In Defense of the Media; Yep, you know I can be one of its

[OHdem10]

biggest critics. So, do not shoot me--let me share
some thoughts.

For whatever reason, a bolt from the past hit me
this am as I was doing a "slow burn" about the Media.

I am not saying they are wrong, nor am I saying they are correct.
I am saying it is what it is.

My memory is of both Bill Synder,Pollster and Cons CNN and
at other times Candy Crowley, CNN. There have been others
but these two stand out because they stopped the presses and
gave explanations.

In a nutshell, when the country is polarized the Media
MEASURES THEINTENSITY of the Members on each side. They
are not meauring the arguments. The passion displayed
on each side . The Passion tells them which side is going
to influence more people. Sometimes we are all frustrated
because the Media seems to side with Republicans. It is
not the Republican Arguments. It is the Intensity with which
they argue. Yep, the Tea Party won in 2010. It appears
the TP continues to carry the Intensity ball over the goal
line.

Back in GWB, there were times the Democrats were winning
the Intensity marker. In my opinion, here is where we go
off the track. Our intensity was against GWB. NOT INTENSE
on Policy Issues. Tea Party manages to be intense on Policy
just as much as their opposition to Obama.

It might help if we understand where the Media is' when
we want to tear them limb to limb. They are measuring
intensity --not the argument itself.

[CakeGrrl]

1. The media is owned by Corporations. Period.

There is no need to figure out where they're coming from.

Crowley's been a GOP tool at least since GWB fed his media pets barbecue and gave them cute little nicknames.

For that, they overlooked the launch of wars that his administration lied us into.

[AndyTiedye]

2. The Media are Owned by Corporations that Lean Very Heavily Republican

Their editorial policy reflects the views of their owners, and it always will. Money talks.
They own EVERY TEE VEE STATION IN THE COUNTRY. They own over 99% of all radio stations and
newspapers in the country.

This website, a few others like it, and the Pacifica foundation, ARE ALL THAT ARE LEFT OF THE LIBERAL MEDIA.

No amount of passion on our side will get the attention of the media. We have proof of this.



Remember all the media coverage of the Iraq war protests? I didn't think so.

[OHdem10]

3. Exactly, theat is why they do not get involved with the arguments

made. Instead the Politics are evaluated.

We can blame the Corporate Ownership, but where does that
get us???

When we know the rules, it is up to us play politics just
as well as the other side. Otherwise we become defeatist
losers.

[FrenchieCat]

5. Going up against the media is a difficult action,

but it would be the correct action.

A defeatist is one who is unwilling to take the correct action,
because they believe it would be too difficult to get done,and so
simply thinking about what they are up against renders them impotent at
confronting the problem that sits in front of their face.

So yes, we could blame media corporate ownership, if we were courageous enough
to take the next step, which would be to confront them, instead of
accomodating them by attempting to find someone else who is easier to blame and to
lash out at.

That's kind of what we have been doing with Republicans as well. We kind of give them
a pass by accepting them as assholes as par for the course. So we have Democrats who don't
bother to write or call their congresspeople simply because they are Republicans. The normal
response is....Why bother, they won't do anything. That's defeatism. So instead, many of those
same Democrats do the easy thing; confront the Democratic president and holler about holding
him responsible, while never really bothering to hold the media or Republicans responsible.
Now, to me, that's defeatism.

[FrenchieCat]

4. The media made the Tea Party intense by artificially multiplying their numbers and reporting......

on them, day in day out for a very long time (politically speaking).

The Teabaggers were formed to oppose Pres. Obama...... in every way, shape and form,
and for no other reason.

In receiving wall to wall Television coverage, they became stronger and stronger,
and more and more intense although their relatively small numbers did not justify
the kind of intense media coverage they received.....
and although Teabaggers were unable to stop Health Care reform,
they were able to run candidates in 2010, who ended up taking over the house,
and therefore, took over decisions on budgetary policies for the entire country.

But do not confuse over-the-top consistent and long lasting media coverage
as the actual measurable intensity of an argument. Media coverage made and sustained the Tea Party
and enabled them in becoming a powerful force enough for the 2010 election (not the other way around), which in turn has now enabled them to challenge their own party; the GOP.

IF WE HAD A TRULY FAIR BALANCED MEDIA (which we don't), Liberals could replicate the Tea Party's phenomenon and gain the kind of media coverage the Tea party was afforded, but by protesting not their own party (the Tea Party did not protest Republicans), but by protesting the opposing party, including the Teabaggers, then they could become comparable as a force.

The answer for any group contemplating a strategy no longer rest on the number of activists as much as whether their POV will gain the media to be on their side.

Can Liberals do this? Personally, I don't think so, because the powers that-be who represent
media decisions already support Republican policies to begin with......so the coverage that
the Teabaggers got was unprecedented, considering their numbers, and cannot be replicated by
liberals, unless the movement is aimed at President Obama, not at the true villains. You see, the media would support, as they did the Tea Party, any entity (especially if they were Liberals) going after President Obama. That's the only way that Liberals could gain recognition and be provided with wall to wall coverage.

This means that those willing to lose the upcoming elections badly, liberal activism against Barack Obama could receive the kind of notoriety that the Tea Party were bestowed by the Corporate media. If one doesn't mind the long term result, than this is what I advise.

[OHdem10]

6. You are not going up against the Media. You are simply

getting out there and making the case for Good, smart Goverment
with all the passion one can muster. Loud enough to drown
out the "Government so small it can be flushed down the bathtub
drainers".

[AndyTiedye]

8. But How and Where Can we Make This Case?

We are doing it here on the Internet, but mostly preaching to the choir.
Same when we take it to the streets, because the media doesn't cover it.
We can't make the media cover our side. They simply don't.

[dissidentboomer]

7. The wife and I watched "good night and good luck" again last night.

Fine movie and a TIMELY movie. Murrow was a journalist! At present, there are few, if any, fit to lick his shoes. I cannot and WILL not defend the "journalists" of today. They are cowards and whores for money. Some tv "journalists" are nothing more than would be porn stars who simply didn't have the guts to pursue their true calling.