Democrats Need Their Own Media Company NOW!!!

[DanieRains]

The billionaires / Republicans have Fox, OAN, and Newsmax, along with all of Hate Radio think tanks, and god knows what else.

What have Democrats got?

Corporate owned CNN and MSNBC who report some news, but always used their time to make Democrats look weak, or unorganized, or worse. They are truly pathetic. Watching hosts on CNN say any Republican is anything other than scum makes me want to puke. Then you have Andrea Greenspan right wing Democrat Trasher, and Chuckie Todd the worst host in the universe.

Screw all that.

Big Time.

We need out own Fox News, but instead of pure lies, and propaganda, they can do REAL NEWS.

For the love of god someone who is not a traitor, start a news network before DEMOCRACY IS DEAD.

The billionaires control the message, and the message is Dems are bad because they want us to start paying taxes, and we say no.

All day every day.

Stick a fork in America, it is pretty much done.

[Eko]

1. So you want a propaganda channel?

[ibegurpard]

2. Just stop

It's completely one-sided right now.

[DanieRains]

8. Did You Read What I Wrote

A news channel.

No lying.

Democrats don't have to lie or spew propaganda.

[themaguffin]

16. Your title is Democrats need their own media company. You didn't say

we need an actual news channel.

Two different things.

[Eko]

25. I did.

"Watching hosts on CNN say any Republican is anything other than scum makes me want to puke." It sounds like that is what you want. That would not be news that would be an opinion, one that I and everyone here agree with but nevertheless opinion. You don't have to actually lie for it to be propaganda. information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view. I cant see how that definition doesn't fit what you said. Information (news), especially of a biased (The Democratic view you wanted) or misleading nature. (or meaning it doesn't have to be misleading, it can be just biased), used to promote or publicize a particular political cause (Democratic) or point of view. Cant see how that doesn't fit. Apologies if this seems insulting to you in any way, certainly not meant in that way at all.

[newdayneeded]

44. Not propaganda

How about air time of our sides policies in a true light. Propaganda is spreading falsehoods about an issue. But you knew that.

[Eko]

54. True light is an opinion.

And Propaganda is not only spreading falsehoods, I shared the definition, information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view. See how it says of a biased or misleading nature, that means it can be one or the other. Im sorry, but you say its not propaganda and then push propaganda with "in a true light". News is news, what you want is not news. You want your opinion pushed. That's propaganda.

[Eko]

56. To a certain extent I get that.

I mean one would have to be an idiot to not see the influence Fox and OAN and others have had on the political landscape and want to counter that with our own network. But those are propaganda sites, and even more importantly they traffic in fear and bias. And that's why they work. The entire republican/conservative party traffics in fear and bias. Just because they are doing well with that does not in any way mean we should choose that path as well. Doing so makes us them, just on the other side. I don't want to be them just the flip-side. If we don't stand by our principals and instead choose to win by whatever means possible, then we wont have a country.

[Deuxcents]

3. A progressive network would be great

We do have lots of progressives on Sirus xm. Thom Hartmann Michael Signorly..spelling.. we have video news n some are posted here. I wish there was more exposure for the hem so they can be heard by more people. We need to communicate a lot more

[PoliticAverse]

4. There was Air America Radio, how did that work out?

And also Democratic "think tanks".

There's tons of Democratic websites/podcasts.

It's not like it was 30 years ago. You can go direct to the Democratic party or Whitehouse websites.

You can produce whatever media you want but you can't make people listen/watch.

[wnylib]

5. No, you can't make people listen or watch.

But you can attract them with good programming and by advertising what is being covered. Get some good spokespersons on who attract interest. Bring up topics of interest and concern to the general public. Speak plainly and directly about what the opposition is doing to hurt the average citizen. Have some entertainment to go with it.

The biggest problem that I see is financial. How do you keep programs or stations like that on air? RWers have corporate financial support. We wouldn't have that, unless there are liberal leaning businesses willing to support us, plus people capable of donating large amounts.

[ibegurpard]

7. It would have to be financed at a loss

At least for a while. Fox didn't start out making money.

[Ligyron]

31. We have so many major talents on our side.

It’s not even close.

Wonder if some would work for less or even donate time to save Democracy?

[wnylib]

38. I thought about that, too.

I think it would work, but first we need to set up a media outlet for them to be seen and heard on. I don't know who would get that started but I'd like to see it happen.

[kimbutgar]

6. What about Free speech TV?

[DanieRains]

9. What Channel Is That On My TeeVee?

Just like Fox Lies, but no lies.

[kimbutgar]

21. I have Dish and it's also on direct tv plus you can stream it on your tablet or computer.

[Beartracks]

10. Something big, obvious, accessible and well-advertised.

Something with reality-based straight news and provocative in-depth journalism for regular non-political-junkies that aren't inclined to go digging around for "liberal" podcasts and Sirius shows because they consider themselves "independents," but that clearly (through advertising) makes it known that the news being presented is the news that Americans need.

Of course, anything reality-based would already have, by definition, a liberal bias!

==========

[Alice Kramden]

11. We need to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine

And make the existing media tell the truth

[PBC_Democrat]

14. The Fairness Doctrine only covered the Broadcast Stations

Not the cable channels. I've read that it is very debatable whether the FCC has jurisdiction over cable-only stations.

Also, I think Fairness Doctrine wouldn't be the silver bullet we hope for.

Do we really want The View to have to offer time to Mike Pence after they have VP Harris on the show?

[onenote]

19. The Fairness Doctrine isn't a silver bullet.

The Fairness Doctrine was in effect from 1949 to 1987.

During the years it was in effect, Democrats lost more House seats than they won in 10 out of 19 elections, lost the presidency in 6 out of 9 elections and basically split the results in the Senate elections. Following its repeal, Democrats won more seats in the House in 10 out of 17 elections, won the Presidency 5 out of 9 elections and, again, basically split the Senate elections.

[melm00se]

34. Another of the semi-regular

"Let's reinstate the Fairness Doctrine" calls.

The days of the Fairness Doctrine are long gone and any attempt to reinstate it will not survive a Supreme Court challenge.

Way back when the Fairness Doctrine existed, the media landscape was so very different. With the exception of major markets, there were really only 3 TV networks (ABC, NBC and CBS), radio was limited to AM only which meant maybe a dozen or so stations and that...was...it.

It was this environment (the "scarcity of...frequencies" ) that allowed the Fairness Doctrine to pass Constitutional muster.

Now, let's fast forward to today:

The average American consumer has access to not only ABC, NBC and CBS (as well as local Fox affiliates) but also to a myriad of other news outlets from cable/satellite TV. On top of that, there are countless podcasts, blogs, streaming only services plus even more newspapers and magazines from around the globe with just as many differing points of view. Because of this, the "scarcity of...frequencies" justification no longer exists.

Furthermore, the FCC has zero licensure power over non-over-the-air outlets (which includes Fox News) so what is the FCC going to do? Say "Stop...or I shall say "Stop" again"?

Now, of course there could be an attempt to expand the FCC's scope but that could very easily blow up in supporters' faces. Take DU as an example. DU could be categorized as a news outlet which would mean that this new "Fairness Doctrine" would be applied. Do you really want to see Freepers having a legal right to be able to post here?

I have thought quite a bit on this topic and come to the conclusion that the only real solution would be to rollback the media ownership rules back to the days of 7-7-7 ownership rules but that would have some serious hurdles.

[Alice Kramden]

51. That's a good explanation

Thank you

[Emile]

12. We have FSTV

[Dirty Socialist]

13. NPR is pretty good

One of my Trump humping ex-friends calls it “the enemy”, so it can’t be that bad

[brooklynite]

15. I was going to reply...

…then I read the last line, and since its all hopeless, I’ll just hit the trash button.

[dwayneb]

17. Remember Air America?

We've tried this before. Not saying we should not try again, but let's face it the Fascist Right has a leg up on the propaganda machine. Democrats have always had this Disneyland view of the world where everyone plays fair, evil people never win, and surely Captain America or Batman will be coming to save us.

We are in serious trouble and can't say I have a suggestion about how we stem the tide of authoritarianism. It's because we have so many people with limited critical thinking skills that are ready and willing to receive the populist swill of the Radical Right.

[CrackityJones75]

18. before that. or simultaneously

before that. or simultaneously, we need to correctly redefine what it means to be an American, a patriot. And it aligns with their religion, Christianity (which they have also perverted and redefined).

We need to remind people why this country became what it did to start with. It is supposed to be about the people. Somehow the authoritarians took the idea that overthrowing the government is what it means to be patriotic. And this started LONG before Jan 6. They have been drilling it into people’s heads for decades (a lot of them) that when ot is time they need to be able to overthrow the gov. And ya know what? I might agree with that when it is necessary. But the people that profit off of chaos and division have convinced people that wearing a mask to protect your fellow Americans is tyranny. That stopping a pandemic is trampling on their rights. And all sorts of other things that are meant to help protect the general public and to help all Americans. They use the things that are the basis of why this country was founded as reasons to act against it and they sell it as patriotic. That is maddening.

The sad truth is that far too many people are completely misguided, far too many people are apathetic because they are busy with their job, their family, having a good time, or just don’t want to hear about it.

We need to grab back what it means to be a patriot. A good Christian (or other religion if thats your thing) a good person who deserves to live respected, and have the right to the pursuit of life liverty and happiness.

[MineralMan]

20. There is nothing stopping anyone from starting a media company.

Nothing except financing, anyhow. In this country, the government does not control the media to any substantial degree. It also does not have its own media outlets. All media in this country is owned by corporations or individuals. There is NPR and Public television that is at least partly consumer-supported, of course, but that is largely funded by corporate funds in the end.

So, anyone could theoretically start a media company with any sort of bias or a theoretical lack of bias. Such has been tried, and there are actually some media companies like that in existence.

The essential problem is in attracting an audience large enough to attract advertising dollars, frankly. Unless someone or some corporation decided to fund such a media outlet completely, the media in the USA operates on a advertiser-supported model.

So, DanieRains, you can start a media company if you wish. So could I. So could anyone. Making that media company successful in reaching a broad spectrum of people is the real challenge. How would you go about doing that?

[DanieRains]

22. Yer Right So Why Isn't Someone Who Supports Democracy Doing It

They started OAN and Newsmax with almost nothing.

Could be the cable and dish "owners" wouldn't carry them.

Millions can't even watch Rachel because their provider gives Fox out for free but MSNBC is part of a premium packags.

[MineralMan]

23. Why don't you do it?

Why don't I?

Answer those questions and you'll know why.

[onenote]

32. OAN wasn't started with "almost nothing"

The Herring family has a shitload of money.
Robert, the patriarch of the family, made a lot of money with a company called Industrial Circuits and then sold it for $60 million in 1988. He then started a new company, Herco, which he sold for $122 million in 2000. He then launched a new cable channel, called Wealth TV, which most of the large cable companies didn't want (bad timing: launching a TV dedicated to the lifestyles of the rich and famous around the same time that the Great Recession hit). That channel, renamed AWE still is around but like OAN, it also is being dropped by its largest distributor (DirecTV/ATT).

Bottom line: Herring has a shitload of money and doesn't mind spending it (and losing it) on commercially unsuccessful media ventures. Acknowledgement: I was directly involved, on behalf of certain cable companies, in the case that Herring brought -- and lost -- to try to force those cable operators to carry Wealth TV. He was scum who didn't mind wasting money then. And he's scum who doesn't mind wasting money now.

[LetsGoBiden]

24. MSNBC

I thought MSNBC was our network Rachel in the crew do a great job or is it Daytime programming That is anti Biden

[Anti-Racist Hero]

26. Why can't the FCC ban all non-approved websites?

We have the votes and the chairmanship, don't we? Then we don't have to worry about fake news inflitrating our system.

[melm00se]

33. A minor little thing

called the 1st Amendment would get in the way.

[Anti-Racist Hero]

35. Last I heard, the 1st Amendment doesn't apply to hate speech

Virtually everything coming from the right constitutes hate speech and shouldn't be difficult to judge.

[tritsofme]

36. "Hate speech" is protected by the First Amendment.

Your authoritarian fantasy notwithstanding.

[Anti-Racist Hero]

41. Seriously??

[tritsofme]

43. Yes.

[melm00se]

48. The 1st Amendment doesn't protect hate speech?

I would like to point you to Matal v. Tam.

In this ruling (a unanimous one), the Court reaffirmed that there is no hate speech exception to the 1st Amendment.

https://www.lawyers.com/legal-info/criminal/does-the-first-amendment-protect-hate-speech.html

Now, that is not to say that there aren't situations where one's speech can incite violence and thus be subject to the State's action of suppression. For that to happen, the Supreme Court established what has become to be known as the Brandenburg Test.

The Brandenburg test requires that

1. The speech is “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action,” AND
2. The speech is “likely to incite or produce such action.”

Both of these must be met before the State can take action.

[onenote]

47. So many things wrong in your post

Starting with a total lack of understanding of the first amendment. Also the FCC doesn’t have the statutory authority to regulate websites. And we don’t have a majority of the FCC— it’s currently a 2-2 divide with a third Democrat’s nomination pending

[melm00se]

49. And even if the FCC

majority allowed for such a rule, it would probably be DOA long before it hit the Supreme Court but if, by some reason, it made it to the Supreme Court, the Supremes would be waiting like this



for the case.

[Sogo]

27. I always have thought that Michael Bloomberg should buy Fox News....

[Lurker Deluxe]

28. Makes sense

Bloomberg is worth +/- 60 billion.

Fox news is worth +/- 20 billion.

Buy it and change the format to something which loses money and becomes worth ... nothing.

I know I am looking to give away 1/3 of my financial assets for nothing, assume Bloomberg is doing the same.

[Sogo]

29. Who said it should lose money and become worthless?

He's got a seasoned media company. It could become an offshoot of that.

Or were you just being sarcastic, as your last sentence suggests?

[Lurker Deluxe]

30. I would assume

That in suggesting that he buy Fox news you are suggesting he would change the format to something other than what it is now. If something other than what Fox news is now would be highly profitable why would be need to buy that?

Why not just start a competing cable news network?

Changing the format of Fox news would lead to it losing value ... they do not believe 75% of what they say, they say it because it makes money.

There is no cable news network like what we would all love to see because the ones that have tried do not make enough money, hence the "need".

[Anti-Racist Hero]

42. TBH, it's an investment past capitalism. Hate speech must be eliminated

He shouldn't buy Fox to "improve" or "change" it. He should buy it to BURY it, better yet, keep it as a memorial to expose its horrific white supremacist history, and as a warning to other hate news upstarts.

[onenote]

50. Is Fox for sale?

[brooklynite]

53. Michael Bloomberg already has a news network: Bloomberg News

Never understood why people imagine that getting rid of Fox News would turn conservatives back into moderates or liberals.

[pwb]

37. The best thing about cable is the reception.

Fuck their news, all of them.

[pecosbob]

39. Perhaps even more important...why do we appear to have no counter to ALEC?

[betsuni]

40. Money. Right-wing ideologues fund media and think tanks not to make money, they're ideologues.

[Poiuyt]

45. I would like to see a liberal version of the CPAC convention

They have that convention every year, and it's just like the presidential Republican conventions. The spout their vitriol for a week and get free publicity.

Wouldn't it be nice to have a national convention every year with speakers telling what Biden has accomplished and why progressive ideas are best for America?

[brooklynite]

52. You mean like the annual Netroots Nation conference?

[Poiuyt]

55. To be honest, I'd never heard of that, which is on me.

Still I follow politics closely and have been on DU for almost 20 years. If it had made any earth shattering news, I think I would have heard. I'd like to see something along the lines of the national conventions that occur before the presidential elections. And if the DNC needs to promote it so that everyone is aware of what's going on, then so be it.

[JI7]

46. Nobody is going to watch it