How do we combat media that are biased against us? (LE's question that deserves discussion)

[65fastback2+2]

That's too in their face. News wouldn't be the lead; nor would politics. That only appeals to a small audience. Have to get them in by running TV reruns that they like. Some will stay for the news and it has to be PROFESSIONALLY DONE. Not some idiot that took a radio and TV class in HS or college and wants to be a star.

I've watched UP do it and infuse their lefty BS promoting specials, etc. in commercial breaks. What brought me there was that they had a rerun showing that I liked. If there are enough good reruns that appeal to our target audience, some will stay. Even for the news.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Up_(TV_network)

Is Ben Swann's media platform not a viable candidate?

 

[Natural Citizen]

Media bias isn't what needs combating. It's the malfeasance in the media that needs to be countered and shown.

But you have to work with what you have. It's the only way.

 

[Isaac Bickerstaff]

Chant harder!

Seriously, though, we need to own the issues before there is a candidate. We need to keep the opinion pages in newspapers full of letters on banking shenanigans, military waste, domestic waste,--general stories on intervention stupidity--without naming a candidate. Then, when there is a candidate worth supporting, it won't take nearly as much media to get his message out to win people over. The meager media we can hope to muster can just be spent connecting our guy with the support we have already created.

 

[Isaac Bickerstaff]

//

 

[Voluntarist]

xxxxx

 

[idiom]

I help people build TV networks and find their niches for a living. I have had a pretty innovative idea for a global news network for a while.

But I don't think it is the solution.

We have been successfully getting slates of candidates elected. We need to stick to that and stop shooting for the Presidency.

When we are shooting for the Presidency It has to be outrageous and stunt based. Rand was dominating when he did that. Trump got to the top by being un-ignorable.

Rand was doing that shit really well about a year ago then got all 'professional'.

Things like the 24 hour live stream, was neutered to being just a controlled fluff piece.

Its been a while since Rand has said anything exciting or controversial. He hasn't given speeches like his fathers, "Imagine" or "what-If".

He is acting like a great rank and file senator, nothing like a national leader.


The MSM would carry Rand as their headline day in and day out if he was starting shit the whole time. They hate boring, or rather their viewers do.

The American TV audience is one of the lowest common denominators on the planet. Everything has to be dumbed the fuck down and hyped to oblivion.

INTJ's make up 2% of the population, that is Rand's base. Stop fuckn wishing that everyone would suddenly switch to that type of personality. It will never happen.

If you ran a news channel that appealed to Americans you would all shoot yourselves.

How to appeal to Americans:

 

[P3ter_Griffin]

Most of my tweets get 30-800 impressions, I was retweeted by an anonymous (the group) handle the other day and got over 60,000 impressions on that tweet. I think we need to make some friends. I think we need to convince some of these more radical groups with large followings that voluntarism is the right path, and that the liberty movement is the right group to join or work with to work towards that goal. Many of these groups already have grassroots media, in my search for dirt on Ted yesterday I found that the liberty movement has some that I did not know about, and I would be supportive in helping establish more in what ways I can. So I guess two things- outreach- and using what media we have or create in the future efficiently to lessen how much more we need to create.

 

[osan]

I don't watch TV or listen to the radio. I'm not bombarded with this jackassery on a constant basis and I see it for what it is, so let me share some insights based on what I see when I do.

But Joey and Janey Meaner do, and are.

Fox News doesn't even try not to be a bunch of fucking clowns. That's their thing. They're the clowniest clowns in clowntown. FFS, we're talking about a network that still gives Frank Lutz a permanent job eight years after Penn and Teller outed him as a complete sheister.

I'd have to put them behind MSNBC and CNN on those points, not that it makes any difference, given they are all WAY beyond the threshold.

Why else would they be so in love with Trump?

?? Doesn't that blondie bint... Megyn something-or-other go on regular tirades against him? Perhaps she's pissed that she didn't land the moniker "Mrs. Trump".

CNN is only marginally better.

I see them as marginally worse. Six of one, I suppose...

The only outfit I know of that doesn't treat Republicans like a clown troupe is NPR. They bill themselves as the station intelligent people tune in to, and yeah, you do actually need better than 90 IQ to pick up on how they slant everything to the left, and better than 115 to be able to point out how they make that slant nearly vertical without making it seem biased at all.

You think? I thought anyone better than 60 would pick up on it. They really are not very subtle at all, to my eyes.

The media is run by the left. This hasn't changed in 50 years. Fox News was supposed to be our big breakout, but the only thing they've done is caricature conservative talking points so that leftists have something to point at and laugh.

This is devastating truth.

So give them something to chew on. Go back to being staunchly antiwar, for one. Rand did a pretty good job of mentioning civil liberties issues like privacy and the drug war, but it has never been in the forefront with him.

He's not a particularly good salesman; certainly not for the Meaner market. They love Trump because he is a brawler. 'Murka has come to love brawlers. Can't say that I get it, other than that which turning to my standard assumption yields: the average man is a moron.

When a moderator asks if you would eliminate the CIA, do what Ron did - golf clap at them.

Did he really?

Once again I am directed by all I see to recommend to one and all to accept the fact that we are fucked, and to prepare for the worst, while retaining the slim hope that I am dead wrong and that one day you will all come together, apprehend me, bury me to my waist, and start throwing stones. But for those who have not yet done this, ask yourself the question: what will you do if this thing we call America goes seriously south? You really do not want to go off the precipice with no plan of what to do as you plummet into the abyss with all your fellows. Seriously, you don't.

 

[fisharmor]

Did he really?

 

[Working Poor]

I'm pushing for anarchy.

 

[65fastback2+2]

Most of my tweets get 30-800 impressions, I was retweeted by an anonymous (the group) handle the other day and got over 60,000 impressions on that tweet. I think we need to make some friends. I think we need to convince some of these more radical groups with large followings that voluntarism is the right path, and that the liberty movement is the right group to join or work with to work towards that goal. Many of these groups already have grassroots media, in my search for dirt on Ted yesterday I found that the liberty movement has some that I did not know about, and I would be supportive in helping establish more in what ways I can. So I guess two things- outreach- and using what media we have or create in the future efficiently to lessen how much more we need to create.

This is a good one.

I'm followed by one of the anonymous groups (@0hour1) and Matt Walsh (@MattWalshBlog)....trying to do outreach.

 

[Ronin Truth]

Publicly boycott their sponsors?

 

[phill4paul]

3 high altitude nukes over America might achieve the goal. An EMP that would shut down every bit of MSM pablum as well as nationally syndicated newspapers and radio. Shut down the internet too. It's not making anyone any smarter. I've visited "social" media sites.
There is no countering indoctrination that starts with a humans first steps and doesn't let up through the rest of their lives. As a human, subservience to authority is ingrained at a young age and re-affirmed as they grow older. At no point is a human child allowed to become a human adult.
We train dogs this way. It's really no different.

 

[phill4paul]

Publicly boycott their sponsors?

Not enough to make a difference. You seem to be a smart guy. You should know that.

 

[afwjam]

I think it has to be funny, people don't like how serious we are about the bad news. All jokes are half truths.

 

[Ronin Truth]

Not enough to make a difference. You seem to be a smart guy. You should know that.

Just asked the question.

 

[brandon]

I really don't think the media was biased against Rand this cycle. It was absolutely nothing like Ron's quixotic campaign and pundits outright telling him in interviews "you will not win"

 

[65fastback2+2]

I really don't think the media was biased against Rand this cycle. It was absolutely nothing like Ron's quixotic campaign and pundits outright telling him in interviews "you will not win"

they complete were...leaving rand off tv graphics, putting jeb's face with rand's name, etc. etc.

 

[Occam's Banana]

I think stuff like that - value-neutral pieces that just show people from other countries - would be right at home on a liberty themed network. It would reinforce the idea that when we talk about foreign policy, we're talking, ultimately, about people. It would be nice to see them once in a while in conjunction with that message.

When CNN was a "new thing," my favorite part of their programming was a show called "World Report."

It featured "local" reporters presenting various stories from around the world.

A report from Australia would be followed by one from Rhodesia, which would be followed by one from Argentina, and then one from Italy, and so forth ...

It might be good to demonstrate that it's not required to walk in lockstep with one another on every issue, but when push comes to shove, we come together for a common goal.

Very much this. In fact, I think would it would be a bad idea to ignore or downplay (too much) the divisions and disagreements among libertarians.

For example, a libertarian version of a show like "Crossfire" would be great and could draw viewership from across the libertarian "spectrum."

Issues that libertarians disagree about (such as abortion, so-called "free trade" agreements, etc.) would be highlighted rather than soft-pedaled.

(If anything, the biggest danger might be that there would be too many areas of agreement and not enough actual "crossfire" ... )

 

[Suzanimal]

I think this has been mentioned but an easy first step would be to promote (via social media or just word of mouth) the libertarian media that's already out there.

Very much this. In fact, I think would it would be a bad idea to ignore or downplay (too much) the divisions and disagreements among libertarians.

For example, a libertarian version of a show like "Crossfire" would be great and could draw viewership from across the libertarian "spectrum."

Issues that libertarians disagree about (such as abortion, so-called "free trade" agreements, etc.) would be highlighted rather than soft-pedaled.

(If anything, the biggest danger might be that there would be too many areas of agreement and not enough actual "crossfire" ... )

I don't think that would be a problem.