Putting the New York Times OUT OF BUSINESS

[metamars]

Please see my proposal "Putting the NY Times Out of Business", and please check out the attendant thread. It's actually probably much easier to put television networks out of business, which is just as well, since that is where so many people get their 'news' from.

I have posted a proposal on the Randi Rhodes show forum for replacing our current media with a new, sustainable media that facilitates the selection of "filtering agents". You can think of these as honest gatekeepers that YOU trust - and that keep out trivial information, rather than very important information that groups with economic and other hidden agendas prefer to hide from you.

Broadband access is now up to 53% in the US ( see http://www.websiteoptimization.com/bw/0706/ ), so it is quite possible to target TELEVISION, which is how about 48% of Americans get 30+ minutes of news per day (as opposed to only about 9% over the internet). See http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=282

The thread is entitled: "Putting the NY Times Out of Business"
The thread is subtitled: "Proposal to replace ALL corrupt media"

Link:
http://forums.therandirhodesshow.com/index.php?showtopic=76406&hl=

PLEASE FORWARD THIS TO ANYBODY WHO MIGHT BE INTERESTED



===================================

When just whining is not enough:
Progressive Democrats of America
http://www.sunlightfoundation.com/lessig_event">Change Congress Project (formally launching March 20, 2008 at: http://www.change-congress.org)

[MadHound]

1. Why do you you want to put the NY Times out of business? n/t

[metamars]

9. I'm more concerned about the media, as a whole

The NY Times was picked more as an iconic example of the sea change that's required in all our media. A dysfunctional media means a dysfunctional democracy, and the NY Times is about as guilty as they come. Even so, it's hardly just the NY Times that's my target, but the whole kit-and-caboodle. And, in fact, I'm more concerned about TV.

If you watch 'Manufacturing Consent' http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5631882395226827730 , I think you'll agree that there's something wrong with the NY Times. However, what's striking about main stream media, from a propaganda perspective, is how uniform it is. Thus, e.g., there were 'debates' preceding the Iraq invasion fiasco, which debated how to take out Saddam, what to replace him with, how long it would take, etc., but relatively little in the way of the morality and legality of doing so. By now, everybody knows the WMD claims were deliberately exaggerated and/or presented without critical counter-arguments, which would cast doubt on their veracity.

Noam Chomsky is more concerned about 'elite media', so he might be more concerned about reforming the NY Times, specifically, than I would be. But clearly, the propaganda and filtering are widespread. The subtitle of my thread, that I link to, is "Proposal to replace ALL corrupt media". I was quite serious about that, though I don't think the entire media can be replaced anytime soon.

Anyway, it's not necessary to replace it all, or even to put the NY Times out of business. What is necessary is to create replacements that people can choose of their own free will, in LARGE NUMBERS, and thus make the NY Times IRRELEVANT. Or, should the NY Times choose to become more true to their motto - "All the news that's fit to print" - then to that extent they will have some immunity to people deserting them for more worthy alternatives. But without the pressure of looking at their demise and/or marginalization, why should they change their ways?

Have they ever apologized for under-reporting the genocide in East Timor?

[Faygo Kid]

2. I don't want "gatekeepers" or "filtering agents" for my media.

Welcome to DU, about as unfiltered as it gets.

[metamars]

10. The NY Times itself has many filters

And you had NO say in the (human) filtering agents. The pressures that they have to respond to - economic and governmental - are often (perhaps typically) contrary to your interests.

The point of picking a filtering agent of YOUR choosing is to be efficient. Should you find that the filtering agent has fallen down on the job, you can immediately fire them.

What choice do you have in changing the filtering agents who decide what is "fit to print", and what is not, with respect to the NY Times? Directly, you have no say, whatsoever. You can simply choose not to read it. You can also complain, which might do a little good.

Tell me, do you think that whatever bozos 'decided' that the genocide in East Timor was of such little concern to the readers of the NY Times ever got fired, or even reprimanded, for their lack of judgement?

[Faygo Kid]

11. Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Works for me.

[metamars]

18. If you're implying what I think you are, you obviously didn't read the proposal

If you're implying what I think you are, you obviously didn't read the proposal and the attendant thread. I am definitely not proposing either legislative nor regulatory action to replace our corrupt media.

Quite frankly, I'm getting the impression that NOBODY who has posted so far as read the thread through.

[Maven]

3. The Times is my hometown paper, not to mention a highly respected (if flawed) institution

I have no desire to see them put out of business.

Anyway, why would you target the Times out of all the news outlets you could have chosen?

[salin]

4. My thought exactly... how about the Washington Times, or

any number of specifically rw newspapers?

[tridim]

5. ..Or the GOP

Let's put those fuckers out of business forever.

[metamars]

14. I don't accept stark characterization of newspapers as lw and rw

But to whatever extent differentiating between lw and rw papers has validity, it has not nearly the significance that righties and lefties dream that it does. If you tell me that Hitler is to the right of Mussolini, you may be technically correct, but to the family of somebody that got killed by the Italian armed forces, such distinctions would have carried little importance.

Please watch the "Manufacturing Consent" video I linked to, and then report back to us whether you really think that the NY Times is well described as lw.

And remember, I am interested in replacing "ALL corrupt media".

[EFerrari]

21. Because they are collaborators in liberal drag?

Just a guess.

[WhiteTara]

6. are you insane? n/t

[metamars]

22. Am I insane?

Possibly. Are you superficial?

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

7. Why the NY Times of all papers? Why not the scurrilous NY Post, or how about taking down

Rupert Murdoch and all his rags?

[fightthegoodfightnow]

8. Huh

The media isn't your problem.

[NashVegas]

12. Just Give Rupert Murdoch Some Time

He's working on it.

[maseman]

13. Let me name a few I will work on putting out of business first

Let's start with:

Rush Limbaugh
Sean Hannity
Michael Medved
Dennis Prager
Michael Savage (Weiner)
Lauara Ingraham
Bill Bennett
Ann Coulter
Bill O'Reilly
John Gibson (oops he put himself out of business)
Rusty Humphries
Dr. Laura
Glen Beck
Nancy Grace
Larry Kudlow
Hugh Hewitt
Bill Cunningham
Matt Drudge
Fox News
CNBC
Richard Mellon-Scaiffe
Dennis Miller
Clear Channel
Salem Broadcasting
Sinclair Broadcasting
Lars Larson
Jerry Doyle
Blackstone
Blackwater
Haliburton
Diebold

did I miss any?

[metamars]

17. Do you think cooption of the media for propaganda purposes began in the 80's?

Because if you do, you're wrong. People who think this are actually demonstrating how corrupt both our media and our educational system are. You are looking at the tip of the iceberg and saying "If I get rid of the ice I can see, the iceberg will be gone."

I don't know if it's available on the web for free, but you can certainly buy "Propaganda and Control of the Public Mind" on CD (audio) from Amazon. Highly recommended....

[spanone]

15. i read the nytimes...i trust the times as much as any media...lets shit on faux noise instead

[Cleita]

16. Where would I get my crossword puzzles?

That aside, there are far more nefarious news organization that deserve that attention first. I'm sure if you target a couple of them, the NYT will take notice and reform themselves voluntarily.

[metamars]

20. Where will Iraqis who have gotten their limbs blown off by American bombs get new ones?

I am targetting ALL corrupt media, simultaneously, you could say. The NY Times was chosen as an iconic example. Please read the thread I linked to, and then report whether this is obscure, or not. If anything, it is the newspapers which are more distorted and biased that have the most to fear from an honest media.

Tell me, if the public started going first to democracynow.org and therealnews.com, before they went to their favorite paper, which would suffer the most drop-off of readership? Personally, I don't think there'd be a big difference between losses of NY Times readership vs. Washington Post readership, though I do think that followers of outrageous propagandists such as Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly would suffer massive defections.

[Cleita]

23. Actually, I do go to the internet sources for my news.

It's like I go to the farmer's market for my veggies. Sure I could go to the supermarket, but I don't fell their veggies are as organic and fresh as I'd like. Yet I still have to go to the supermarket for other things, so which supermarket will I go to? You are right, the one that's least offensive in meeting other criteria for me. Now I know which is the worst supermarket in town and I won't shop there, but what you are suggesting is not shutting down the worst offenders but the other ones so that the worst offenders are still standing. I don't get it.

[metamars]

25. There's not much to get, here. An "iconic example" = "iconic example".

You say "Now I know which is the worst supermarket in town and I won't shop there, but what you are suggesting is not shutting down the worst offenders but the other ones so that the worst offenders are still standing. I don't get it."

I'm not suggesting anything coercive (such as regulatory or legal action*), nor, for that matter, am I suggesting targeting the NY Times to the exclusion of other newspapers or media venues. I am suggesting targeting ALL of them by offering a superior replacement, hopefully untainted by governmental or corporate meddling and corruption, wherein you the subscriber would determine who is trustworthy and who is not.

The sub-title to my proposal is "Proposal to replace ALL corrupt media". Why do you think I wrote that? Do you see anything in either the proposal, or the attendant thread, wherein I call for a preferential boycott of any news outlet, either the NY Times, Washington Post, Fox, or You-Name-It?

You won't see any such verbiage because there is none. Instead, you will see that I've already answered other posters who took the title in a way I never intended.

Do you get it, now?

* Randi Rhodes has suggested laws to force clear labeling of opinion as just that, in contradistinction to actual news. She also wants a return to "equal time". I'm all for that sort of legislation, but again, such laws wouldn't favor one media vendor at the expense of another. (Well, not in principle.) Anyway, it's probably irrelevant for print media. She was talking about broadcast media.

[Thurston Howell III]

19. This is the site from one of the links. LOL. This person is some sort internet

business. He/She wants to shutdown the NY Times to help their internet business. :rofl:

"The Sunlight Foundation was founded in January 2006 with the goal of using the revolutionary power of the Internet and new information technology to enable citizens to learn more about what Congress and their elected representatives are doing, and thus help reduce corruption, ensure greater transparency and accountability by government, and foster public trust in the vital institutions of democracy. We are unique in that technology and the power of the Internet are at the core of every one of our efforts.

Our initial projects – from the establishment of a Congresspedia, the making of “transparency grants” for the development and enhancement of databases and websites, and two separate efforts to engage the public in distributed journalism and offer online tutorials on the role of money in politics efforts – are based on the premise that the collective power of citizens to demand greater accountability is the clearest route to reform.

Sunlight’s work is committed to helping citizens, journalists and bloggers be their own best watchdogs, both by improving access to existing information and digitizing new information, and by creating new tools and websites to enable all of us to pool our intelligence in new, and yet to be imagined, ways. "

About:

"The Sunlight Foundation supports, develops and deploys new Internet technologies to make information about Congress and the federal government more accessible to the American people. Through its projects and grant-making, Sunlight serves as a catalyst to create greater political transparency and to foster more openness and accountability in government."


http://www.sunlightfoundation.com/about

[metamars]

24. What business is that?

You say, "He/She wants to shutdown the NY Times to help their internet business." Well, what business is that? Actually, there is none. I had a failed internet business that never made a dime, and was legally dissolved last year. It had NOTHING to do with the media. I suggest you recant your misstatement, otherwise it'll be clear that you're simply a liar.

BTW, I have no connection to the SunLight Foundation, either, though I think it's an excellent idea. Or do you have something against an organization that aspires to greater accountability from the government?

[Rabrrrrrr]

26. Wow - that's fucking hilarious! Sorry, I shouldn't laugh, but I live in the real world.

A world of reality, devoid of college sophomore philosophy 101 bullshit.

What book did you just read? Voltaire? Or Thomas Paine?