not,

you give them a billion dollar endowment, and they could safely generate around $50 million a year. Not CNN, but certainly WAY bigger than any independent (ad free) news group I am aware of.

[Cal33]

13. How about accepting ads for the sale of goods of everyday use that have nothing to do with

politics? I think that's quite possible. In fact, most goods have nothing to do with
politics.

[Kelvin Mace]

15. Nope, no ads.

Mad Magazine was incredible for 40 years, then it started taking ads and quality declined. Once you take ads, someone will tell you "Hey, we can't do a story on GMOs, Frito Lay is an advertiser and they use GMO potatoes".

[no_hypocrisy]

7. My NYC experience

In 1988, we had WEVD, WABC (yes, it had liberal hosts), and WBAI. Today there is only WBAI (Pacifica).

We lost WEVD on August 31, 2001 after it was sold by The Jewish Forward to Disney/ABC Corp.

Air America first appeared on WLIV and then transferred to WWRL.

We lost WWRL earlier this year. There is no non-conservative talk radio on AM in NYC.

I wanted liberal talk on radio so much that I volunteered as a producer for just one two-hour show on WVNJ until we were canceled four years ago. We had Don Siegelman as a guest four times including our last show.

There's WNYC/Public Radio but it's tempered and not entirely liberal nor real talk radio..

Right now there is a disenfranchised radio audience/family out there. I miss the talk. I miss the community.

[DFW]

21. I just discovered WBAI, or rather, they discovered me

I got an email out of the blue (I live in Germany) from one of their shows about playing some of my music, with an offer to be a guest on the show next time I'm in NYC (!!!). I had never heard of them, but I sure know who they are now!

[brooklynite]

26. I disagree...

...Air America wasn't forced off the air; it never generated the kind of audience it needed. Perhaps younger, more liberal, more tech saavy people don't spend their day listening to talk radio.

[bhikkhu]

8. And ad-driven TV news doesn't give a crap, and never will

because they exist to generate advertising revenue, not to educate people - there's no money in that. I don't think america is really starved for an unbiased news source anyway; I think america wants entertainment of all varieties, and TV news provides that. I haven't watched it in many years myself, but that's my theory about why tv news still exists.

[Cal33]

16. But this would be an entirely different project. Wealthy Dems. funding a news media source for the

specific purpose of educating the people. It could be written into the "constitution" of
the company, if you will, as the primary objective. Making profits would be entirely secondary.
Making just enough to keep the company going would be satisfactory..

An example would be "Costco." I read they paid their employees $20+ an hour, as compared
to Walmart's Sam's Club, which pays the minimum wage. Costco employees stay. Walmart
employees quit as soon as they can find something better.

But Costco's CEO, who is a Democrat, makes considerably less than his counterpart at Walmart,
although it also runs into the millions.

It can be done.

[blkmusclmachine]

9. 100% 1 Percenter Media Ownership ~> Corporate fascism.

[Cal33]

17. Not necessarily so, if people of good will wish to join together for a specific

purpose -- call it humanitarian, call it patriotism, or whatever...... After all,
the people funding this project will all be philanthropists. They are all already
donating to help those in need. And America is in dire need of being rescued
from the pouncing and clutching paws of the greedy corporation executives.

[redruddyred]

10. who owns the daily kos?

I get a ton of my news from twitter, and the rest from DU; no tellies chez moi.

[Orangepeel]

11. All we need are a few wealthy philanthropists!

Non advertiser supported media aren't sustainable. There aren't enough people willing to pay for content and no renewable stream of wealthy philanthropists.

There are probably people who would fund it to get it started -- there have been attempts in the past-- but nobody to keep funding it year after year.

[FBaggins]

14. Such a creature does not exist...

nor could it.

[Cal33]

19. "Such a creature does not exist," true. But I think it could, if the philanthropic founders alone

remain the owners. They will see to it that this venture will always exist for the sole purpose
of helping to educate the American public and keeping it well informed. These philanthropists
are already well-off. They have other sources of making profit.

This venture is just another charity case to the founders. After having made the initial funding
to start this new company, to keep it financially capable of maintaining itself, they may allow
advertisements of things that are of everyday use and are not connected to politics of any kind.

I think it can be done. I think that the original founders and owners can see to it that it will
always remain this way,and continue to stay this way in future generations.

Call it humanitarianism. Call it patriotism. Whatever you call it, it will be and stay as something
good for the American nation. This should serve notice that private enterprise need not necessarily
be the grasping, greedy, and conscienceless dirty-business that so many psychopathic corporate
executives are making it today. In fact, this new company will serve as a reminder that
honesty, integrity and good-will are qualities that can be permanent -- if people so wish, and are
willing to put out the effort to make it so.

[FBaggins]

20. I don't see how it could

Because there's also no such thing as a philanthropist who is "truly INDEPENDENT from influences of all shapes and forms"... nor reporters available for hire who are themselves independent of such influences.

They have other sources of making profit.

Profit motives are not the only influnces involved.

advertisements of things that are of everyday use and are not connected to politics of any kind.

As with before... this beast is also a fantasy that does not exist in the real world.

[Cal33]

22. In short you wouldn't recognize any quality as such unless it had that quality 100%! 90% wouldn't

do. Let me say that I believe human beings are rarely, if ever, capable of having any quality 100.

I am just trying to help in finding some ways of reducing the damage and harm being done to America
by the psychopathic corporatists in this country. The anticipated problems and difficulties ahead are
huge, indeed! But you wouldn't even want to try.

Are you suggesting that we simply do nothing, and just let these corporatists destroy whatever
democracy there is still left, and allow them to change our nation into an Oligarchy, instead? Just
lie down and be whatever they want us to be, and do whatever they tell us to do?

You seem to feel 100% hopeless. (Here's one of those rare 100% cases - you).

[FBaggins]

23. Sorry... I'm not the one with the hyperbole problem.

"truly INDEPENDENT from influences of all shapes and forms" is the bar you set.

Now... if what you really meant was "boy... I wish we could improve the quality of the news we consume and return to the days of real journalism"... then I would have been right there with you. I'm a big fan of "The Newsroom" and wish that something like that were possible in the real world.

But you wouldn't even want to try.

Sure I would! It just has to be something possible... not just a fantasy.

How about some way of tying compensation to viewer polling. You can sell all the advertising that you like, but it all goes into a pot that is distributed both to the corporation and the government (some of which is shared out to the top-scoring networks). The proportion that you get to keep depends on the makeup of your audience (including far more granular divisions than R/D) compared to the population as a whole... combined with their opinion of the bias in your coverage.

Then a network like Fox would rake in the cash to the holding account... but then the fact that they have few younger and/or more progressive viewers combined with their obvious bias scores from anyone that isn't right-wing... would mean that 80%+ of their advertising revenues would go to the government. Produce pure news that attracts a small but broadly diversified audience that almost all agree that your coverage is truly "fair and balanced" and you get to keep not only all of your (small) advertising revenues... but a big chunk of Fox's share out to the government.

The key here isn't to eliminate the profit motive... it's to tie profitability to correct action.

[Cal33]

24. Baggins: "truly INDEPENDENT from influences of all shapes and forms" is the bar you set.

Now... if what you really meant was "boy... I wish we could improve the quality of the news we consume and return to the days of real journalism"... then I would have been right there with you. I'm a big fan of "The Newsroom" and wish that something like that were possible in the real world.

Cal33: You are right there.

Baggins: But you wouldn't even want to try.

Sure I would! It just has to be something possible... not just a fantasy.

Cal33: I am opening the subject to discussion. You think it's just a fantasy. Okay, that's one opinion.

Baggins: How about some way of tying compensation to viewer polling. You can sell all the advertising that you like, but it all goes into a pot that is distributed both to the corporation and the government (some of which is shared out to the top-scoring networks). The proportion that you get to keep depends on the makeup of your audience (including far more granular divisions than R/D) compared to the population as a whole... combined with their opinion of the bias in your coverage.

Cal33: My idea is to have many wealthy Dem. philanthropists join together and fund the beginning of a large independent news media company. Making a profit is not their main purpose. It would be enough for the company to be able, in time, to make enough to cover all expenses to keep it running. There should be no shareholders at all - because this, I think, would cause the company in time to degenerate into a profit-making enterprise. The company should remain in the hands of the philanthropists only - and perhaps their
designated descendants. (Hey, I'm already looking into the future. This is actually up to whatever the philanthropists decide).

Baggins: Then a network like Fox would rake in the cash to the holding account... but then the fact that they have few younger and/or more progressive viewers combined with their obvious bias scores from anyone that isn't right-wing... would mean that 80%+ of their advertising revenues would go to the government. Produce pure news that attracts a small but broadly diversified audience that almost all agree that your coverage is truly "fair and balanced" and you get to keep not only all of your (small) advertising revenues... but a big chunk of Fox's share out to the government.

The key here isn't to eliminate the profit motive... it's to tie profitability to correct action.

Cal33: I agree. If the company should do very well, profits would be made. I have nothing against that. I think, the philanthropists
who funded this company should be paid back their initial outlay first. Advertisers would naturally want in. The company would then accept only those advertisers who agree that no politically leaning ads would be involved. It's a good way of avoiding future problems.

[brooklynite]

25. I suspect a lot of people who CLAIM to want "Independent" news...

...really mean they want a news outlet that agrees with them. Note that you propose funding by "wealthy Democrats". Fox News wouldn't be as successful as it is if there wasn't an audience that started out believing the core messages.

FWIW, I suspect that there has NEVER been a news source that was "independent of any outside influence". Go back to the 19th Century and look at how many newspapers were "-------- Democrat" or "------- Republican".

[Cal33]

29. You have a point. The present 90% ownership of the newsmedia by the Republicans crowds out everyone

else. And they are well known for their deliberate twisting of facts, making half-truths and complete lies.

Democrats need to have the means of telling more people what really happened. We don't need to
invent lies the way the Republicans are doing.

We should have the chance of spreading information our way, so that the average American will have an
even chance of deciding for themselves which to believe.

But your point is correct, many people have already made up their minds and are unwilling to change, no
matter what evidence they have staring at their faces.

[TheNutcracker]

27. Didn't Al Gore try with Current TV???

He did take on Keith Olbermann (who waited too long to comeback) and the Young Turks, those the MSM would not put up with. Corporate sponsorship needed to pay for it, is hard to come by. They don't want real news out there....

[Cal33]

30. Yes, Al Gore had just one partner, if I remember correctly. Their funding apparently wasn't

enough. What I'm suggesting is that, if many wealthy philanthropic Dems. were to unite
their efforts together in establishing a large company embracing radio, TV, the Internet,
newspapers, magazines......, it would probably still take a long time before the company
would become self-supporting.

The initial outlay would have to be large, and making a profit should not be the primary
purpose, since it may not happen at all. Only philanthropists would be willing to do this
out of their sheer desire to help keep democracy a reality in our country.

In looking back, the Republicans started on their crusade to own almost all the news media
of this nation waaaaaaaaaay back when! They had the foresight then, and are reaping the
rewards now! Unfortunately, they are doing it for their own selfish, greedy and power-hungry
goals only.

[brooklynite]

31. Current may have been independent....I'm betting the segment producers weren't.

[libman100]

28. I understand what you are saying BUT

Any news media that didn't go along with the Republican talking points would just get re-branded as "carrying water for democrats".

I do think a FAIR news media would be great and help, but maybe not as much as you think. It would make for an honest debate. Having said that it wouldn't stop many on the right from being racist, crazy and all the rest.

It's like all the stuff with Obama. Most of the people on the right don't truly believe that garbage. They simply don't like the man. Nothing a fair news media could do about that.