How do we combat media that are biased against us? (LE's question that deserves discussion)

[cajuncocoa]

Blame the media. They ignored him. Promoted the others.

You don't need to rig elections when you can rig the electorate.

Of course they did. Why is this surprising anyone???? How much longer are we going to sit here being victims vs. making a plan to rectify this?

Some posts in the other thread have already been made...I'll try to copy them over.

[cajuncocoa]

Suggestions from the original thread:

One of us needs to get Bloomberg rich and start our own media company

There are people like Peter Thiel who has opened up his checkbook to the Pauls before. And yes, this is what I am talking about.

I'm talking about acquiring a TV network.

That would probably be the single best thing that could be done, but requires hundreds of millions to make one big enough to become relevant, right? That might help with old voters who get their source from the television, but there also is another problem that needs to be addressed. The younger generation now who thinks socialism is the way to go... They dont get their news from the television yet they still believe this is the right way.

I agree. Something needs to change here and it has to be something big like this. There is no competing with the mind controllers right now.

This.

If anything last night has made clear once again that the media decides the winner for the most part. Therefore, if we want to win, we have to force the media narrative.

Preaching to the choir doesn't work and only talking about politics isn't going to entice new viewers/listeners. The only way is to create a host of different shows that deal with every day stupid stuff. Then slowly feed your narrative into those stories.. Exactly how all the existing media companies are doing that.

I'm not sure if it HAS to be on TV. What is much more important is that a couple stable people start something like this and it doesn't become a one man show.

Yes, get a real alternative network on the cable dial (or through syndication), call it "Liberty TV" and promote it as the true remedy to pro-government, pro-war, pro-PC news and commentary stations. BUT FOR IT TO HAPPEN, AND FOR IT TO WORK, AND FOR IT TO NOT GET CO-OPTED:

Cooperation: The entire grassroots liberty movement needs to work with each other, by which I mean both the libertarian and constitutionalist wing, and the patriot or populist wing. Meaning, no sniping at, or putdowns of libertarians over being too 'pure' or the LP/CP as being 'irrelevant,' and no sniping at, or putdowns of populists over conspiracy or truth advocacy. Programming of both types should be on the channel, possibly from using material already being independently produced (say internet talk show simulcasts, from Ben Swann to Infowars Nightly News, to Michael Rivero's What Really Happened, to Abby Martin's Empire Files, and so on). Respectability Napoleons need not apply.

Funding: A consortium or board of mutually agreed upon, grassroots-trusted independent voices should set up the network as a cooperative venture, and control both editorial and financial decisions. This is important to keep the network from being infiltrated by Republican, corporate or neocon operatives who will want to rope the content back within the two-party paradigm and turn it into FOX2. If most of the programming is reused from independent, but existing material, that should minimize costs enough for the channel to be sustained by grassroots donations or (case by case) selected big donors (e.g., Thiel). The board should be committed to NEVER letting folks like the Kochs in as funders, or any advertiser who demands the channel "stop talking about X" as a condition for advertising on the network.

Wouldn't work, unless the plan is simply to have an unpopular tv network.

The specifics of your unpopular tv network are perfectly fine, but it just wouldn't have that massive effect you think it would. The internet isn't new any more, really, and there's no shortage of diverse viewpoints there. I'm not suggesting that this is a bad idea, but if a network about as popular as animal planet was hyping Rand Paul 24/7, would that mean that Rand Paul does better than 5% in Iowa?

I'm in...I want to see their plan to conquer fear mongering.

What would that plan look/sound like? Fear is a powerful motivator.

The populace of America is completely gripped by fear. There is nothing that Americans en masse value more than security.

I think Rand is actually on the right track...the most fearful thing is our debt.

I think where the miss has happened is not conveying this fear properly and in a manner that people can understand.


$19 trillion when you can just "raise the debt ceiling" doesnt make sense to people.

We need to be using 10 and 20 year projections for the debt and explain it in "credit card minimum" returns.

"In 10 years, our debt will be $30 trillion. The minimum credit card payment for that is $1 trillion a year. We take in $3 trillion. That is 1/3 spent paying interest. In 20 years, it will be $40 trillion and the minimum payment will be $1.5 trillion per year. Still taking in $3 trillion annually, we can no longer afford to fun welfare programs and the military. In 20 years, we will be having to cut the military significantly and those needing welfare to survive will have to go without."

Thats the long version and someone smarter than me can make it more meaningful, but it has to get dumbed down.

The consequences of not being able to pay for our current lifestyle have to be, properly, and fearfully conveyed.

The point would not be to be 'popular' but to be there at all. It would not be a for-profit entity, but a cooperative that made sure the average cable viewer had a reliable place to see news from the alternative, liberty perspective. MSNBC gets by with what, 200,000 viewers daily nationwide? Given that Infowars has an audience of 3 million a day by itself, a cable channel running with re-used Internet show material will be popular enough.

"We" are not the campaign and "we" have been told that over and over again. In 2008 "we" came up with the idea of making homemade signs and plastering them all over the place and doing money bombs and raising money to fly a blimp. "We" organized things like PaulFest when Ron wasn't allowed to speak at the RNC. "We" were told "that doesn't win campaigns." The irony of this thread is that the OP was one of the main people saying what "we" were doing wrong. (I love you Matt, but you're trolling hard brother.) The only plan that "we" came up with that the campaign has embraced has been the money bombs.

If this election cycle has taught us anything it's that the cult of personality is more powerful than "we" are. Donald Trump doesn't need his supporters to come up with a plan to deal with the media attacking him. He's a walking media circus. When that jackass from Fox News asked Ron Paul if he had any electability since he was against the Iraq war and 70% of republicans were for it, if Ron hand been Donald Trump he would have found some way to insult him. Maybe he would have said "You look like you're constipated when you ask that question."

I will give Rand credit for skipping the previous debate and having his own event. He got more coverage from that than did the participants in the debate. So what did Donald Trump do? He copied off of Rand! Maybe Rand should go back the Rachel Maddow show just to run off a non stop stream of insults at her. It will get him the kind of media coverage Trump is getting.

I don't think a single person is surprised at this, I think the issue is that there isn't really any plan for rectifying this. The television set is basically the religion of the average American voter, and even many that use the internet will flock to places that mirror the message coming out of the idiot box. There is a reciprocal relationship between the willful ignorance of the average voter and the stream of lies that flows from the media.

How do we counter this? What are your suggestions?

[fisharmor]

I don't watch TV or listen to the radio. I'm not bombarded with this jackassery on a constant basis and I see it for what it is, so let me share some insights based on what I see when I do.

Fox News doesn't even try not to be a bunch of $#@!ing clowns. That's their thing. They're the clowniest clowns in clowntown. FFS, we're talking about a network that still gives Frank Lutz a permanent job eight years after Penn and Teller outed him as a complete sheister.
Why else would they be so in love with Trump? You want to reign in clowntown, you act like the king clown.

CNN is only marginally better. The Democrat debate I watched on CNN was actually sort of dignified. They talked about actual issues.
The Republican debates on CNN aren't quite as ridiculous as the Fox debate, but it's still all he-said-she-said, talk about the other candidates, gossip mongering trash.
So there, it's a lot less media bias, and still just clowning. And again, Trump comes out on top.

The "media bias" isn't bias against Rand. I hate to say it, but it's bias against Republicans. And Fox News is the most biased.

The only outfit I know of that doesn't treat Republicans like a clown troupe is NPR. They bill themselves as the station intelligent people tune in to, and yeah, you do actually need better than 90 IQ to pick up on how they slant everything to the left, and better than 115 to be able to point out how they make that slant nearly vertical without making it seem biased at all.

So this is how I would overcome it, if I was calling the shots:

Go back to appealing to the left.

The media is run by the left. This hasn't changed in 50 years. Fox News was supposed to be our big breakout, but the only thing they've done is caricature conservative talking points so that leftists have something to point at and laugh.

So give them something to chew on. Go back to being staunchly antiwar, for one. Rand did a pretty good job of mentioning civil liberties issues like privacy and the drug war, but it has never been in the forefront with him.
When a moderator asks if you would eliminate the CIA, do what Ron did - golf clap at them.
Go back to the talking point about how there's enough money to fund our existing social programs if we stop buying bombs.

[euphemia]

I register and comment on as many articles as I can. I point out the bias and explain why liberty is better.

[65fastback2+2]

The first one is, probably obvious, that you have to use media formats NOT controlled by media billionaires. And, I think you have to distance yourself from them if you can. Not participating in any of their debates or media.

You then thus have to use alternate methods.

I'll tell a quick story to illustrate a method that works.

The creator of Geek Squad when he started the business with just himself, he got a unique looking car and plastered it in company colors with a company logo. If he wasnt on a call repairing a computer, he would drive it around sports events, through downtown, etc. etc. always driving the wheels off of it. The people in the area ended up thinking that Geek Squad was this huge, massive company all because around town they always saw the marked car running around. But it wasnt a huge company with a fleet of cars. It was 1 man with 1 car. But the perception was different.


You also cant take election cycles off. There should be liberty events happening all of the time, as many places as we can have them. Political meetings, sports event, car shows, fireworks displays, air shows, etc. etc. we should be running booths to spread liberty. Cant sit around and wait till an election year to get things in motion.

[luctor-et-emergo]

The first one is, probably obvious, that you have to use media formats NOT controlled by media billionaires. And, I think you have to distance yourself from them if you can. Not participating in any of their debates or media.

You then thus have to use alternate methods.

I'll tell a quick story to illustrate a method that works.

The creator of Geek Squad when he started the business with just himself, he got a unique looking car and plastered it in company colors with a company logo. If he wasnt on a call repairing a computer, he would drive it around sports events, through downtown, etc. etc. always driving the wheels off of it. The people in the area ended up thinking that Geek Squad was this huge, massive company all because around town they always saw the marked car running around. But it wasnt a huge company with a fleet of cars. It was 1 man with 1 car. But the perception was different.


You also cant take election cycles off. There should be liberty events happening all of the time, as many places as we can have them. Political meetings, sports event, car shows, fireworks displays, air shows, etc. etc. we should be running booths to spread liberty. Cant sit around and wait till an election year to get things in motion.

That's definitely a factor but you can't bluff all the way.

I think we definitely have to make an effort at creating something with 24hr broadcasting. Some of it can be taped and reruns, some of it live. Continuous broadcasting is something that will make people come back a lot more if the content is good. It should be a channel/network where people come to relax (!). This is very important. People do not watch a channel because they want their opinions changed. They will watch a channel because it's fun, relaxing or interesting and then they will unwillingly open up their minds to propaganda messages that are mixed into the content. That's how we have to go about this.

[65fastback2+2]

I register and comment on as many articles as I can. I point out the bias and explain why liberty is better.

I think we could come up with different length responses to different hot topics to make it a copy/paste deal for all of us.

We will have a much stronger message when it is unified, which I think is one of the detriments in rallying people to liberty...theres 5,000 different voices and messages. Example, Gary Johnson approves of baby murder and its ok because he's for liberty. I'm for liberty and dont approve because the right to life is the first right listed in the constitution. Next you have two liberty supporters spewing different messages. Unify the messages.

[65fastback2+2]

That's definitely a factor but you can't bluff all the way.

I think we definitely have to make an effort at creating something with 24hr broadcasting. Some of it can be taped and reruns, some of it live. Continuous broadcasting is something that will make people come back a lot more if the content is good. It should be a channel/network where people come to relax (!). This is very important. People do not watch a channel because they want their opinions changed. They will watch a channel because it's fun, relaxing or interesting and then they will unwillingly open up their minds to propaganda messages that are mixed into the content. That's how we have to go about this.

Definitely not saying bluffing ourselves...but theres a reason the Ron Paul blimp did well.

The best way to organize this is a "liberty tree" where we divide the country and make a network of individuals working towards liberty and volunteering to put the message out there at events.

Do it region specific, then state specific, then major city specific. Have a chair for the Southwest, chair person for Texas, chair for Dallas, chair for Houston. Then we work on building teams around those chairs for events.

Most importantly, we have to develop media that is unified.

[65fastback2+2]

In order to pull this all off though, we have to get people willing to bend a little here and there and create the unifying message and media.

I think first order should be drafting a liberty creed that everyone can agree on that we are all working towards.

[CaptUSA]

I think first order should be drafting a liberty creed that everyone can agree on that we are all working towards.

Good luck with that. The LP has been struggling and fighting over that for decades. It just serves to divide people even further.


I think it really comes down to education. Government education is about getting people to buy what is being sold to them without questioning it. Whether it's food, clothing, entertainment, housing, culture, art, love, war, or politics, our society has lost the ability to think independently and critically. Until you rectify that problem, I don't think starting a new media arm will do much.

I'd support an Amendment to the Constitution banning government education. Short of that, I think the battle will always be uphill.

[luctor-et-emergo]

Well, I'll make myself available as an overseas correspondent from Europe.

[65fastback2+2]

Good luck with that. The LP has been struggling and fighting over that for decades. It just serves to divide people even further.


I think it really comes down to education. Government education is about getting people to buy what is being sold to them without questioning it. Whether it's food, clothing, entertainment, housing, culture, art, love, war, or politics, our society has lost the ability to think independently and critically. Until you rectify that problem, I don't think starting a new media arm will do much.

I'd support an Amendment to the Constitution banning government education. Short of that, I think the battle will always be uphill.

I'm not saying to make it something as lengthy as the constitution....but a short paragraph or 5-8 bullet points or something is needed.

Think of it more as an "articles of confederation"

[fisharmor]

I think we definitely have to make an effort at creating something with 24hr broadcasting. Some of it can be taped and reruns, some of it live. Continuous broadcasting is something that will make people come back a lot more if the content is good. It should be a channel/network where people come to relax (!). This is very important. People do not watch a channel because they want their opinions changed. They will watch a channel because it's fun, relaxing or interesting and then they will unwillingly open up their minds to propaganda messages that are mixed into the content. That's how we have to go about this.

Right before my house went dark from TV broadcasts, I was starting to pull digital signal out of my erstwhile roof antenna.
I was fascinated by RT, NHK world, and to a lesser extent Al Jazeera.
I knew right off that they were simply state mouthpieces from another part of the world - but the thing is, especially about RT and NHK world, they had human interest pieces.

Every once in a while I'd get to watch a half hour show about a church somewhere in Russia where the day is six months long, which was made completely out of wood. And it wasn't making a point, just showcasing the craftsmanship that went into it, and maybe a little on how since it was so far out of the way it didn't get targeted by the purges.
Or I'd catch a five minute piece about the yearly reveal of the mummy of a Japanese monk who succeeded in practicing Sokushinbutsu. And I'll always remember the Japanese hillbilly who caught vipers so he could pickle them in alcohol, which he then drank after a hard day's work.

I think stuff like that - value-neutral pieces that just show people from other countries - would be right at home on a liberty themed network. It would reinforce the idea that when we talk about foreign policy, we're talking, ultimately, about people. It would be nice to see them once in a while in conjunction with that message.

Taking that a step further, think about how many histories could be told that people have never heard. Think about how much religious reporting could be done. Not the commentary and crap we get today, but actual reporting of actual facts.

Point is, it would be hard for me to limit it to only 24 hours of programming each day.

[cajuncocoa]

In order to pull this all off though, we have to get people willing to bend a little here and there and create the unifying message and media.

I think first order should be drafting a liberty creed that everyone can agree on that we are all working towards.

Not necessarily. It might be good to demonstrate that it's not required to walk in lockstep with one another on every issue,but when push comes to shove, we come together for a common goal.

[65fastback2+2]

Not necessarily. It might be good to demonstrate that it's not required to walk in lockstep with one another on every issue,but when push comes to shove, we come together for a common goal.

I dont disagree. And it might be something as simple as "Protecting life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"...but there should be SOMETHING. Sports teams, military units, etc. etc. use mantras and creeds to signify and grow unity. The liberty movement is no different. We're still people that do seek unity...just not on every single personal belief possible.

[LibertyEagle]

Definitely not saying bluffing ourselves...but theres a reason the Ron Paul blimp did well.

The best way to organize this is a "liberty tree" where we divide the country and make a network of individuals working towards liberty and volunteering to put the message out there at events.

Do it region specific, then state specific, then major city specific. Have a chair for the Southwest, chair person for Texas, chair for Dallas, chair for Houston. Then we work on building teams around those chairs for events.

Most importantly, we have to develop media that is unified.

It DIDN'T DO WELL. Except for Trevor's bank account.

[LibertyEagle]

Not necessarily. It might be good to demonstrate that it's not required to walk in lockstep with one another on every issue,but when push comes to shove, we come together for a common goal.

Yes!!!

[Bruehound]

Quite frankly, I think advancements in peer to peer technology and a collapse of the US dollar will be far more liberating than politics ever can be. The only way to liberty is to make government irrelevant and impotent.

[LibertyEagle]

Quote Originally Posted by Peace&Freedom View Post
Yes, get a real alternative network on the cable dial (or through syndication), call it "Liberty TV" and promote it as the true remedy to pro-government, pro-war, pro-PC news and commentary stations. BUT FOR IT TO HAPPEN, AND FOR IT TO WORK, AND FOR IT TO NOT GET CO-OPTED:

That's too in their face. News wouldn't be the lead; nor would politics. That only appeals to a small audience. Have to get them in by running TV reruns that they like. Some will stay for the news and it has to be PROFESSIONALLY DONE. Not some idiot that took a radio and TV class in HS or college and wants to be a star.

I've watched UP do it and infuse their lefty BS promoting specials, etc. in commercial breaks. What brought me there was that they had a rerun showing that I liked. If there are enough good reruns that appeal to our target audience, some will stay. Even for the news.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Up_(TV_network)

[LibertyEagle]

Quite frankly, I think advancements in peer to peer technology and a collapse of the US dollar will be far more liberating than politics ever can be. The only way to liberty is to make government irrelevant and impotent.

And they will rush in a global currency. Not too liberating there.

[65fastback2+2]

That's too in their face. News wouldn't be the lead; nor would politics. That only appeals to a small audience. Have to get them in by running TV reruns that they like. Some will stay for the news and it has to be PROFESSIONALLY DONE. Not some idiot that took a radio and TV class in HS or college and wants to be a star.

I've watched UP do it and infuse their lefty BS promoting specials, etc. in commercial breaks. What brought me there was that they had a rerun showing that I liked. If there are enough good reruns that appeal to our target audience, some will stay. Even for the news.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Up_(TV_network)

Is Ben Swann's media platform not a viable candidate?

[Natural Citizen]

Media bias isn't what needs combating. It's the malfeasance in the media that needs to be countered and shown.

But you have to work with what you have. It's the only way.

[Isaac Bickerstaff]

Chant harder!

Seriously, though, we need to own the issues before there is a candidate. We need to keep the opinion pages in newspapers full of letters on banking shenanigans, military waste, domestic waste,--general stories on intervention stupidity--without naming a candidate. Then, when there is a candidate worth supporting, it won't take nearly as much media to get his message out to win people over. The meager media we can hope to muster can just be spent connecting our guy with the support we have already created.

[Isaac Bickerstaff]

//

[Voluntarist]

xxxxx

[idiom]

I help people build TV networks and find their niches for a living. I have had a pretty innovative idea for a global news network for a while.

But I don't think it is the solution.

We have been successfully getting slates of candidates elected. We need to stick to that and stop shooting for the Presidency.

When we are shooting for the Presidency It has to be outrageous and stunt based. Rand was dominating when he did that. Trump got to the top by being un-ignorable.

Rand was doing that $#@! really well about a year ago then got all 'professional'.

Things like the 24 hour live stream, was neutered to being just a controlled fluff piece.

Its been a while since Rand has said anything exciting or controversial. He hasn't given speeches like his fathers, "Imagine" or "what-If".

He is acting like a great rank and file senator, nothing like a national leader.


The MSM would carry Rand as their headline day in and day out if he was starting $#@! the whole time. They hate boring, or rather their viewers do.

The American TV audience is one of the lowest common denominators on the planet. Everything has to be dumbed the $#@! down and hyped to oblivion.

INTJ's make up 2% of the population, that is Rand's base. Stop $#@!n wishing that everyone would suddenly switch to that type of personality. It will never happen.

If you ran a news channel that appealed to Americans you would all shoot yourselves.

How to appeal to Americans:

[P3ter_Griffin]

Most of my tweets get 30-800 impressions, I was retweeted by an anonymous (the group) handle the other day and got over 60,000 impressions on that tweet. I think we need to make some friends. I think we need to convince some of these more radical groups with large followings that voluntarism is the right path, and that the liberty movement is the right group to join or work with to work towards that goal. Many of these groups already have grassroots media, in my search for dirt on Ted yesterday I found that the liberty movement has some that I did not know about, and I would be supportive in helping establish more in what ways I can. So I guess two things- outreach- and using what media we have or create in the future efficiently to lessen how much more we need to create.

[osan]

I don't watch TV or listen to the radio. I'm not bombarded with this jackassery on a constant basis and I see it for what it is, so let me share some insights based on what I see when I do.

But Joey and Janey Meaner do, and are.

Fox News doesn't even try not to be a bunch of $#@!ing clowns. That's their thing. They're the clowniest clowns in clowntown. FFS, we're talking about a network that still gives Frank Lutz a permanent job eight years after Penn and Teller outed him as a complete sheister.

I'd have to put them behind MSNBC and CNN on those points, not that it makes any difference, given they are all WAY beyond the threshold.

Why else would they be so in love with Trump?

?? Doesn't that blondie bint... Megyn something-or-other go on regular tirades against him? Perhaps she's pissed that she didn't land the moniker "Mrs. Trump".

CNN is only marginally better.

I see them as marginally worse. Six of one, I suppose...

The only outfit I know of that doesn't treat Republicans like a clown troupe is NPR. They bill themselves as the station intelligent people tune in to, and yeah, you do actually need better than 90 IQ to pick up on how they slant everything to the left, and better than 115 to be able to point out how they make that slant nearly vertical without making it seem biased at all.

You think? I thought anyone better than 60 would pick up on it. They really are not very subtle at all, to my eyes.

The media is run by the left. This hasn't changed in 50 years. Fox News was supposed to be our big breakout, but the only thing they've done is caricature conservative talking points so that leftists have something to point at and laugh.

This is devastating truth.

So give them something to chew on. Go back to being staunchly antiwar, for one. Rand did a pretty good job of mentioning civil liberties issues like privacy and the drug war, but it has never been in the forefront with him.

He's not a particularly good salesman; certainly not for the Meaner market. They love Trump because he is a brawler. 'Murka has come to love brawlers. Can't say that I get it, other than that which turning to my standard assumption yields: the average man is a moron.

When a moderator asks if you would eliminate the CIA, do what Ron did - golf clap at them.

Did he really?

Once again I am directed by all I see to recommend to one and all to accept the fact that we are $#@!ed, and to prepare for the worst, while retaining the slim hope that I am dead wrong and that one day you will all come together, apprehend me, bury me to my waist, and start throwing stones. But for those who have not yet done this, ask yourself the question: what will you do if this thing we call America goes seriously south? You really do not want to go off the precipice with no plan of what to do as you plummet into the abyss with all your fellows. Seriously, you don't.

[fisharmor]

Did he really?

[Working Poor]

I'm pushing for anarchy.