Posted on 08/05/2004 5:17:52 PM PDT by Bob J
This has been one of my mantras since I arrived at FR in '97 ('96?). Holding rallies, working to get candidates elected, etc., is of immediate importance, but until we solve the media prejudice issue, we will always be pushing that boulder up the hill only to have it roll back down on us the moment our attention is diverted.
Liberals have to rely on propaganda and intimidation, in the media, in education, in unions, etc., to maintain control. They know it is the mothers milk of their effectiveness. Conservatives, if we are ever to achieve a lasting ascendancy and eliminate liberalism as a significant cultural influence, must understand that a long term plan on confronting and overcoming this challenge must be put in place or we will always just come up short of our goals.
Do you think Clinton would have been re-elected, Hillary still sitting in the Senate, Gore almost winning in '00 and sKerry this close in '04 if it wasn't for the lapdog media who decides not only what information is disseminated, but as important, what isn't and how and where it is presented?
People say we have Fox News. Fox News does very well and beats the other cable stations, but when you add up the numbers for the others all together, they beat Fox. And, they still got Rather, Brokaw and Jennings. They still have the NY/LA Times and magazines. They still got our universities, our unions, our entertainment industry (an information dissemination industry all it's own). Yes, we got the internet, but it pales to the competitions advantage.
I'm not going to present a plan, I have my own ideas and am working on some of them. I'd like to hear what the FReepers have to say and what ideas you have, and, how far you are willing to go.
FWIW - I've found outdoor to be pretty effective. For $500-$2000/month you get a to presonalize a message than can reach from tens to hundreds of thousands. Of course, the board copy has to catch their attention and hold it for all of three seconds...heheh.
There isn't much we can do as individuals. However, if we find a way to pool our talents and resources, perhaps we can make a dent. But the playing field is not level. The so-called mainstream media have enormous wealth, power and influence. We'd have to find effective ways to compete with them despite the lack of a level playing field. It takes resources the average person simply doesn't have.
AHA! There is a lot (I think) we can do as individuals but only effective acting as a group!
And an achilles heel.
Speaking strictly about political news, the heart of the problem is the NYC-DC stranglehold on reporting about the federal government. People in the DC press corps live in the greater DC area. They socialize with other DC media figures as well as government types at all levels, national and international. They become their own self-actualizers and self-verifiers. And because such a huge percentage of them are Left-of-center in their own politics, they become oblivious to other points of view.
Near term, you can't change that NYC-DC political culture. What you have to do is compete with it for the hearts and minds of the American people. It is extremely difficult to do and extremely expensive to do, but it is not impossible.
Nothing and no one is invincible. It would take a great deal of resources, but the way to bring down the Times is to discredit it in the eyes of its own peers. Came close with the Jayson Blair story, but more of that sort of thing is needed. Where's William Randolph Hearst when we need him?!
You don't have to buy the cow to get a share of the milk. Edwards and the last 40 year history of the US has proven that.
I think nard is saying the NYT is the fulcrum point.
Ah, but we dont need 100% ownership, just a controlling share. 51% would do it. Okay, I've solved $3 billion of the problem, someone else has to figure out the other $3 billion. Anyone?
It is hard to teach your grandchildren around MTV, the NEA, etc., but I'm not giving up.
We point out the inaccuracies in press accounts of current events, especially point out the contradictions. Modern advertising is a great vehicle for teaching your kids.
One of our grand daughters ( who lives with us), at 16, is driving, and instead of a newer vehicle, we bought a perfectly serviceable '78 Buick for her to drive. Paid for, cheap parts. It does not hurt that many of her friends are poor, and reinforce the idea that old but good transportation may not be trendy, but it beats walking, so shut up about style and be thankful! When she griped about no CD player, I laughed and told her CD's hadn't been invented when the car was built, at least for the consumer market.
She will help me service the vehicle in preparation for winter and appreciate it all the more when she is done.
We drive older vehicles, which in our climate (North Dakota winters commonly hit -30F, tend to be as or more reliable than computerized cars.
At least we won't freeze to death because some chip or sensor quit.
We obtained a fine selection of classical music when the library was selling off their vinyl (at pennies on the dollar) and play it. It rubs off.
It helps to have friends who stop by and discuss things other than sports.
So what to do? Teach your kids to change the oil on their car, not just check it.
Teach them to shoot, and to respect, not fear a firearm.
Teach them respect for all things, and that to use without destroying something beats waste any time. Buy the best you can afford, but buy things which will last. Expensive trendy things make no sense, if you decide you really want them, wait a year and they will be a lot cheaper. Spending money you do not have (especially on things you do not need) with no way to recover the investment is folly.
I guess the bottom line is to lead by example. Show them a better way, and invite them to follow that philosophy, if not in your footsteps.
We have become the counter-culture, the lunatics have taken over the asylum.
Well, I have been saying THAT for many years. I fear no Democrat. I fear only the Orwellian media.
What are you hoping people will say? Are you after something specific? Or just pushing for ideas?
Weaken it via discrediting, but don't destroy it if you can use it to work for you. If the libs taught is anything in the last 60 years it's that control through usurpation and intimidation is the least costly and quickest path to advantage.
I like you're style! Some here see an insurmountable problem. Visionaries break it down into easily digested morsels!
That's okay, America loves an underdog!
I've been criticized in the past for taking this tack. It's understandable, thinking is hard (not aimed at you, you've provoked some excellent ideas on this thread).
Fire off a letter to him...
Lighten-up, Francis. You know I signed-on for the duration, in spite of my screw-ups.
Still 'Deep-In-the-Tarpon-Springs-Swamps' here in FLA, pal. How ya been?.............FRegards
Wrong. Vast numbers of people pay little if any attention to news or politics. What news they get sort of washes over them like background noise as they go about their daily lives.
Speaking (ummm...writing) in broad, round numbers, there are roughly 200 million voting age adults in this country. Only half of them will actually vote in presidential elections; far, far fewer in mid-term and local elections.
Based on ratings for the broadcast and cable news progams, there may be only about 10 to 20 million people nationwide who pay very close attention to politics. They are the hard-core political junkies (like us) who are divided roughly 50-50 between Dems and Reps. Another slice of the potential electorate may not pay much day-to-day attention to news or politics, but they will vote, and probably for the party of their parents/family and/or ethnic/peer group. Everyone else not in those two categories is up for grabs.
Those people who are up for grabs will be swayed by pretty people, pizazz, buzz, the latest hot news story, the presidential debates, and smart advertising. It is this slice of the electorate most open to being swayed by what they see on their local TV news, or by Tom/Dan/Peter/Katie/Diane, et. al.
If we are a nation in which most men vote Republican and most women vote Democrat, and in which most ethnic minorities vote Dem while most whites vote Rep, you're going to wind up with the results of most elections splitting close to 50-50, 55-45, 60-40, even before party affiliation is factored in. WHAT MAKES THE DIFFERENCE IN MOST ELECTIONS IS TURNOUT — not party affiliation, but which party does the best job of identifying their voters and getting them out to the polls.
What motivates most people to go vote is: (1) self-interest, (2) fear, (3) buzz, such as that created when a celebrity like Schwarzenegger runs, (4) true believe in a political cause. The people least likely to vote are those who are content and/or feel there is nothing in it for them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.