http://www.ourmediavoice.org/article_reform_bw.html

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-liberalmedia.htm

I’m not sure what media you’re watching/reading, but in the US, large corporations like to be unregulated and untaxed. For that reason, they tend to finance pro-capitalist, right-wing media. That’s why Project Censored has so many stories to choose from at the end of the year.

The advertisers like a right-wing slant.

Sadly, Nebulous No!

Organized Jesus freaks haven’t had the success you’re describing, either; Disney World still has plenty gay people there–The Mouse is good at managing image, and the Jumpin’ Jesus brigade can’t quite dent the Disneyland magic.

Advertisers loooove right-wing bias. They’re rich, remember?

But getting that type of organized response from progressives, for whatever reason, seems impossible. Although I would suggest that it’s less impossible than a return of the Fairness Doctrine.

I saw your advertising on Hardball. It’s my opinion that Chris Matthews is a horrible misogynist who fosters a hateful environment for women and minorities. Since your ads are paying his salary, I find that I can no longer use your product as I can not bear the thought od one single dime of my money going to feed his perverse tastes. Plus he’s ugly.

I mean, how hard would that be to do? The problem is that progressives don’t have the kill instinct. They refuse to pull the trigger. Even when they raise a big enough stink that Tweety tells us that he gets it he doesn’t have to change his behaviour at all. And it doesn’t have to be Matthews. You can basically pick a talking head at random and have a justified cause.

The problem with the press isn’t that there aren’t enough rules, it’s that there’s no accountability. Seriously, if Joe Klein has neither the time nor the expertise to inform himself about issues he writes about, before going ahead and wtiring about them, what the hell is he doing still writing?

But hey, the free market will fix the problem, as it has for these past three decades.

The goal is to turn around the accepted wisdom that boycotts are pointless. But then again, I’m just talking out my ass, so what do I know. I don’t even have an mba.

I do think it’d be a bigger help than the Fairness Doctrine.

As before I’m lukewarm on this, but a Fairness Doctrine allows station management to throw up their hands and say “We had to put that dirty fucking hippie on.” Boycotts are pointless.

Here’s what I view as the real discrepancy. When religious right wing fringe lunatics proclaim that they are insulted/offended/etc. they get action. This is not only because media management is conditioned to respond to these idiots, but it’s because they follow through on boycott threats.

On the progressive side, blantant racism and sexism, and to a lesser extent homophobia, gets a similar response, bu tonly after much more effort. And usually, the targets aren’t the roght ones. If the progressive sphere really wants to get in on the debate, they gotta put up or shut up. Pick a target, say Timmeh or Tweety (as warm up before attacking the Murdoch Mothership) and follow through. Hound them until they are out of work. Organize boycotts of MtP and Harball advertisers. Stick with it until you’ve collected a couple big name scalps. Don’t let them get away with “oh I’m just too passionate about my job and sometimes I have a slip of the tongue” BS.

At the very least, get Imus back off the air. Complaints from teh Left, Norbizness excluded, are considered jokes. Because that’s what they are.

Letting cities drown: look up Huey Long and why he was so popular.

I can’t give you an example where the Fairness Doctrine was abused because I don’t know enough about how it was applied. I’m just responding based on how much it sounds like a “not very good idea”.

In my defense, I also can’t come up with any historical presidents who let a city drown either.

Here’s the current algorithm for response to slanted news:

Don’t bother telling me about the marketplace. Broadcasters answer to advertisers, and they like people stupid.

The Fairness Doctrine was in place for decades, and I defy you to cite any examples of abuse of it in all of that time. Abuses of the public trust under the current system, however…

I thought “let the free market handle things, government can’t do anything right was a wingnut stance. Hmmm…

You don’t want the government insuring that broadcasters accomodate dissenting voices. OK, then: no more exclusivity of wavelength. Encourage, don’t prosecute, pirate radio, and even television. If you won’t accomodate dissent on your frequency/station/channel, then you don’t get to complain when someone hijacks you frequency. How’s that?

Fine.

Next question.

(Additionally, I’m not sure how we push Fairness Doctrine II past this Supreme Court…)