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.
IMHO, establishing laws and legal precedent prior to using the legal system as a fulcrum, is essential.
Libs win becuase they control 80% of that message. People are not getting both sides of an issue and that's why people like Bill and Hill can be elected to anything other than dog catcher.
I don't think we need hostile takeovers, we need to change the media culture that discriminates against conservatives and their opinions.
Agreed RWL, but what can we do about it?
Well, I'm not satisified with it just being reported, I want balance in that reporting. Plus, is it being talked about in the NYTimes? ABC? CBS? NBC?
What can we do about it? And, what WILL we do about it?
Both excellent questions, I wish I had the right answers. If Kerry is elected, perhaps world and national events may play a key part in helping us with the answers.
Fox News chairman of the Board just endorsed John Fraudulent Kerry.
Donate to the Swift boat vets to counter the tie in with the mediots and Kerry!
Why we should contribute to the Swift Boat Money raising for tv ads, based on comments from Kerri's staff":
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1188521/posts
According to a Kerry campaign source, senior campaign advisers tasked two Washington-based campaign staffers to vet the recently published Unfit for Command.
"The purpose was to compare what that book had with what we had on file from Senator Kerry," says the campaign source, who said that the research project developed more than 75 instances where Kerry's recollections, previous remarks, or writings conflicted with the book's reporting.
"We took some of the most glaring examples, like the Christmas in Cambodia story, and presented them to senior staff, and we assume that those things were put in front of Senator Kerry," says the source. "We haven't heard a word about it. All we were told is that it was being taken care of."
The campaign source said that the book was not considered a "serious" problem for the campaign, because, "the media wouldn't have the nerve to come at us with this kind of stuff," says the source.
"The senior staff believes the media is committed to seeing us win this thing, and that the convention inoculated us from these kinds of stories. The senior guys really think we don't have a problem here."
YOU ARE SO RIGHT ON! The MEDIA is the enemy. My stepdad taught me that when I, at the politically naive age of 16, tried to walk into the house with a copy of the Atlanta Constitution paper. He literally picked me up and tossed me and the paper out the door. He wouldn't have any part of that liberal rag in his house. Even way back then my dad had the media conspiracy figured out.
As for the answer to the media - one word MOVIES! We don't need to buy out the networks. This dumb-downed generation only responds to visuals and emotion. We need to make more patriotic movies. Where are the conservative film producers?
We need to make a MOVIE of the SwiftBoatVets story. Are you listening Mel Gibson? Bypass the media talking heads (even pompous O'Reilly). As much as I detest Michael Moore he knows how to get his message across even if it is propaganda.
By the way love your tagline Free Martha Mitchell - total crackup.
Get this:
******
The Martha Mitchell Effect -- The Martha Mitchell effect is a process by which a belief is mistakenly diagnosed as a delusion by a psychiatrist. This is named after Martha Mitchell (the wife of John Mitchell the Attorney-General in the Nixon administration) who alleged that illegal activity was taking place in the White House. At the time her claims were thought to be signs of mental illness, and only after the Watergate scandal broke was she proved right (and hence sane).
******
Martha was a real card, and I remember oh so well how they tried to sedate her and get her to shut up! Oh yes, those were the wild old days...
Donald Segretti
;-)
Something must be done about the influence of the media.
Commentators such as Bill O'Reilly don't care if they get angry emails. Network and cable news channels don't much care either. They don't care because they're so far removed and insulated from the $10 I might spend on a product advertised by one of their sponsors. Yeah, if their ratings fall, they will be affected. But threatening to quit watching them, which may someday affect their ratings and their ability to attract commercial advertisers, is a longterm strategy we can ill afford.
IMHO, the most effective target of outrage about liberal media bias is the companies that are the direct recipients of consumer dollars gained from their advertising campaigns.
We've seen this work. Recent examples are Slimfast dropping Whoopi Goldberg, Barnes & Noble deleting their fake "Unfit to Command" book cover, amazon.com retracting their fake John McCain review of the same book. These are small examples, but they do demonstrate a strategy that has successful results.
If we're all chafing at O'Reilly, for example, go after the sponsors during his radio program and Fox's O'Reilly Factor.
I am so there. To any conservative pundits who read this I have one word: COURAGE!
Kerry was in-country for 4 MONTHS, so spent only ONE Christmas over there.
HE COULD NOT HAVE MIXED IT UP WITH ANOTHER CHRISTMAS.
The memory that was "seared - seared into his memory" was a total fabrication.
He lied about where he was on Christmas 1968.
He lied about saying Nixon as President lied about where he and other soldiers were on Christmas 1968, since Nixon wasn't even the President on Christmas 1968 (inaugurated in January 1969).
He lied about being shot at by drunk South Vietnamese celebrating Christmas in Cambodia on Christmas 1968 - they are mostly Buddhist and don't celebrate Christmas.
He lied about saying he didn't say that he was in Cambodia on Christmas 1968.
The lies are so convoluted and twisted, he has spawned a new pretzel named in his honor - The Kerry - soft, twisted and half-baked.
Don't forget the TimeWarner/AOL/CNN/USA Today monopoly.
On the nose lonevoice.
Any ideas on how to crack that nut?
-PJ
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.