What Exactly To Do ABout Blatant Media Bias - A Battle Plan

 

Ace has a very apt  cri d'couer over at his place after witnessing how the Obama Media treated Hillary Clinton's abysmal performance yesterday..essentially covering for her and the Obama Administration in an example of what Ace calls, appropriately, 'the full and seamless fusion of media power with government power' :

The media used to hide it a bit, in their actions; they would temper their scorn of conservatism, throw them a bone now and again just to prove they were capable of such a thing.
No longer. The media no longer hides it in their actions. They are fully fused with the Obama Administration and DNC. The only way in which they do hide it is by simply lying when confronted about it: They'll issue a snide denial, then go about doing precisely what it is they were accused of doing.

This is dangerous and unhealthy. I keep banging this drum but honestly, some patriotic billionaires do have to band together to purchase or build a media outlet. The outlet would be founded upon a simple premise: that it is dangerous and ultimately fatal for democracy for media power to fuse with government power, that the adversarial press is vital.

Fox alone isn't enough. For one thing, any venture needs competition; Fox doesn't really have competition, not for the audience it's targeting.

For another thing, frankly, look: Fox is often pitched too low to do any good with any but the already-alarmed. (Which I consider to be possibly a function of a lack of competition.)
The media considers its adversarial function to consist of serving as adversaries to critics of Obama and the Democrats; thus Terry Moran shaming himself by rushing out to ask what right a Senator has to question the Secretary of State on matters of foreign policy.

They do not consider themselves required to exert any adversarial pressure on governmental power itself (at least not so long as it is held by socialist Democrats; why sure, they'll rough up John Boehner!).

This is dark, and dangerous, and will lead to horrors. It always has lead to horrors before.

Anyone who has actually followed the uncritical treatment President Obama has received from the majority of the media would have to agree, if they have even a semblance of objectivity and intellectual honesty.

As Ace puts it, merely pointing it out and talking to ourselves is inadequate. The Left is quite content to have us relegated to a ghetto of FOX, blogs and talk radio. We need a battle plan.

And happily, beyond the creation of another media outlet, (a good idea, but one that will take time) it's not beyond our powers.Here's how:

1) With the exception of NPR and Pacifica, Left wing outlets funded by your tax dollars, Television is a commercial enterprise. As such, it exists to make a profit. It's not enough merely not to watch yourself, but to send a message that bias affects the bottom line.

An organization and a website that actively monitors whom advertises on these biased news programs and provides contact information and drives a committed response for both the networks and affiliates, and even more importantly, the advertisers themselves is a must, and not just for the news sites but for the entire program line.

If Ford or McDonalds or Sears or Toyota gets a raft of continuous e-mails saying that you will no longer buy their products because of the content they're supporting, it resonates, especially if it's combined with a drop in viewership. And they will make their dissatisfaction known to the suits who control the networks.Writing to the networks themselves is a joke, because they largely share the political sympathies of their on-the-air talent but when the advertisers start whining, it gets heard.And acted on.Because the networks have stockholders who primarily care about their investment.

Some outlets, like MSNBC have made a conscious business decision to become Left wing minarets. Fine, but they also need to be made to understand there's a cost involved.So we target their advertisers to send that message.

As I can testify personally, this sort of thing works in most cases unless the advertiser themselves are ideologically driven.

There needs to be a commitment and activity among conservatives or simply those who care about liberty and a real free press to unite and make this happen. I'm more than willing to devote some time and effort...anyone else?

2)Activism begins at home. For instance, how many of you enjoy the products of a company called Ben and Jerry's , run by Leftist loons Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield? Where do you think their money goes? How many of you drink Peet's coffee, headquartered in Berkeley?

Imagine what would happen if Ben and Jerry's corporate owners, Dutch-Anglo Unilever received thousands of e-mails with the message that the sender was no longer buying Ben and Jerry's products because of their politics? Imagine what might occur if Vons, Ralph's or other supermarket chains got the same e-mails and saw a drop in sales because of it?

The Left already does this with groups like Buy Blue.We should too. But it takes organization.

3)Profiling works. It's important to out so-called conservative media when they also use the money they get from advertisers courting conservative listeners to support Left wing outlets.

Here's an example. In Los Angles, Clear Channel owns both KFI (Rush Limbaugh's outlet)and KTLK, which features the likes of Stephanie Miller and Ed Schultz. If you're an advertiser and you buy time from KFI, they also put your ads on KTLK to help support Schultz and Miller 'as an extra'. And whether or not you like the idea, your advertising dollars go to keep them alive.

This situation is not unique to Los Angeles, or to radio. If Clear Channel wants to fund Lefties, fine, but they should be made aware that there's a cost. Imagine what would happen if their advertisers got a string of e-mails protesting the fact that their ads were supporting Miller and Schultz and threatening not to patronize the goods and services they have on offer until it stopped? Would it stop? You betcha.

This works well in reverse too. Imagine what might occur if the advertisers of your typical Lefty newspaper like the Philly Enquirer were informed that until conservative voices appeared in these publications and their news content became more balanced, the goods and services on offer would not be patronized? Would the paper add conservative columnists and perhaps even stop merely redacting the crap they get from the AP? Some wouldn't. But some would.

4) Cut off access to the public trough. None of the above work on NPR or Pacifica, because unlike most media they survive, vampire-like, on our taxes.

Congress controls the nation's purse strings. And the Republicans have a majority in the House. Is there any reason it's still being funded, besides the fact that the GOP is too gutless to refuse to do it because we haven't made it an issue?

These are only a few basic steps that would make a major difference provided they were organized properly, received a commitment from enough dedicated people and were part of a sustained effort.

Well? Is your liberty worth a little time and effort?

It won't happen over night, but to paraphrase that old shrink's joke, look how long it took to get thing's screwed up.