I have a new idea for how to TAKE DOWN the MSM

[economics102]

Back when we came in third in Iowa there was a lengthy thread here brainstorming ways to neutralize the media. I was the OP, and my main point was that, we can't "replace" the MSM -- that's just an unrealistic idea. And we can't "bypass" the MSM. Sure, you can do some of that, but when somebody has the world's largest megaphone, ultimately you need a real strategy to deal with that if you want to neutralize them NOW rather than 20 years from now.

I have come up with one such component of what that strategy might actually look like.

The short version is this: we have a grassroots organization capable of raising money, and we even have a few wealthy donors.

My idea is stupidly simple: let's put out a cash bounty for anyone providing iron-clad, irrefutable proof of attempts to black out Ron Paul or otherwise manipulate the coverage. It doesn't have to be a lot. Put a cash bounty out for $50,000 or $100,000, and then we'll see how long the MSM is able to cover all their trails. We'll have every television executive looking over their shoulder worried they're being covertly tape recorded or otherwise observed. They'll be worried about every employee including the janitors.

The only difficult part about this plan, really, is appropriately defining what evidence qualifies for the reward and putting in place a process that protects both us (the donors) and protects the whistleblower (both legally and from the risk of giving up their evidence if it doesn't qualify for our reward standards). The motives of anyone blowing the whistle for money are obviously inherently impugned, so the evidence submitted will have to be able to stand on its own.

The MSM is a big machine. It is rigged against Dr. Paul, but it's not a top-down command chain, it's a broader, more tentacled corruption involving a lot of corrupt players, not just a few. That works to our advantage, because they will have to protect all of their many tentacles, while we only need to ensnare one or two.

Also, this idea doesn't just need to be done by the grassroots. No reason the official campaign couldn't join in on this if they want.

The MSM is the single biggest obstacle in our path. Always has been. And we've been willing to play in the rigged system too long. We've given them tens of millions of dollars in advertising money, those funds should have been spent going to war against the MSM.

The MSM only cares about one thing: control. They probably don't even care if they lose some advertising money short-term. The American public already is mistrustful of the MSM but they're not mistrustful ENOUGH. If the public knew just how much the MSM is controlling things through their coverage, the MSM would lose all their power.

If the MSM begins to fear that we, unlike every other group of people they've ever screwed with, is actually capable of damaging their most valuable asset -- public trust -- then they will FEAR US and then the last thing they'd think to do is not give Ron Paul fair coverage.

And if they don't -- then we will continue the assault on their credibility until they beg us for mercy.

Also, the MSM needs to fear that we will continue our war against them even AFTER the 2012 elections are all said and done. If they truly believe that, they will be very, very afraid, just as the GOP is fearful of Dr. Paul because they know he will stay in until the convention and then likely continue to be a thorn in their side even after the convention into the general.

[mosquitobite]

I posted something similar earlier about hidden cameras (necklaces, ties, buttons, watches, etc)

The establishment needs to be worried that they are being recorded, anywhere, anytime.

I like this idea!

[Muttley]

I like it. Surely someone has some dirt on these scumbags!

[asurfaholic]

What will you do with the evidence?

[BrittanySligar]

What will you do with the evidence?

Send it to...the...media........oops?

[economics102]

What will you do with the evidence?

Release it.

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

What will you do with the evidence?

lol.


Love the idea, though. It would take a lot more development (who gets paid, how, what evidence qualifies, etc), but there's no doubt I would contribute to a cause that exposes liars and thieves.



It is rigged against Dr. Paul, but it's not a top-down command chain, it's a broader, more tentacled corruption involving a lot of corrupt players, not just a few. That works to our advantage, because they will have to protect all of their many tentacles, while we only need to ensnare one or two.

We don't really know that. I suspect some of it is top down and some of it culture. For instance, when the bin laden killing stuff was going on, every time a lie was exposed, all major networks changed their tune to fit the new story. They did it in minutes it seemed. There's a top-down thing going on as well as well as social/job pressure going on.

[economics102]

Send it to...the...media........oops?

Find something sufficiently incriminating, and I don't think you'll have much trouble getting it onto the airwaves. The only thing that would be more scandalous than damning evidence of media manipulation of elections, would be a conspiracy by all the networks to refuse to cover it.

[coffeewithchess]

Send it to...the...media........oops?

Two words...Jon Stewart.

My enemy's enemy is my friend. Jon Stewart makes a living off the stupidity that is the media, and I would guess he would use it...
Even if he doesn't, the simple fact of having documented evidence does help build a case, and can be used by Super PACs/campaigns in the future.

[Libertea Party]

Where's my 50K?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WR7oBdgazJI


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zr9k7qXfhdE


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VgXKFGdf03c

[economics102]

The question of what to do with the evidence or how to release it is not the complicated part.

The complicated part is figuring out a system/structure that allows this idea to actually be executed.

I would strongly advise this thread to focus on that, because if this becomes 20 pages of non-action-oriented discussion, this will never turn into an action item.

We need real action, now. Let's figure out how this could conceivably be done, and then let's present it to RPF and get a team together to actually get rolling on this.

[Libertea Party]

This one's for free. No charge:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BJwivHIDvuM

[AceNZ]

I thought the MSM readily admitted they were biased against RP. I've seen segments on the air admitting as much. I'm not sure that a back room video of some execs saying the same things would really change anything in the minds of the public.

I've said it before: we can't beat the MSM by playing their game; it's needs to be our game, on our terms.

[economics102]

I thought the MSM readily admitted they were biased against RP. I've seen segments on the air admitting as much. I'm not sure that a back room video of some execs saying the same things would really change anything in the minds of the public.

I've said it before: we can't beat the MSM by playing their game; it's needs to be our game, on our terms.

Then we need damning evidence on a whole new level. We need evidence that alludes to the real motives behind the blackout. That's the truth that is still beyond the grasp of the clips others have posted here.

[soulcyon]

If we do instill fear in the MSM, they'll just be more creative on how to attack us back. The retaliation will never stop and will result in perpetual hatred (and possibly bloodshed). I'm not sure if exposing the filthy truth of MSM will help us, but its worth a try.

[centure7]

Put a cash bounty out for $50,000 or $100,000I wasn't able to raise $70 for an End the Fed website. But you're going to raise $50,000 for a media prize?

There is one way to take down the MSM. Create alternatives that are better. Its exactly what I'm doing and I welcome anyone who wishes to join to PM me.

[hazek]

I like it. Surely someone has some dirt on these scumbags!

All the dirt you need is hiding in plain sight - you just need to dig up who signs their paychecks and everything should be clear from there on. Btw making the corporate media propaganda machine fear us is probably not the most productive way of fighting this formidable opponent. I doubt they really care since their propaganda is so effective..

Rather than attacking their credibility I would suggest we stop giving them money. The +$25million the campaign spent on ads could have been spent on other ways of spreading the message without giving it to our biggest enemy. Figuring out how exactly would be a priority. Also we'd need to compose our own anti-propaganda to appeal not only to reason but to the right emotions that would garner the needed support.

But I'm happy to see this OP, as long as the vast majority of us understands who is the real enemy and that dealing with it must be our priority we are moving in the right direction. I just wished this happened sooner..

[Article V]

The thing is, exposing a story as big as "the media is conspiring against Ron Paul" is already a news story worth millions if someone had good hard evidence of it. Offering a bounty on this evidence, especially a bounty worth less than the story itself, isn't likely to work; but I'm all for trying if you think it will. Put the money in escrow.

Secondly, we have to consider that if there were a conspiracy, the people who have access to the incriminating evidence value that access more than the cash. Will they really continue to have futures in the media if they succeed in destroying their media superiors by exposing privileged off-camera information? I doubt it, but maybe. And, if anyone were to do it and already has access to it, it would be Judge Napolitano (a man whose dedicated his life to justice) or John Stossel (a multi-Emmy award-winning investigative journalist); but neither have exposed the conspiracy, so what does that tell us? And Stossel has even changed networks since 2008, so he could definitely expose one from another network if there were evidence of it or even reliable hearsay from either the 2008 campaign or this one.

Thirdly, I think it may just be humanity's strong tendency to favor the status quo that is guiding the media. People are always resistant and fearful of the unknown or drastic change. The media favor the status quo as much as regular people do. And the media all talk with one another and share info like fashion designers. Just like each season fashion trends come in and out, and all the designers copy and emulate; so too media memes trend and are copied. The Ron Paul is crazy and unelectable meme is popular with them because they really don't understand him and really fear his foreign policy may endanger us. We can blame them or assign conspiracy theories to them; but I think it's more likely that they're just fallible humans who are scared and operating with limited information which they all keep sharing amongst themselves till it becomes a mass-delusion and a self-fulfilling prophecy.

...to be honest, I think many of the conspiracy theories in our own Ron Paul community start because of small groups passing limited information back and forth amongst only themselves then finally believing it must be true because so many of us now believe it. It's almost like we need a RonPaulSnopes for ourselves, so we can police our own information before we indirectly cause bad info to respawn again and again till it deludes us en masse.

That said, if you can fund the media witch-hunt with the prize bounty. I say go for it! If it works, it'll be the biggest news story of the entire campaign and get our guy endless media attention and interviews. If it flounders, it might cause the grassroots to work that much harder once we realize it's not a conspiracy but simply a lack of education and understanding. Either way, it's a boon for us. And, for our parts, I hope it's lack of education and understanding; because, assuming it's the truth, that's a lot easier to fight than an uber-powerful secret puppet master.

[AceNZ]

Then we need damning evidence on a whole new level. We need evidence that alludes to the real motives behind the blackout. That's the truth that is still beyond the grasp of the clips others have posted here.

What I'd like to see is a professional documentary (better yet, a series of them), covering media bias and its root cause, Corporatism. A strong anti-Corporatist position is probably one of the best weapons we have against both Obama and the RINOs.

It could be given away for free on DVDs or by download, bypassing the MSM entirely.

Cost to do it right is probably in the area of $1M each (maybe less with enough volunteer help), but it has the potential of being much more effective than an equivalent number of dollars spent on conventional ads -- with the added bonus of denying funds to groups that are against us.

[AceNZ]

There is one way to take down the MSM. Create alternatives that are better.

Don't better alternatives already exist (at least on the Internet)? It's not perfect, but PJTV is one example. Seems to me that getting people to use them (and believe them) is the bigger challenge.

[RonRules]

I like the OP's plan a lot. It's even better than mine, but here's mine anyway:

We have to influence the MSM's money source: the advertisers.

I'm not in the advertising business, but for those that are and want to help, I need an up-to date (daily) database of all commercials on the 4-5 major MSM's. I believe that database is available.

There are exactly 1068 users online reading this forum right now.

If a thousand of us, wrote one letter to each of the approximately 1,000 different advertisers in TODAY's database, telling each of them in no uncertain terms that we refuse to purchase their products because of that channel's bias and repeated the process tomorrow, the day after and the day after that, we could effect change.

Will someone help me find that database? With that database, I'll start a new thread and start asking for volunteers. Once the first set of one thousand original letters are written, we cycle them by one index number and each of the (approximately) 1,000 advertisers will get a new letter the next day form a different person, and so on for about 1,000 days.

It's work, it's not that hard. We have the technology. Will the 1,000 members of this forum stand up for what's right?

[Edward]

I wasn't able to raise $70 for an End the Fed website. But you're going to raise $50,000 for a media prize?

Where is that secret millionaire when we need him?

[Libertea Party]

I thought the MSM readily admitted they were biased against RP. I've seen segments on the air admitting as much. I'm not sure that a back room video of some execs saying the same things would really change anything in the minds of the public.

I've said it before: we can't beat the MSM by playing their game; it's needs to be our game, on our terms.

To be fair repetition matters. If this stuff was out there everyday it might make people take action. That said most people already know the media is biased. Here's (http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/2011/06/voters-view-reporters-as-trying-to-help.html)a poll by Rasmussen that even if there was a "Republican bias" would still leave a lot of people not trusting the media:


A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 67% of Likely U.S. Voters believe that most reporters, when covering a politician campaign, try to help the candidate they want to win. Only 21% think most reporters put the emphasis instead on trying to offer unbiased coverage. Twelve percent (12%) are not sure.
Forty-eight percent (48%) also believe that most reporters would hide any damaging information they learned to help the candidate they wanted to win.

In theory we could have a "Truth In Media" PAC that holds them accountable. We could send direct mail to everyone with evidence in a DVD. We could criticize Fox on CNN and criticize CNN on Fox with paid ads. We could take print ads out in widely read papers like USA Today, even the NYT criticizing the networks.

There's ways around them if we could pull in the $$$. I still don't know how effective it would be but it'd be pretty fun and if someone like Ron Paul or Peter Thiel got behind it would be possible and generate its own publicity.

[coffeewithchess]

I like the OP's plan a lot. It's even better than mine, but here's mine anyway:

We have to influence the MSM's money source: the advertisers.

How about an advertiser a day? We find out who is advertising one night on O'Reilly, call just ONE of them.
The next day, move to Hannity. Call just ONE of them.
The next day, move to Greta (she deserves no advertisers, seriously, how stupid of a hypothetical can you go for a "news" network?).

[ZzzImAsleep]

Where is that secret millionaire when we need him?

You think someone with a lot of money would like what Paul is saying and back him. I really wonder about that sometimes.

[Edward]

How about an advertiser a day? We find out who is advertising one night on O'Reilly, call just ONE of them.
The next day, move to Hannity. Call just ONE of them.
The next day, move to Greta (she deserves no advertisers, seriously, how stupid of a hypothetical can you go for a "news" network?).

Assume for one moment that you could implement this idea. What do you think would happen when O'Reilly or Hannity pick-up on this and report it?

[coffeewithchess]

Assume for one moment that you could implement this idea. What do you think would happen when O'Reilly or Hannity pick-up on this and report it?

???? The same that happened with Glenn Beck when he was boycotted on Fox by lots of people? He eventually lost his Fox contract and moved to an internet site...

Companies/CEOs do not want people calling and complaining...believe me. The last thing you want, is an irate customer that has your contact info, and calls you.
You really don't want 1,000 irate customers calling.

[flynn]

Call all the young people to show up with a fake arrow to the knee tomorrow voting for Ron Paul. If the mainstream media are on site, it will go viral.

[economics102]

Don't better alternatives already exist (at least on the Internet)? It's not perfect, but PJTV is one example. Seems to me that getting people to use them (and believe them) is the bigger challenge.

You've got the wrong model here.

News is entertainment first, utility second for most Americans.

The overwhelming majority of Americans choose their news source based on what format they enjoy it in, not based on the quality of the news. This is not only true of TV and newspaper, but internet as well. Lest you think the growing % of Americans who get their news from the internet are choosing that medium because they think it's better quality news, you're wrong. More Americans simply like their content delivered by internet. And the majority of the large minority that gets their news online, get it from the online versions of the MSM like cnn.com, msnbc.com, etc.

You can't make an appeal to people who watch CNN on television that they'd be lied to less if they got their news online. They don't care. They want to watch news on their TV while sitting in their La-Z-Boy or at the dinner table.

You can't make an appeal to senior citizens who like newspapers that the internet has more honest news sources. That's not what it's about for them.

We need to play our own game with our own rules, yes, but we need to understand the lay of the land first. The lay of the land is that we don't have any good ideas for how to get Wolf Blitzer out of Americans' living rooms, so we better figure out how to make these people fear our wrath instead.

[thoughtomator]

The only thing I have ever seen curb the media is an advertiser boycott.

[AceNZ]

You think someone with a lot of money would like what Paul is saying and back him. I really wonder about that sometimes.

"Someone"? Like Peter Thiel, who put $900,000 into a Super PAC for Paul?

[Edward]

???? The same that happened with Glenn Beck when he was boycotted on Fox by lots of people? He eventually lost his Fox contract and moved to an internet site...

Companies/CEOs do not want people calling and complaining...believe me. The last thing you want, is an irate customer that has your contact info, and calls you.
You really don't want 1,000 irate customers calling.

Glenn Beck was boycotted for calling Obama a racist. A comment like that gets widespread traction. If the movement behind this boycott is that Fox is NOT fair and balanced, then people are going to be saying, "What took you so long to find that out?!" Hannity and O'Reilly would likely give you attention, but it certainly wouldn't be the kind you want.

[SonofThunder]

This is a pretty good idea. We could go all "Project Veritas" on them

[Paulistinian]

I'm liking the bounty... make the request more specific, like, "Irrefutable evidence, emails, audio, video, (anything that could be hypothetically admitted to court) of a *conspiracy* to black out Ron Paul OR to manipulate the results of this election".
This may bring about some whistleblowers...

[AceNZ]

To be fair repetition matters. If this stuff was out there everyday it might make people take action.

I agree that repetition is important.


In theory we could have a "Truth In Media" PAC that holds them accountable. We could send direct mail to everyone with evidence in a DVD. We could criticize Fox on CNN and criticize CNN on Fox with paid ads. We could take print ads out in widely read papers like USA Today, even the NYT criticizing the networks.

You might get away with that once or twice, but any serious long-term effort would be shut down by the MSM, precisely because it could be effective. And if you think they wouldn't work together on such things, you might want to take another look. We're not fighting a CNN-bias or a Fox-bias; it's a Mainstream Media Bias -- all of them.

It's not possible to use the MSM to take down the MSM. The sooner we all come to grips with that, the better.

[AceNZ]

News is entertainment first, utility second for most Americans.

I actually agree with you. I've argued for a long time that we can't win using an Internet-only approach, precisely for that reason.


We need to play our own game with our own rules, yes, but we need to understand the lay of the land first. The lay of the land is that we don't have any good ideas for how to get Wolf Blitzer out of Americans' living rooms, so we better figure out how to make these people fear our wrath instead.

The problem with the fear game is that it's a double-edged sword; it can quickly do more damage to us than it does to them.

I've seen several good ideas for getting Wolf and others like him out of American living rooms; it's just that so far, most "friends of Liberty" have been unwilling to accept what it will really take to make it happen.

[Libertea Party]

???? The same that happened with Glenn Beck when he was boycotted on Fox by lots of people? He eventually lost his Fox contract and moved to an internet site...

Companies/CEOs do not want people calling and complaining...believe me. The last thing you want, is an irate customer that has your contact info, and calls you.
You really don't want 1,000 irate customers calling.

One thing that I think mattered the most is that it was a "demographic" boycott. African-Americans are a distinct demo that marketers can measure and that can be turned off by Glenn Beck's "bias" against them. The insurance, car, etc companies don't want to risk having the image of being biased against a paying demographic. I don't know if Paul supporters have that kind of weight but they might be so risk adverse that we might.

Now former Fox contributer and current Presidential candidate Rick Santorum calling Ron Paul a defective old ma (http://www.indecisionforever.com/blog/2011/12/30/rick-santorum-thinks-ron-paul-is-so-old)n might be an issue for a certain Buick & Cadillac demographic and thus GM ;)

[economics102]

The thing is, exposing a story as big as "the media is conspiring against Ron Paul" is already a news story worth millions if someone had good hard evidence of it. Offering a bounty on this evidence, especially a bounty worth less than the story itself, isn't likely to work; but I'm all for trying if you think it will. Put the money in escrow.

Just because a story is worth millions doesn't mean the people who are capable of getting the story are in a position to collect the money.

Let's say you're a janitor or intern or other low-level MSM employee. You're able to obtain damning evidence of intentional Ron Paul blackout. Where do you go to sell it? Sounds difficult to me. We can act as an alternative buyer with a much more altruistic motive and model. We don't care what the story is "worth" to the MSM, only how good the evidence is. And you can have more confidence we'll protect you as a source because we have the right incentive to do so. In fact, whether we like the evidence you got or not, we'll want to encourage you to try to get more.

If we lay out a clear, precise set of criteria, so a person in a potential position to acquire evidence can know, "this would meet the bounty requirements -- I could get $100,000 for this guaranteed," -- that's MUCH more tempting then "let me take huge risks with my career to MAYBE get some money trying to sell this evidence to another news network."

[RonRules]

How about an advertiser a day? We find out who is advertising one night on O'Reilly, call just ONE of them.
The next day, move to Hannity. Call just ONE of them.
The next day, move to Greta (she deserves no advertisers, seriously, how stupid of a hypothetical can you go for a "news" network?).

That's what I'm proposing; I'm going with the assumption that there are about 1,000 advertisers nationwide on the big channels and I would rotate all one thousand by one click every day.

[RonRules]

???? The same that happened with Glenn Beck when he was boycotted on Fox by lots of people? He eventually lost his Fox contract and moved to an internet site...


Glenn Beck lost his gig on Fox the day he started criticizing the Fed. He was out in about two weeks, enough time for the typical "Two Week Notice".

[AceNZ]

The only thing I have ever seen curb the media is an advertiser boycott.

And why, exactly, do you think the media are biased against RP? It's not the commentators themselves -- it's primarily advertiser pressure, together with some self-preservation tactics from media management. RP's ideas of liberty and free markets directly threaten the ability of many large companies (including media companies) to manipulate and influence government legislation in their favor. The war machine is but one small example; the tentacles of the beast reach deep.

[RonRules]

I have a reporter acquaintance at KTLA TV in Los Angeles. I have worked with her on a fairly big TV news story over the last year or so. That story is unrelated to national politics.

We have met, we have spoken on the phone several times (about 10 times) and have exchanged about 100 e-mails on that topic. She always responds within 24 hours.

Over the last few months, I called her and wrote to her with the simple question: "I want to talk to you about a National Politics story". I asked her now about 5-6 times and she never replies.

Basically, I want to ask her if she's getting pressure from her bosses at the station to minimize coverage of Ron Paul. I think she knows I'm going to ask her that and she's avoiding the subject.

I'll bring it up when I meet her again to see her body language when I ask the question.

Do any of you have large media acquaintances? Try asking the question!

[Mark37snj]

Follow the campaign strategy, the best way to conquer the MSM is from within. We should identify one MSM and buy their stocks. When we get a controlling share we determine the agenda. :D

[Libertea Party]

And why, exactly, do you think the media are biased against RP? It's not the commentators themselves -- it's primarily advertiser pressure, together with some self-preservation tactics from media management. RP's ideas of liberty and free markets directly threaten the ability of many large companies (including media companies) to manipulate and influence government legislation in their favor. The war machine is but one small example; the tentacles of the beast reach deep.

You didn't love the dozen GE commercials during the Superbowl btw? And of course the "Detroit" one? (sarcasm)

Think about the millions they shelled out for that and you'll see the incentive for NBC & friends not to lose their crony-capitalist business

[Article V]

Just because a story is worth millions doesn't mean the people who are capable of getting the story are in a position to collect the money.

Let's say you're a janitor or intern or other low-level MSM employee. You're able to obtain damning evidence of intentional Ron Paul blackout. Where do you go to sell it? Sounds difficult to me. We can act as an alternative buyer with a much more altruistic motive and model. We don't care what the story is "worth" to the MSM, only how good the evidence is. And you can have more confidence we'll protect you as a source because we have the right incentive to do so. In fact, whether we like the evidence you got or not, we'll want to encourage you to try to get more.

If we lay out a clear, precise set of criteria, so a person in a potential position to acquire evidence can know, "this would meet the bounty requirements -- I could get $100,000 for this guaranteed," -- that's MUCH more tempting then "let me take huge risks with my career to MAYBE get some money trying to sell this evidence to another news network."Oh yeah, because a janitor or intern who works at a news organization and has the power to secure damning evidence certainly doesn't have the know-how to ask one of their friendly co-workers the general question, "How do people get in touch with the media when they have hard evidence of a conspiracy and want to get paid for releasing it?"

And obviously these janitors and interns wouldn't know they could call up any of the various radio stations to get on-air and mention the existence of the evidence, thereby creating a media bidding war for their exclusive evidence.

And obviously these resourceful janitors and interns with hard evidence certainly have no idea how to contact even conspiracy friendly sources like the National Enquirer, which got considered for the Pulitzer-Prize when it broke the John Edwards scandal. Yes, yes, only the best and brightest know how to contact the National Enquirer and get paid for it. :rolleyes:

[UK4Paul]

The problem is, lots of the bias is more SUBTLE.

For example, Hannity and his usual NEOCON guests, Bill Kristol etc. These guests are already biased against Ron Paul.

So you don't need editors in the back room saying, "Ignore Ron Paul"... when you have guests on who naturally feel that way anyway.

At the other end of the scale, you have the blatant stuff.

For example... O'Reilly. Do you really think he has a backroom editor saying, "Be nasty to Ron Paul!" No, I think it's more like... that's his personality... a pompous blowhard.

[amonasro]

I think a boycott is the best idea. It would be easy: Make a list in a forum post that gets updated continually. Link it to the homepage. Integrate it into the movement.

[Jingles]

What about Ben Swann? He does actual stories. If we can provide sufficient proof of whatever we can send it to him.

[Matthew5]

This just seems quixotic to me.

Why would the average person care if you had "hard" evidence of bias? Who's going to actually report it? You may get a single pundit fired or some low level manager, but what's the point? Dan Rather has always been accused of having a liberal bias. Do people hate CBS news because of it? No, they just don't like Dan Rather. He was let go from CBS (ironically calling out spineless journalist, another source of the problem) and people continue to watch CBS news.

What's your motivating factor for this? Is it because they're biased against Ron Paul? Bias will always be present in the media. It's like asking how do we eradicate evil in the world. It's not going to happen. It's just hitting home for us because it's happening to our guy.

Change the hearts and minds of the consumers. MSM is simply providing a service that people actively seek. The MSM isn't the problem. We are.

Also, question whether the media is really having the effect you think it is. Fox News' biggest program nets 2.9 million viewers, MSNBC gets .9 million, and CNN gets .7 million. That's 4.5 million people watching the big three. That's less than 2% of the American population is tuned in to MSM during prime time. The trust level of MSM is polling around 40%. Are we making a mountain of a mole hill?

Why not invest that reward money in a start up media venture? Look how many hits Drudge got last year...how much does it cost him to run that simple site?

[AhuwaleKaNaneHuna]

With the ability to raise money, why not start our own CNN ala Ted Turner back in the day, and sell stock shares in it. Call it RAN, Restore America Network or whatever. Just the facts- real journalistic reporting.

[Matthew5]

With the ability to raise money, why not start our own CNN ala Ted Turner back in the day, and sell stock shares in it. Call it RAN, Restore America Network or whatever. Just the facts- real journalistic reporting.

^This. Be the change you want to see in the world.

[JoshS]

Good luck raising the money needed to start a nation wide broadcasting service and then garnering the viewership to make it viable.

[KEEF]

What will you do with the evidence?

How about send all of the bad FOX bias reporting to CNN and all of the bad CNN bias to FOX. It seems that most of those talking heads just like to gloat on TV about how their station is more reliable than the other.

[dcjones]

1. I say we boycott the advertisers.
2. Let them know it by sending letters.
3. Let the Network "owners/share holders" know that we are serious and want coverage that will show RP's views by sending them letters. The owners will care maybe not the managers. I know Murdock control most of the voting rights to the corp. But stock prices are very touchy stuff. A lot of bad rumors and news in forums about advertiser boycotts can send the prices down pretty quickly.

Maybe we could suggest changing FBN to be more libritarian leaning. If there is enough demand for it they may be able to claim a large and growing sector of the libritarian population.

I think Rush, Levin, and Hannity have taken flak on their radio shows because of their bias. I have heard of reports that Rush and Levin have lost 1/3 of listeners. Hannity 1/4 just due to RP bashing

[rpwi]

Many of us invest indirectly in these companies through retirement funds. Pressuring these mutual funds/investments to in turn pressure the MSM could be more effective.

[dcjones]

One way to truely hit them is to start an Internet news station for the Libritarian viewer. Would be pretty cheap in comparison to do.

THERE IS A HUGE MARKET FOR THIS!!

Some entrepenuer will be rich doing this if they put some capitol up. This will hit them the hardest when they loose 15 to 20% of viewers to INTERNET LIBRITARIAN NEWS.

[Athan]

Not a bad idea!

[Matthew5]

Boycott advertisers and support local media. It's much easier to hold them accountable and they would have a bigger impact in your community.

Isn't that what Dr. Paul advocates? Local control and influence rather than national? Put that idea into practice!

[AceNZ]

With the ability to raise money, why not start our own CNN ala Ted Turner back in the day, and sell stock shares in it. Call it RAN, Restore America Network or whatever. Just the facts- real journalistic reporting.

A bunch of us here at RPF looked into this in 08; the Liberty TV project. One big problem is that in order to launch a new TV network, you actually need the cooperation of the existing TV networks. The very problem we're fighting against puts up a huge barrier to fighting them. The list of factors involved includes cable access, satellite access, FCC approval, advertiser influence and more.

[AceNZ]

One way to truely hit them is to start an Internet news station for the Libritarian viewer. Would be pretty cheap in comparison to do.

THERE IS A HUGE MARKET FOR THIS!!

Some entrepenuer will be rich doing this if they put some capitol up. This will hit them the hardest when they loose 15 to 20% of viewers to INTERNET LIBRITARIAN NEWS.

RP already largely owns the Internet, and what remains doesn't have that much reach as far as politics goes. Also, Liberty-oriented news is already available on the Internet if you look for it.

The larger battle can't be won on the Internet. Maybe someday (if they don't shut it down first), but not today.

[economics102]

Some of the criticism of my idea I think is valid. But these attempts to compete with the media as a solution to how to reach the MSM's captive audience is far more quixotic.

As I said earlier, Americans don't choose their news sources based on highest-quality, least-biased, etc. News is entertainment for them and they want to *enjoy* watching the news, even though they're not self-aware enough to ever describe their desire in that way. They say, very simply, "I would like to get my news by watching TV while on the couch or at the dinner table." Then they say, "gee, looks like my choices are FOX, CNN, and MSNBC. I know MSNBC is liberal-biased and FOX is conservative-biased, and I'm a conservative plus FOX is more entertaining and flashy so I'll watch FOX."

If your solution to the above is to start a libertarian internet TV station, I don't mean to belittle your efforts and you may of course find some audience for that, but you won't have a prayer's chance in hell of reaching the audience I just described above.

So your solutions are fairly limited, and all admittedly difficult:

1. Stop the networks from broadcasting lies and propaganda (my plan attempts to do this by controlling them through fear and intimidation)

2. Discredit the MSM so severely that people refuse to watch them. Again, it can't just be somewhat discredited, because people don't care enough to change their viewing habits based on that. You'd have to show that they're seriously treasonous. That's a high bar, although my plan also opens up this strategy by potentially getting evidence that would be so beyond the pale and evidencial of not just sporadic but systemic corruption that it might discredit the whole MSM industry.

3. Find an alternative way to reach this huge audience, IN ADDITION to the accepting the fact that they will continue to watch the TV news.

These attempts to compete in hope that you can persuade people to stop watching MSNBC and instead convince non-libertarians to listen to liberty radio network or whatever else, these are 1000x more implausible than the above three strategies, and that's saying a lot because the above three strategies are certainly easier said than done!

[acptulsa]

It has already been done. You'd have to give out the prize before you finished raising it.

The question is, how do you get everyone to watch that proof? You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it care...

What we need to do is explain how this crap of theirs is keeping people out of work, and destroying our way of life. And if indefinite detentions didn't work...?

What we need is to send everyone in this nation a damned wake up call somehow. What about my suggestion we sue Hannity, who said that all the Republican candidates were at his forum, for false advertising? The Constitutional protection of political speech doesn't cover false advertising. Let them black that class action suit up.

But we have to do it. Only the grassroots can do that.

[RoamZero]

The simplest way is to hit the media the companies in the pocketbooks by boycotting nearly anyone that buys commercials on their airwaves. It doesn't even have to be a huge boycott. For example, if you are in a high IT position and run Cisco, dump them in favor of something else because they advert on CNN.

[acptulsa]

The simplest way is to hit the media the companies in the pocketbooks by boycotting nearly anyone that buys commercials on their airwaves. It doesn't even have to be a huge boycott. For example, if you are in a high IT position and run Cisco, dump them in favor of something else because they advert on CNN.

What we need to boycott is their damned wars.

[AceNZ]

So your solutions are fairly limited, and all admittedly difficult:

By tackling the MSM head-on, you end up playing their game, and you'll lose. They have giant megaphones with which to reach their audience; it's very difficult to be heard in that environment.

Having said that, I have nothing against trying; there's certainly nothing wrong with things like withholding financial support through boycotting, and that kind of thing, but getting enough people on board to make a difference is going to be a huge challenge (if we could do that, it seems like the battle would already be won); I think there are more effective options.

In my view, the best solutions are indirect approaches:

1. Instead of trying to use fear and intimidation to get the MSM to stop, work to educate the employees of these companies and their advertisers about how much damage they are causing, and how it will eventually hurt them as well.
2. Instead of trying to just discredit the MSM, demonstrate how their approach is immoral; not just honest mistakes or differences of opinion, but lies, deception and manipulation for reasons that benefit them at your expense.
3. Get the message out by personal contact. The Internet is still OK, but it's really more useful as a tool to find information once you're convinced, rather than one that will change your mind (plus, it's reach is limited in the demographics we should be most concerned about). Use DVDs, printed handouts, stump speeches, books, group meetings, etc. We need a movement (different from Occupy or the Tea Party) -- which also means a theme (Corporatism / Cronyism).

One way to compete on the entertainment front is by pushing boundaries, such as through pirate radio or TV (along the lines of Voice of America) -- "let's tune in and see for ourselves why the authorities are so riled-up about these guys." It might sound crazy, but certainly no more so than the Ron Paul Blimp was.

The underlying issue is really one of ideology. In the end, the country will get the government that reflects its values. To change leadership or direction in a significant way will require more than just calling people, putting up signs and knocking on doors; it will require changing the way people think -- a much, much harder problem, that also requires a much different approach than with traditional politics.