We need to take back the media

[Irish Mom]

This, of course, is entertaining simply because the fact of who "owns" the media is clear . . but is oblivious to the average DUmmy. But the conversation evolves, as it usually does, and one brave soul makes a profound comment . . which of course stumps most Dummies and renders them unable to argue against it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com...mesg_id=581255

Hawkeye-X Donating Member (1000+ posts)

Original message
We need to take back the media

But how? We need to take back the control of the message of the media.

Which of course leads to the only solution . . in the name of "fairness" report the news in one approved manner.

japple Donating Member (1000+ posts)
Response to Original message
2. How? Reinstate The Fairness Doctrine. But that's probably

impossible these days.

But what is this???

golfguru Donating Member (1000+ posts)
Response to Reply #1
16. You mean we want Soviet style Pravda Land?

Heck no! Freedom of press is the single most important item in
preserving democracy and avoid a dictator taking over.

How dare you! Stop this minute!

golfguru Donating Member (1000+ posts)
Response to Reply #11
17. I grew up in a socialist country

and I ain't going back to it.

golfguru Donating Member (1000+ posts)
Response to Reply #18
28. Capitalism is full of flaws

But strictly measured as overall prosperity creator, nothing else comes close.

Socialism/communism whatever you call it has not created prosperity
in a single country. Examples abound...

West Germany, capitalist, prosperous. East Germany not even close.
South Korea, capitalist, prosperous. North Korea, a basket case.
Above examples are so striking because the people are the same yet results so different.

My own country of birth followed the Soviet model, with 5 year government plans for progress,
and every major industry run by the government (railroads, Airlines, banks, insurance, machine tools, electricity generation, steel, telephones, and so on).

Result? No prosperity. The service was abominable, corruption was rampant.
Then something happened. India discovered capitalism. Watch this short YOUTUBE video
on how India is transforming with nascent capitalism. Corruption still exists and poverty
still exists, but it is impossible to eradicate that in a country of 1 Billion people in
a short time. But things are now moving in the right direction.

BLASPHEMY!!!

[NJCardFan]

These people never cease to prove my point that liberals and liberalism is the most oppressive ideology in history. For decades they owned the television and print media. Decades. And no one complained. Now, conservatives have a stronghold on cable and radio, but the libs still have broadcast and print media not to mention a majority on the internet but it's not enough. Good to see, though, some being all for open and honest debate. Must be moles because that is every un-DU like.

[SarasotaRepub]

BLASPHEMY!!!

LOL!!!! :D Good old Hawk!!!

[FDK]

Socialism CAN work. I swear. It just needs to be tried a few thousand mores times at the expense of billions and billions of peoples' lives and freedom.

[Carol]

You knew that the "if only the Obama and Dems 'controlled the message' and won the 'soundbite war' then we would have won" was going to be front and center to this thread. They seem to think that if they just hide what they really want and lie about it that then people will agree with them.

Lefties, it just doesn't work that way. Obama's message was loud and clear as was the Democrat politicians. The voters rejected the message and the path Obama was and is taking the country.

mtnsnake Donating Member (1000+ posts) Thu Dec-30-10 02:17 PM
Response to Original message
4. I agree. I think the first step is that we need to win the war of soundbites

Edited on Thu Dec-30-10 02:18 PM by mtnsnake
because we have been losing the war of soundbites to Republicans for decades.

Repukes somehow find ways to get their talking points perceived by average Joe Blow voter in the manner they want them perceived. Democrats have never learned how to play this game. We either don't dumb down our message enough or we don't do enough to explain why we do the things we do.

on edit: Why on earth would anyone unrec a thread like this?

WiffenPoof (230 posts) Fri Dec-31-10 12:03 PM
Response to Original message
15. Peripheral to This Issue Is...

Edited on Fri Dec-31-10 12:07 PM by WiffenPoof
the amazing lack of message control by this WH.

Many were so worried about the appointments that the President was making early on in his tenure. My first worry was noticing that this Administration was either unable or unwilling to frame the arguments to the American people. For the most part there was silence from the WH when it came to appealing the the American people. They had the momentum and did not seem to understand that they had to maintain control once the campaign was over.

The issues faced by this country due to Bush were so severe that (in my opinion) it mandated that serious measures be taken. This could only have been accomplished if the Administration understood the need to rally the people. The American people understood the seriousness of our situation. That is when they would have been most likely to accept strong measures.

Instead, the messaging from the WH was weak or non-existent. This allowed the Right Wing to enter the vacuum filling it with the kind of rhetoric that could only energize the once deflated Republican voter.

It wasn't that long ago that the media was predicting the death (or serious illness) of the Republican Party. Remember? How could it take less than two years for the Right to regain the momentum? A part of it was a lack of a coherent message from the Obama Administration.

-PLA

On Edit:

I might add that understanding the importance of controlling the message is such a basic political rule that I am baffled that this administration did not make it one of their highest priorities (along with jobs).

[NJCardFan]

How could it take less than two years for the Right to regain the momentum? A part of it was a lack of a coherent message from the Obama Administration.

In order for a coherent message to be conveyed, the message itself has to be coherent. As incoherent as Obama's message is, it was quite clear. People on that website actually believe that their way of thinking is shared by all of America. They are wrong. Sure there is a small segment of society that buys into their BS but a vast majority of the country does not. They think that if they put their message out, everyone will agree and buy into it. This last election proves otherwise. Now, they were emboldened by the 2006 and 2008 elections. By the Democrats gaining control, they thought everyone wanted things their way. I believe it was more of a message to the GOP than anything else. Unfortunately, it was a costly lesson.

[Dan D. Doty]

What DUers want is to move the country back a pre-1987 era.

The Left had control of the news, television, movies and music; only Big Brothers voice could be heard.

Now with the Internet, talk radio and cable, more voices can be heard and people have a choice.

DUers just want the world to be just like their website; censorship, and small minds.

[Wei Wu Wei]

Of course there can be a Democratic bias in the media. Right now I feel that the media world is far to the right but I'm pretty sure a bunch of big name journalists vote Democrat.

There is a difference between Liberal Democrats, and Leftists.

Leftists are willing to criticize the corporate masters who actually own and operate some of the major news networks, Liberal Democrats just tow the Donkey Party Line. Leftists aren't afraid to really shake things up and make some change happen, Liberal Democrats are some of the biggest benificiaries of the status quo.

Only independent community radio has a chance of being Leftist, or international (not British) news, all American corporate "news" is shit.

[Dan D. Doty]

Of course there can be a Democratic bias in the media. Right now I feel that the media world is far to the right but I'm pretty sure a bunch of big name journalists vote Democrat.

There is a difference between Liberal Democrats, and Leftists.

Leftists are willing to criticize the corporate masters who actually own and operate some of the major news networks, Liberal Democrats just tow the Donkey Party Line. Leftists aren't afraid to really shake things up and make some change happen, Liberal Democrats are some of the biggest benificiaries of the status quo.

Only independent community radio has a chance of being Leftist, or international (not British) news, all American corporate "news" is shit.

Oh yes, everything would be just so wonderful if all media was in the hands of the State ; the government would never lie to us, would they

[NJCardFan]

Oh yes, everything would be just so wonderful if all media was in the hands of the State ; the government would never lie to us, would they

WeeWee is a child like all leftists. And like a child, they want mommy to take care of them with mommy being the government. And like a child, they only want to hear what they want to believe. But now someone is telling these children that their mommy is a prostitute and, even though they know it's true, they don't want to believe it and anyone who is telling everyone that their mommy is a whore, they want silenced. Liberals and leftists preach freedom but they wouldn't know freedom if it punched them in the face. And with a conservative voice out there, freedom is punching them in the face.