So Why Can't we launch a mass boycott of MSM?

I do not understand why we are allowing our Free Press to be usurped by the Right wing neocons. 59 million people chose to vote for Kerry or against Bush or both. 10% of that number alone is powerful.

Most rational people have to have some inkling about the press is not doing its job. No investigations, no hard questions, no interest in getting on the wrong side of the crazies in power. No balls. All the paid for press whores, the real press whores aka Gannon/Guckert, the propaganda videos being shown by the MSM as news. Everyone has heard something about this so we should take advantage.

Why can't we convince like minded people to just not watch the MSM on television and not to buy from any advertisers. Let us start hurting the corporate owned media where it counts. Those of us who no longer watch CNN, MSNBC and the networks, have not missed it. I still read the newpaper (Baltimore Sun) and get other news online. We should be able to convince others to do the same.

Where are the leaders to do this, to really get this going, and keep is simple? All we need is the truth, the whole unvarnished truth. I know there are good websites, but we really need a grass roots movement. We need enough serious people so we don't immediately get labelled kooks.

There is nothing more important to the future of our country then the restoration of a truly free, unbiased press.

How many
"Oh my god...you should have heard what Imus said today!!!"
"Scarborough is whoring it up big time!!!"
"Hannity is off the deep end today!!!"
posts do we have to have on here before we realize it.

If those fringe yahoos didn't get the ratings that they did, then the mainstream media wouldn't be so eager to folloow their leads. But because they get the ratings not only of the fringe right, but the liberals and dems who watch them and believe that they are doing anyone a favor by "knowing the enemy", then what they do is copied by the relatively more innocuous mainstream media.

I sometimes think that Rush, Drudge, Scarborough, and Hannity are quoted more often on DU than members of our own party are.

I have noticed some of that, but I have also noticed a lot more people saying I don't watch anymore.

I used to be the same way. I once listened to Hannity and G Gordon Liddy (never Rush). Gotta know what the enemy is up to. But I was stupid then and I am no longer. I realized if you listen or watch or even visit their web-sites, for whatever purpose, you are supporting them and their advertisers. So, with the exception of an occasional on-line poll, they don't get my business.

It was easy for me. I unhooked the cable box, took it back, and canceled my subscription.

Then I got some cheap rabbit ears. What I get locally is plenty good or bad enough... and it's free.

Sue

How to get the other 59 mil and change to go along?

The rating for the Lame Stream Media have been falling for quite a while without a organized boycott.

Protests and activism of the past were effective because once they hit a certain mass they got picked up by the media and got the attention they were striving for. Once others saw that there was activism in progress they joined in. This caused a movement to take hold and grow.

With todays MSM such protests are smothered in their crib. They are cut off from the very thing they need: Attention. The MSM does nothing to cover or give time to anything that is no in its favor. Thus a protest against them would be doubly doomed. No one outside the immediate circle of people you can reach would ever even hear of the boycott. And unfortunately in todays market you would not make a dent.

to even contemplate. I realize it would be difficult but without restoring our media to what is should be as the 4th estate there is no hope and we may as well give up.

I haven't heard anybody report that they chained themselves to a gate or post or something at Foxnews, have you? That's the sort of thing that got media attention back in the 60's. Routine protests, not so much.

The problem is math. Even a well organized group can only reach so many people that are prepared to give their time to a cause that may or may not work. On their own they are unlikely to make a dent. But the effectiveness of the protest was based on reaching other people. Expanding the understanding of the issue. And once people see others making an effort against something they consider wrong they feel enabled to add their voice to the crowd.

In this way the protest snowballs. It becomes a social force that corporations can no longer simply ignore. They have to comply or they are seen as the antisocial uncaring entities they are.

But without the media speaking for the people such protests are doomed. With the media fully in the pockets of the corporations there is no chance they will give such protests the life blood they need by covering their story at all, let alone in a positive light. If they get any coverage it will be based on violent agitators in the crowd making a bad name for the movement.

Most individuals that are likely to respond to such a call for boycott are already unreachable by marketers. As such a boycott would not even show up on their radar. They can't reach these people already so their markets are geared to people they can reach. There is enough population out there that they can tailor their products and ads to the sheep that will be oblivious to the call to boycott.

We went to a restaurant yesterday. The place had a Hummer painted up with the restaurant's logos all over as advertisement. We talked to the hostess and asked her to tell the management that as an advertisement that vehicle was offensive to us and nearly drove us away. All the staff was oblivious to what could possibly be offensive about a Hummer. One kept asking us how it could possibly bother us. We very politely explained its environmental impact and energy issues. It simply didn't reach them.

You have to understand that in this age there can be tremendous gaps in knowledge between different groups. Most people simply want to get on with their lives. They do not choose to inform themself about the possible threats the world has to offer. They get enough such problems sold to them along with their MSM provided news. They believe everything is beyond their ability to affect. The world is simply too big for them to make a difference. And thus they simply wish to live the life they have with the advantages they can manage from the system.

A protest asks these people to throw away the life they have and take a stand on issues they do not understand. It makes no sense to them and enables the media to spin those that are active as nutcases and treehuggers. Their gilded cage is simply too comfortable for them to risk it. And without a social movement enabled by the communication the media is supposed to provide their illusions will never be shaken.

You mean it really would have been a major inconvenience to eat somewhere else?

Don't' lay your laziness and desire for creature comforts off on other people. I've heard way too many excuses like yours.

I can understand a parent who has to think about their kids, or someone who is flat broke, or others in similar situations. But you couldn't even go eat somewhere else?

I guess it wouldn't make sense to you to risk a gilded cage.

Haven't you watched Freeperville and Dobson's group at all. They rarely go after the media giants. Their campaigns are always against the advertisers. That is why they are effective.

We are not the clients of media. Advertisers are.

thank you, I thought I had expressed that and was surprised to find I did not. Don't watch the media and do not buy from their advertisers.

Or for someone to give you some sure fire solution. There is no manual for this.

Stop being a naysayer. If you don't want to take any action then don't. But don't try and defeat others from taking action.

Please stop telling everyone else it WONT do any good.

It does nothing to help. If we protest in unified ways that puts public pressure on them, it SURE AS HELL works.

He's right, that's the way to do it. He's just trying to point people in the right direction. We've been emailing and phone calling and attempting personal boycotts for years. It hasn't worked. Try something new.

Not the station, the station's advertisers. That's all I am saying.

People have been standing outside of CNN picketing every weekend for over a year. People have been arrested for it. It changes nothing, and almost no one knows it is going on.

But remember when we went after Sinclair's advertisers? Not Sinclair, Sinclair's advertisers. We got a reaction.

For a while anyway, we went after the advertisers. First time I've ever seen DU really come together to go after media advertisers. If you can get stockholders upset, you're doing even better.