Structure

[AceNZ]

Outright supporting a specific candidate is just foolish. The idea is to get viewers and that can only happen if they believe they are getting a fair report. Thew media doesn't influence people by endorsing Giuliani.

There are two issues here. One is whether we should be an LLC or a non-profit. The other is whether we should endorse specific candidates or not. If we endorse candidates, we can't be a non-profit, but if we don't, either form would work.

Yes, I agree that the media doesn't influence people by endorsing candidates. What I was thinking is not so much coming out and announcing endorsements, but rather a more subtle approach, including perhaps financial contributions. I'm not convinced that we won't get viewers or that people won't think they're getting a fair report just because we make endorsements. MSM does it all the time. Newspapers are especially well-known for their endorsements, which have been going on forever.

On the issue of being a non-profit, my concern is that even if we don't make an explicit endorsement, the fact that we are planning (I hope) to be in the middle of political discussions could be viewed as a form of political endorsement whether we like it or not -- resulting in battles to retain our tax exempt status.

I know a couple of people have suggested trying to be an "unbiased" news source. Frankly, I think that's both impossible and undesirable. ALL news stories have a slant -- even the choice of which stories to air shows a bias! I would suggest a goal something along the lines of being an honest, objective news source. But we should admit to ourselves and our investors that a secondary goal is to promote political change in the direction of "traditional" conservatism, along the lines of what Ron Paul supports.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

nt

[AceNZ]

There are many different forms of endorsement:

-- Make an announcement "we want you to vote for zzzz" (I agree we shouldn't need to do that)
-- Make donations to a relevant PACs or campaigns
-- Spend more time covering relevant candidates; more interviews, campaign news, etc.
-- Spend more time covering issues relevant to particular candidates (for example, talking about how it would be good to end the Federal Reserve is really endorsing Ron Paul, since he's the only candidate proposing that)
-- Frame issues in ways that are favorable to our preferred candidate's positions (for example, talk about abortion as a crime of violence, rather than as "women's reproductive rights")
-- Use on-air staff, co-hosts, etc, who are sympathetic to traditional conservative values (for example, we wouldn't hire Bill O'Reilly)

Along the lines of what Live_Free says, there may often only be one candidate running in a particular area who shares these views. If that's the case, it's likely that the IRS could argue that we're "supporting" that candidate, even if we never did so explicitly. Do we really want to give the IRS that kind of leverage over us?

[Minuteman]

I think being a non-profit is pretty much out. I understand there was alot of discord around the blimp project for becoming an LLC instead of a PAC, but the two interprises have nothing in relation.

Being a news source, there is just to much news with a political slant. Being a non-profit, like others have said, would not allow us to support a candidate of any type. While we may not directly come out and "officially" support someone, we do have to report the news. I dont see a reason to hamstring ourselves right out of the gates.