We need a better-funded left media

[eridani]

http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/108019/?page=entire

The Right’s bullying was made more effective by the fact that the progressive side of American politics chose – also starting in the mid-to-late 1970s – to withdraw from any serious commitment to national media.

One of the Left’s favorite slogans became “think globally, act locally.” In practice, that meant favoring local activism (such as direct philanthropic spending on projects like feeding the poor or buying up endangered wetlands) over national media (i.e. building the kind of informational infrastructure that the Right had).

So, it was not so much that the Left lost the “war of ideas” to the Right over the past three decades; it was more that the Left abandoned the battlefield.

The Left’s neglect of media proved disastrous. The Right, with its three-decade project of building media and controlling the federal government, showed it could create far more poor people than well-meaning progressives could feed – and put more wetlands at risk than could ever be bought up.


<snip>

This strategy for building independent media would be most effective if someone with access to plentiful resources took the lead, much like former Treasury Secretary Bill Simon did for the Right in the late 1970s. Simon used his perch at the Olin Foundation to coordinate with other right-wing foundations on media funding.

Bill Moyers, who has run the Schumann Foundation and knows his way around New York/Washington media circles, would be an ideal candidate for such a role now.

Other possible leaders would be major directors/producers from Hollywood, given their expertise in producing media content.

If Hollywood did take the lead, my nominee for coordinating this infrastructure work would be Stuart Sender, an Oscar-nominated documentary filmmaker based in Los Angeles who understands the rigors of investigative journalism and the value of multi-media formats (or someone like him).

[Divine Discontent]

1. signed back in just to K&R! I totally agree. We had 'left the battlefield'. g'night...

[Dogmudgeon]

2. Oh, we had a battlefield, all right

It was called "Fighting Among Ourselves".

--p!

[KharmaTrain]

3. It's Like Herding Cats...

I'd love to see a more Progressive media and at one time attempted to work in developing more Progressive Talk programming. I met a lot of very talented people all with their own ideas of what they wanted to do and how it should be done...but little money or concept of the costs involved in such a venture. Many felt that sales and marketing was someone elses job...just send them money or and let them do things their way and somehow money will somehow materialize. Unfortunately, there's a large gap in the money side and the "creative"...and it's hampered the development of Progressive media.

Yep, it would be great if we had some philanthropist with deep pockets, but there have been several who have poured money into these ventures and been burned. For all their faults, the right wing long ago learned how to make money with hate radio...that's what put it on the dial...while Progressive talk was too busy fighting among themselves.

The need isn't for the talent...there's a ton out there. It's finding competent sales and marketing people who can help finance these ventures. The changes in technology make reaching out more possible than ever, but with so many different sources...Internet, Satellite, Conventional radio and so on, there's a desperate need for those who can master all these mediums and then for the creative side to cooporate with these people and their plans.

[stillcool]

4. I think it's television that ...

is the problem. There are plenty of good reporters, and news sources on the net, but it is the television that dictates what people talk about, and that has the power to change people's perception of reality. But people love it, and I'm not sure a decent televised 24/7 cable news station, sans all the bullshit, would survive.

[CrispyQ]

6. You are right.

In spite of the fact that most of the people I know have computers & online service, most of them get their 'news' from TV.

Funny, though, I think DU gets news faster than many other sources. A few years ago when my husband took some time off, he would watch cable news while I surfed. I would mention some story that I had read on DU. He would say that he hadn't heard/read that yet & was skeptical. Sure enough, a day or two later the story would surface on cable. He asked where I get my news & I told him DU.

[kenny blankenship]

5. With lots of corporate sponsors!

[Liberal In Texas]

7. What we need is a reversal of the media consolidation the

Repubs managed to foster under the banner of deregulation.

No company should be allowed to own more than one TV station and two radio stations (AM/FM)in any one market. What has happened is corporations have monopolized the airwaves that are supposed to belong to the people. Large corporations have a vested interest in even further consolidation and weak regulation; the Repub mantra. Therefore the large corporations have more concern in promoting GOP ideas and candidates and repressing Democratic ones and do it through filling much of their air time with RW propaganda.

Diversity of opinion won't return to the air until we have diversity of ownership.

[LWolf]

8. Too late to recommend, but I'll give it a kick.

:kick:

[anonymous171]

9. We desperately need an echo chamber. Right now we have the blogs and KO.

Unfortunately, Maddow is too far left and too independent/intellectual to help us. Still love her though :)