What would be the easiest way to grab the media by the balls?

[tinanator]

I know what I think, what do you think would straighten out the mess?

[Freedom_from_Chains]

1. Pull down their pants first?

[brainshrub]

2. Here is how:

Don't subscribe to cable or satellite, shop local and only buy used items.

I know it's inconvenient, but don't bitch if you're not willing to make some sacrifices.

[Frances]

3. I don't subscribe to cable or satellite,

and I shop locally. I don't buy that many items either.

But unfortunately, I don't have any other suggestions at this time.

[tnlefty]

8. Ack. Satellite is the way for me to receive c-span 1 and 2,

Link TV and Free Speach TV. My kids learn a lot from these channels and we don't watch the other crap on there. Isn't there another way, 'cause I still want to bitch.

[brainshrub]

31. You can stream the content via high-speed DSL.

[tinanator]

11. wouldnt a very vocal call for boycott be more effective?

more of a direct threat? Who cares about the people not forking over?
Im thinking a concentrated attack on cable companies would be the scariest way.

[lala_rawraw]

27. PAPER CHASE

BYPASS THE MEDIA

[Poiuyt]

36. It doesn't do any good to boycott the stations unless you also let them

know why you're doing it. We are going to have to make a noise.

It's going to take time. As another poster here noted, the RW has convinced everyone that the media has a liberal bias. Now every news station goes out of their way to demonstrate that they are not liberal. We need to let the MSM know that we don't like their conservative slant, as well as educate the general public that the media IS biased, but towards the right. Not an easy task.

[renaissanceguy]

41. Exactly. When I complain to friends and coworkers about

the conservative bias, they always say "but the media is liberal..." And then I point out their prewar hype, their lack of reporting certain stories, FAUX tactics "some people say...." And then they're like "oh I didn't realize that...hmmmmm..."


http://www.cafepress.com/liberalissues.15010804

[Fountain79]

37. What?

You mean I have to give up Comedy Central? :D

[FlemingsGhost]

4. Assemble at their doorsteps.

From there, improvise ...

[saltpoint]

5. Your question wrongly assumes they HAVE balls.

I've seen no evidence of that in most of the MSM for some time.

___
We need to write in praise of the few who are actually doing good work and write to express objection to those who are not.

[kliljedahl]

9. You beat me to it

Only one with any balls lately is Jon Stewart, definitely not MSM.


http://www.kliljedahl.net

[Deja Q]

12. Ditto!

[saltpoint]

21. Jon Stewart is terrific.

There are a few on MSM that seem to be true pros. I think Christiane Amanpour is good on CNN, etc. But you're right -- MSM generally is not the place for real reporting.

[omega minimo]

18. What's the connection to BALLS?

"We need to write in praise of the few who are actually doing good work and write to express objection to those who are not."


:bounce::bounce:

One way to address media issues is stop thinking in stupid cliches


B-)

[tinanator]

20. figure of speech of course

but this is the internet, so one might easily get confused. Of course I realize the fascist media is just a tad compromised, but if anyone was to assume they were only in it for the money, than perhaps a finacial attack would be the one they understand?
A cancelled cable subscription could be the ONE THING that could put a stop to the unbridled madness. I would love to hear a better idea!

[saltpoint]

24. Nicely put (as well spoken as your original post was --

-- well-considered).

The topic you are raising with these posts remains pertinent, especially against the backdrop of Bush's fake news plants.

I appreciate your insight and the right-on feel of your post tonight.

[omega minimo]

30. ---except for resting so heavily on balls to support

"The topic you are raising with these posts remains pertinent, especially against the backdrop of Bush's fake news plants."

The topic is pertinent, which raises the question: are you guys committed to limiting the discussion and the concepts? When a post is started-- on a pertinent topic-- in the way this one was, it:

Limits discussion
Limits the participants in the discussion
Reinforces the attitudes that are part of the problem
Suggests limited thinking
Has un/intended circumstances

So, is it intentional? Do you really want to limit the discussion and possible solutions?

:hi: :kick:

[saltpoint]

32. Your pleasant manner this evening is noted.

I support the contention of the original poster and said so.

You're welcome to disagree. However, it is perhaps better form to disagree as a civil participant. The strategy you invoke of calling other DU members "stupid" suggests that you're in quite a feisty mood this evening.

If my Great Aunt Laura May -- God rest her soul -- were with us right now, she'd whup your fanny, boy.

[tinanator]

34. you mean you understood any of that?

can I get a translation or maybe a road map?

[saltpoint]

35. I found myself agreeing with what you posted mostly --

-- because of my own personal bias against MSM, but your case is strong no matter what I personally think.

Also, your use of 'balls' as a figure of language, a tool to suggest a resolute clarity in doing one's job without kowtowing was easily understood by other posters here. To me, that means you hit the nail on the head, you also struck a common chord among fellow DUers concerning our frustration over the media.

I like Zombywoof's suggestion about buying up media markets. I accept that it is expensive, but I think Zomby is right-on with this. It also supports your contention of a financial hit against the MSM, which would be pretty effective if it's focused.

Anyway, my own bias in your favor aside, your case is a strong one and it's well-received here tonight.

Thanks, tinantor.

[omega minimo]

42. Anyone who uses "balls" is welcome to disagree or participate

If ya’ll wanna be good ol boys and sit around and spit and scratch, you are limiting the quality of discussion; and limiting the participants in the discussion to those with good ol boy attitudes (or “figures of speech”). And on DU, apparently, that’s your prerogative. If you used “figures of speech” that were racist, I doubt that would be condoned. (Tell Aunt Laura May, I ain't yore "boy.")

‘The strategy you invoke of calling other DU members "stupid" suggests that you're in quite a feisty mood this evening.’

This is a serious and false charge against me, Ol Crusoe. I wrote, ‘One way to address media issues is stop thinking in stupid cliches.’

The "balls" cliche is stupid and limiting; limits the discussion and limits the participants; limits the range of potential solutions on the important topic of media monopolies.

And just like the good ol’ boys settin round the pickle barrel, language or habits of speech CAN create an impression of ignorance or a big blind spot, as if something
:pals:
is obstructing their vision.

IMHO the DU'ers who insist on using crude sexist language and not acknowledging the consequences, are doing themselves a disservice; not realizing the impression it conveys.

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[saltpoint]

22. Goodness sakes.

You might need a dish of cold ice cream.

It's always yummy and it makes everybody feel better.

[kentuck]

6. They hate to be criticized...

And the Republicans knew their Achilles heel. By calling them "liberal media" and "biased", they were able to change the entire media in this country. They can't stand to be criticised. They have never been criticised for a sustained period of time by the Democrats. But it worked for the Repubs.

[Placebo]

7. Stop watching.

Hit 'em where it hurts: their bank accounts.

[punpirate]

10. Since the primary problem...

... is that networks are corporations determined to profit from their efforts, and the secondary problem is that they are predisposed to support failed administrations such as Bush's because said administration aids in their consolidation plans (for the sake of profitability), the obvious thing to do is to convince them that trying to make big profits from turning news into entertainment doesn't work.

The first way to do this is to turn off the news and the screaming pundit programs. If you know people who are part of the Nielsen and/or Arbitron ratings systems, have them turn off the news. The amounts advertisers are willing to pay are dependent upon ratings in the previous cycle. That reduces corporate income directly associated with news. Second, let their advertisers know that their association with what can only be called infotainment makes you suspicious of the quality of their products--since they associate themselves with news of such low quality.

Third, lobby everywhere possible for alternatives--especially non-profit alternatives. If there were, in this country, a national equivalent to the UK's Guardian/Observer, there might be at least one source of news not corrupted by the desire to use news as a profitmaking enterprise.

Cheers.

[Doctor_J]

14. I don't understand why any Dem watches those shows

THey are nothing but GOP propaganda. Turn it off, people.

And while you're at it, turn off hate radio too. There are slot of posters here who seems to watch Limpballs and O'Liely faithfully. They're either maso, and need counselling, or closet wingers, who should be posting at FreePublic.com.

TURN. IT. OFF.

[tinanator]

19. non-profit national equivalent is already in place

Pacifica Network is our U.S. non corporate lifeline, and it wouldnt hurt to see it congratulated as such and maybe a little more appreciated by those who protest the whorefest. It can not be taken for granted and must be closely watched for future attacks.

[punpirate]

38. Unfortunately, it's hardly an equivalent...

... to the likes of what is out there now. There's a big difference between non-profit and non-commercial, and that difference will likely keep Pacifica small, as it depends upon continuing funding from many rather small sources.

In looking at, for example, WBAI's staffing, it has 29 administrative and operations people, but only five reporters, and three of those are part-time--and all seem to be news readers and commentators. In one of the nation's largest cities, and in what is the financial hub of the country, that seems woefully inadequate.

That situation is mirrored in the political capital of the country, Washington, DC. WPFW has eleven staff members and one news anchor. In the political center of the country, WPFW has no field reporters.

Right now, Pacifica is composed of five stations, and only one can be considered to be in the heart of the red states--KPFT in Houston.

To be an effective news source, Pacifica and its analogues will have to be much bigger, much better heeled and able to expand into those geographic and demographic areas where they have previously had no exposure, and with a much greater emphasis on investigative reporting and news production.

To do that requires a heavy initial investment, and probably an environment where advertising has a place (but with agreements with all advertisers that if an advertiser steps in shit, the organization will report it). The principal driving force would have to still be a non-profit status--the desire for greater and greater profits and greater consolidation of media is what has done in network news over the last fifty years.

Perhaps the model of what I mean by that is someone such as Sumner Redstone--he's not the head of CBS--he's the head of Viacom, an entertainment company which also happens to own CBS. His interests aren't in news, they're in profits. So, despite his own personal tastes and proclivities, he threw his organization's weight behind the Bushies in the last election, because he felt doing so would improve the profitability of his company. Remove that incentive from a national news source, and perhaps the news becomes more objective and with a wider scope.

But, to be effective, it would have to be national in scope, and that requires some hefty pockets. Think of a CNN without strings attached.

Here's the extent of how the desire for profits affects the ability to gather and report the news. CNN brought in consultants to look at their operation a couple of years ago, to try to figure out the reason why Fox, with a similarly sized operation was much more profitable. Both CNN and Fox had incomes of about $900-odd million a year, but Fox had expenses which were a couple of hundred million less. What was the difference? Fox didn't have the world coverage of CNN; it was spending next to nothing on keeping bureaus active around the world, such as CNN was doing. The consultants' recommendation? Get rid of the foreign bureaus. More simply put, get rid of some of the news.

The simple truth, though, is that Pacifica generates very, very little of the news it broadcasts. It depends upon the CNNs and networks and newspapers of the world for its news feed. What's now required is a network that can do what the existing networks cannot do--generate unbiased news and report on the nation's political life--warts and all.

Cheers.

[Zomby Woof]

13. You can't

Profit is king. Unless you can buy all of the media outlets in the US, and keep them profitable after that, you can't do anything, but turn off your teevee and stop reading the papers.

And kill your radio.

[XemaSab]

15. Take it to the streets!!!!!!!!!!!!

I volunteer to take the Sierra Star office.

[teryang]

16. Someone already did that

Blew up the WTC and sent media wonks anthrax in the mail.

It got em by the balls but made everything worse.

[ThoughtCriminal]

17. Buy it

That's how the right wing castrated it. Only way to grow a new set of balls is for the media to regain independence from the corporations that own it.

[walldude]

23. My thoughts exactly...

If you want to change the media and you have money buy a radio or TV station then do it. There is obviously money to be made in progressive, liberal media. AAR proved that, even Clear Channel is carrying AAR on some of it's stations. Now we just need more people with money on the bandwagon...

[tinanator]

25. is it really a matter of money? not being facetious for a change!

There have been efforts to launch and maintain pirate radio stations, particularly of importance during the Pacifica shutdown. Ever so coincidentally also a focus of FCC attention these guys were fervently shut down and even lost their footing on internet broadcasting with certain decisions. Is it democratic for money to be the final arbiter on decisions affecting mass media over the "people's airwaves"?

[mandyky]

26. I still think class action lawsuits a good idea

Nothing affects the bottom line other than an attack requiring a monetary payment.

[Discord]

40. on what charges? what laws broken? on what evidence?

What can you hold them directly accountable for? what types of direct damages?

They have broken slews of ethics violations, but thats the FCC's job to enforce.

I think targeting the FCC to regulate any station carrying "news" broadcasts. Force disclosure or ban outright any third party prepackaged media. Make them investigate and report their own news, not just watch the newswire and play tapes sent over from the WH.

[cestpaspossible]

28. With your hands, or a pair of pliers

[leftofthedial]

29. palm up, slap, lift, squeeze

I don't see any way at all without completely replacing all media ownership.

The media are doing their jobs exactly as they are paid to do.

[tinanator]

33. support the truth

outlaw corporate media.
I bet you could, too.

[brettdale]

39. The Media has to be embrassed

They have to be caught out big time like Sean Hannity was. Once they get caught out the rest will be sh*t scared and may actually start doing thier job.

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Moderator]

45. Locking as inappropriate