Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

ancianita

(43,307 posts)
22. I don't have the answer, just an idea or two. But then, why would they want to?
Sun Nov 20, 2016, 03:34 PM
Nov 2016

If media make money for their owners with current presentations of pseudo information, drama, false equivalencies and making every election a horse race ("thank you for staying with us" and "stay tuned!&quot , and making people tear their hair out trying to get at the truth, why would telling the American public the truth help them profit?

Do we see people on TV or paper media who would risk their jobs for stirring a consciousness in the American people?

Even if MSM did, wouldn't it likely be because the truth is now too late for any body politic groundswell (without big money by conscious billionaires) to do anything about?

We put the news of Greg Palast and The Rolling Stone together too late. Our lawyers who love democracy have been as fried as we have with the trappings of moral culture wars and he said/she said outrages, along with the belief that enough people would GOTV to get a win that could better life for most Americans. We were shocked at the mention of global influences that defy all we ever thought or were taught about the civics of nation state politics and public agency.

All of what we've wanted MSM to do has mistakenly presupposed a morality like Bernie's, a classical ethical responsibility to the American people. That's what we were taught back in the day. It disappeared before we even realized it in 2007. With the mix of bullshit and small factoid/no context reporting, we took years to figure out the betrayals of media we thought we could trust.

But media was only part of theater that hid what really was happening.

What it might take, if we can pull together a united collective will, is to boycott all TV and print media until their profits are so low they do something drastic to show they've changed. We'll likely not see that. But we could just walk away from those that have teased us with political theater long enough.

We have to have an alternative for veracity for the body politic, if it's going to keep itself alive as an agent of democracy. If the Internet is all we have, we'd better make better use of it than paying for infotainment.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

This explains a lot. I hate to see everything blamed on the electorate as if R B Garr Nov 2016 #1
There was some hard headed thinking by GOP vote getters we need to learn from. ancianita Nov 2016 #2
Really really good points. TDale313 Nov 2016 #3
We need more lawyers and money spent in the right places -- states. ancianita Nov 2016 #13
I'm pretty damn special Botany Nov 2016 #4
Yep, you latched onto the right map outlines. It explains a lot I had to think through before the ancianita Nov 2016 #5
We need a foresic audit of the election Botany Nov 2016 #6
Just how does that get started? I doubt petitions are the real way, just the PR way. ancianita Nov 2016 #7
Contact the D o J, if you have a D senator or Congress Criiter, President Obama, and most .... Botany Nov 2016 #8
Okay. I'm good at calling. But when vote counts are at 1% of total, the whole count should be ancianita Nov 2016 #9
What we need to do is demand a look at all states that were running "Crosscheck." Botany Nov 2016 #10
TOTALLY. I'm sure you say that with all the historical affection one can have for them right now. ancianita Nov 2016 #11
Yep, pretty much the way it seems to me Ligyron Nov 2016 #12
"'Crosscheck was used to keep people from voting twice and that is something that doesn't happen" Snarkoleptic Nov 2016 #14
So what are you trying to point out here. We know that was their official purpose. What do you ancianita Nov 2016 #15
The point is that the notion that there is widespread voter fraud is a falsehood Snarkoleptic Nov 2016 #17
We really don't know that without an audit of Crosscheck, as Botany points out above. The numbers ancianita Nov 2016 #18
There are other things to learn if we're ever going to return to majority party status: ancianita Nov 2016 #16
But with crosscheck people could have voted but their votes would not count and they ... Botany Nov 2016 #19
Yes. But as you say, without an audit we won't know the truth of the numbers. ancianita Nov 2016 #20
One point: the low turnout numbers reported by CNN were wrong. ucrdem Nov 2016 #23
Point taken. Encouraging numbers, if they could only tell the whole numbers game story, right? ancianita Nov 2016 #24
so what does it take for the MSM to take this seriously? Fast Walker 52 Nov 2016 #21
I don't have the answer, just an idea or two. But then, why would they want to? ancianita Nov 2016 #22
Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»My Lightbulb Moment: It's...»Reply #22