The next Revolution should be against the Media! It's got to be!

[trumad]

I love Brock's new Web Site, Media Matters. http://mediamatters.org/

But each time I read it I want to hurl. The cable news media is clearly the biggest danger ot our society. MHOP

[Catt03]

1. I agree

and it is going to get worse. It's a free for all...get on cable and say anything you want about anyone; lie about anything.

I don't even watch anymore. I wonder who does?

[mandyky]

2. I still say we should lodge a class action suit

against the channels that just spew propoganda.

If we lose the election, maybe the DNC can launch it.

As for coming up with "material harm" necessary for a law suit, I feel the stress and distress the media has caused me, is one aspect.
Having to deal with 50% of Americans who because of piss poor reporting that Iraq attacked us on 9-11 is sometimes physically dangerous.

[bryant69]

3. We do need to stop the media

But i'm not sure this is the right method to achieve that goal. It's a matter of perception; the right wing has been claiming for years that the Media is biased against them. If anything a judge would probably conclude that if the media made everybody sick, it was probably doing it's job.

A better case is being willing to fight on specific issues or slanders, rather than in a generalized way.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[MatrixEscape]

4. Certianly!

That is the only way to achieve some progress.

Instead of 21st Century Fox, we need 21st Century Truth.

I have a friend who understands the Faux problem. He has shopped and compared. Well, his Mother thinks Faux is honest and complete. She is voting for Bush because of that.

There are a lot of changes that need to come. If you entertain the major third parties, (sans Nader) you get some new ideas even if you don't agree with all four. I liked the Green and Socialist party ideas -- they should merge. So should Libertarians and The Constitution Party, (forgot the exact name).

The Media Revolution will be the spearhead. Maybe new ways of voting and wider choices will be a part of the new Century. Perhaps better representation can be achieved? As a Progressives and Liberals wake up, we can move forward with this election's momentum.

What I do know is that the Corporations are NOT people. They are are abstract, fictitious facades that other agendas can hide behind. They are yet another "good ol' boy" network and they are certainly multinational and without a flag, mostly.

If most corporations were people, their behavior would indicate that they are sociopaths. Yet, they run the country with contributions and lobbying, for the most part. If they are not redefined and restricted somehow, we face more of the same, as they say

[LiberalEsto]

5. Re-regulation

I want to see new FCC members who will tighten up the rules on media ownership, which would restrict the number of media outlets that can be owned by a single firm in any given market.

They need to re-establish the old "Fairness Doctrine" that requires stations to provide equal time to candidates during campaigns.

And we need to insist that the broadcast media, who lease the public-owned airways, provide free (and equal) access to political candidates of both parties during election campaigns.

I'd love to see a ban on foreign ownership of U.S. media -- which would get Rupert Murdoch's ugly ass out of here, but that's not going to happen.

AND we need a complete ban on political contributions from media companies.

[RedEagle]

7. Be Careful What You Wish For

LibralEsto makes the distinction here, good job LE.

BROADCAST media can be held to the old standards and should. The airwaves do belong to the public, the broadcast companies only rent them.

I believe though, that Murdoch became a U.S. citizen so he could continue his media acquisitions.

However- Cable, etc., are not bound by the same rules. It is not over-the-air broadcast.

If you impose FCC restrictions on Cable, you will soon see the same argument used to impose restrictions on the Internet.

You will eventually see sanctioned Internet censorship.

Think of all that has come to light because of the Internet.

There are several sides to every issue and don't for a minute think that the powers that be wouldn't love to have a reason to shackle the Internet.

Like it or not, going after cable, etc., could do more damage in the long run. Once you cross that barrier it may not be so easy to go back.

It doesn't mean I like the current state of programming on cable. It's just knowing the potential consequences of applying broadcast-type rules that gets a little scary.

That said, I agree that media conglomerates should be restricted on ownership, both within a particular media and cross ownership.

Broadcast media should not be co-owned with cable, satellite, print media, or radio, IMHO.

[Claire Beth]

6. the best way to fight that one....

is to use alternative news sources such as satellite radio.....as long as we all support sensationalized news (such as CNN, etc) it keeps their profits rolling in.