If the MSM won't cover RP, maybe a negative money bomb?

[johnpp2]

I've been thinking if the MSM continues its refusal to cover Ron Paul's campaign and true popularity, maybe it is time to make them pay. We have proven we can raise money. Maybe it is time to start considering how we can prove to the MSM and their advertisers that we can take money away from them as well. If it wasn't clear to all of us before this campaign, we all now know that our press is hopelessly entangled with the oligarchy and can no longer be trusted to report the truth. The only way to end that is to stop making it profitable for the companies that advertise with them and, ultimately, for the media outlets themselves. I have a few ideas but I'd like to see if anyone can come up with a real organized strategy:

1. Prescription drugs--spread the truth about these ripoffs and get people to stop buying these designer drugs like Celebrex, Lamisil, Cialis, Prilosec, Lipitor, whatever. There are better, cheaper remedies for these ailments, and big pharma is suppressing them in favor of their addictive and harmful drugs.

2. Maybe there is a particular type of credit card we could all cancel. There are choices so it wouldn't be hard to pick on one to make a point.

3. Maybe there is a particular bank we could all pull out of. In fact, maybe we could all pull out of big banks in favor of community banks. The banks are where the real trouble starts anyways.

4. Pick a store to stop shopping. I'm sure we all know who we would start with!

Bill O'Reilly used to get off on threatening companies and even entire countries with his boycotts, so why can't we return the favor now that we have numbers. Who needs poll numbers when we can hit these traitors in the wallets? Money is the reason they are selling our country out in the first place, so why don't we shake things up and cause some dissension within the ranks? I bet we could make a few companies jump ship and get back to pro-American practices.

What I'd like to see is ideas for a truly organized effort. Maybe that means taking it slow, one victim at a time, or maybe it means an onslaught, who knows? Anybody have thoughts?

 

[johnpp2]

michael medved implied ron paul affiliated with nazis...

In fact, I just heard Medved the other day talking about how neo-Nazi groups were supporting Ron Paul. He even had a black "caller" on saying his friend was supporting Ron Paul until he became aware David Dukes was supporting Ron Paul and would not be voting for him because of that. Beyond the fact that who supports him is outside of Dr. Paul's control, let's not even get in to who supports Hillary's and Ghouli's campaigns. Considering his considerable influence and listenership, maybe Michael Medved is the worst talk show host on the air?

 

[realitywiz]

Bump.

I agree. I think we need to do something to shake up the Old Media.




_______

 

[Midnight77]

Boycott the sponsors. Take our Media back.

 

[DrN0]

I agree. We should focus on the sponsors. I was appalled this morning while listening to Doug Stephan's Radio Talk Show Countdown. For MONTHS Stephan has been ardently supporting Ron Paul. Now, suddenly, he has decided that Dr. Paul's stance on "right to life" doesn't jive with him. He took my call touting the Tea Party, then downplayed the numbers I quoted, and then immediately took a call from an African American gentleman pushing the racist group donation story. I suggest we start by letting Doug Stephan know that we will be boycotting his sponsors. And then, of course, contacting his sponsors to let them know the same. You can contact Doug Stephan and find info on all his sponsors here http://www.dougstephan.com/contact.cfm

 

[Kingfisher]

bump

 

[SeanEdwards]

This works if people follow through on it. Sponsors don't spend big money buying TV time in order to drive off customers. If they start feeling our wrath, the media will react.

 

[johnpp2]

I agree that we should boycott, but the problem is in saying "boycott all the sponsors". It's not possible. We have to buy gas, we have to buy light bulbs, whatever. What we need to do is organize a targeted boycott so that we actually some company. We find a company particularly guilty of treason, make sure it's a company where we can easily choose a competitor without disrupting our lives, and then pick a date to all cancel our subscription with them, stop buying their products, or stop using their services. Also, we need to pick a company that's large enough to get press but not so large that they can easily absorb the blow--we want to really make an impact. Then we promote the boycott ahead of time in the same spirit of the money bombs, so that the victim knows it's coming. That way, we will be fair in giving that company the opportunity to change their policies or pull their advertising and make a public announcement about it.

 

[Midnight77]

I agree that we need to start a very large boycotting effort. If we don't see fair coverage come out as a result of yesterday's event, then we need to do this and follow through with this. This is the only way we are going to take our Media back.

We've seen what we can do with fundraising. I know we could make this just as successful. You have to hit these networks where it hurts.

CNN has been the most fair to us.

 

[DrN0]

Midnight - don't forget MSNBC...

Johnpp2 - I like your line of thinking. Excellent logistics.

Here is the big problem with this topic. The media will go nuts spinning a sob story when it comes to boycotting. "Oh look how the Paulites are picking on us and our poor sponsors! They're going to put American businesses out of business! Boo hoo for us! By the way, did you hear how RP is r^c!st?" We do need to consider all of the ramifications before action. I'm sure the paid campaign gets high blood pressure just thinking about what we may do with regards to stuff like this. But I'm also sure that although Dr. Paul would not support this kind of effort, he would call us "courageous patriots". It's funny - how many times has hot-aired O'Reilly called for or threatened boycotts, but I can already hear him raising hell over this.

I think that appropriately targeted sponsors that receive a HUNDRED THOUSAND emails reasonably stating our displeasure with their media outlets' biased views and blackouts of a significant item of public interest may be enough for them to put pressure on their outlets without us having to actually engineer a full-blown boycott.

I'm not sure what to think about this. Up until now I have been defending us against the SPAM slander from the media. We are just a large group of active concerned citizens utilizing the Old Media's availability of feedback. But now I am here advocating an organized effort.

What do ya'll think?

 

[johnpp2]

I agree we need to keep the high ground

I share your same concern about keeping the high ground, but at some point the rubber does have to meet the road. I mean think about it, so far if you print a negative story about Ron Paul, all you get is increased hits! They are probably making MORE money by ridiculing us.

By the way, Neal Boortz just came out and said to all Ron Paul supporters -- "SCREW YOU!" These people are out of control. Polite e-mails and peaceful protests are fine, but money is where it counts. I'm starting to see advertising banners popping up on www.ronpaulgraphs.com--that means corporations are starting to see a true commercial opportunity in supporting Ron Paul. That's how you tip the scales.

The thing is to make sure whatever we do is advertised in such a way that it is seen as PRO-American and cannot be characterized as UN-American. Maybe you out a company using child labor in China and then call for a boycott of their products? Who can argue with that? Personally, I hate the big banks, and I would love to see all Ron Paul supporters help their communities by pulling their money out of Bank of America and Wachovia and putting it in small community banks instead. That is what we will have to do in the end to defeat the system, but maybe a move like that could be spun as UN-American by the press. I don't know.

There must be a perfect target out there somewhere we can boycott and accomplish two things at once: punish that company and raise awareness about the specific treasonous activity. However, I agree that it must be accomplished very carefully from a PR standpoint. That's why I would like to see some of the Senior Membes pipe in on this issue.

 

[johnpp2]

I just thought of one idea. AT&T has consistently been the leader in the sellout of our civil liberties by working with the government and allowing illegal wiretaps. In fact, a whistleblower came out and reported that he had been required to wire in a splitter so that all signals were sent to a secret room no one was allowed to enter.

Why don't we have a national "cancel your land line" day? Who needs 'em anyway?

 

[DrN0]

Read the other posts - AT&T is too big for a couple of hundred thousand of us.

We need to keep focused on the media. It's the media that is spearheading the hit-job on all of us. How do you get to the media? Only through their pocket books. Where do they get their money? From sponsors. Scare the sponsors into pulling their advertising dollars for fear of wasting their money or generating bad press and actually driving down their sales, and the media will feel it in their pocket books.

Keep in mind that the media makes their money by pandering their control of public influence. That's what advertising is all about. If the media steps in "it", sponsors scurry off like cockroaches. If it appears that they have misstepped and are garnering the wrath of the public, the sponsors will leave them high and dry. BUT YOU DON'T PULL IT OFF BY BOYCOTTING OR CONTACTING THE MEDIA, YOU DO IT BY CONTACTING/BOYCOTTING THE SPONSORS. But we should focus on the ones that will make good targets. The kind that will indeed freak out because they received 100k emails/phone calls/letters. 100K contacts for AT&T would be nothing more than an annoyance, however, Buick (currently advertising on CNN.com) may not want the negative image considering how competitive the auto market is right now.

 

[DrN0]

poor Christmas sales

Also keep in mind that retailers are already freaking out over poor Christmas sales.

Tiffany & Co. advertising on Time.com...

 

[johnpp2]

proof how evil AT&T is

Look at this article:
http://propagandamatrix.com/articles/december2007/171207spying.htm

The thing about AT&T is it's easy to cancel your land line because it actually SAVES you money. You don't just spend it with one vendor instead of another, you actually save money. There's no reason we can't boycott someone else as well, but it seems like it would be easy to get a large number of people to save their family money by canceling something they probably don't really use anyway. Or if they need it (say for their alarm system), they could at least cut back to the most basic of plans. AT&T might be too big to make a huge impact on, but they certainly won't like it, and you never know if the effort might spread outside the confines of the hardcore Ron Paul supporters.

 

[MJ777]

It's a great idea, but it can't be done. You can't escape these people. You won't even be able to watch t.v. if you truely want to avoid them since they advertise on all channels. You must eat, fuel your car, heat your house, etc. Hell, we can't even get truckers to stop driving for one day to lower the cost of diesel (20-50 cents a gal. more than unleaded). Why? Big corps prevail in the industry and they pay less for their fuel, making it harder and harder for the independent trucker to compete and therefore exist. Company drivers aren't paying for fuel. Same with everything else. Plus, a million people not buying their stuff wouldn't even be noticed by these multi-billion dollar, world-wide corps.

 

[fedup100]

I want a lawsuit filed for trying to influence a public election. This can be proven easily, it must be done. This s*%$ has to stop!!!

 

[DrN0]

Ya'll keep missing the point

Forget the conglomerates. They're too big. Focus on sponsors that are the "bread and butter" - what would be considered mom-and-pops compared to the conglomerates, but are still large companies.

How do you think Tiffany's would feel if they received a 100,000 emails, a 100,000 phone calls, a 100,000 letters, during Christmas time, because of Time's lack of coverage? They would shit themselves. We wouldn't even have to boycott. Just the thought of that many people contacting them to enlighten them regarding the public displeasure over Time's poor public responsibility would have an effect. The Tiffany's board of Director's would be burning up the phone lines to Time's management.

Marketing 101 tells you (them) that if you are hearing from 100,000 potential consumers, then that translates into 1,000,000 pissed off consumers out there 9 too lazy to do anything for every 1 that was fired up enough to make their voice heard.

There are plenty of companies that would be vulnerable to such a strategy.

 

[melianthus]

I don't think the media's problem is Ron Paul. I think their problem is with his supporters. The major news outlets have been, literally, besieged by Ron Paul supporters (far too many of whom are anything but civil). So, they have developed a siege mentality. They will not give an inch. I really don't think they care one way or another if Ron Paul gets airtime, but they DO care about giving his supporters the shaft. They LOVE it.

Too many people don't realize that every time they send off that knee-jerk expletive-laden, or more generally insulting email to the media over some story about Paul that they don't like for whatever reason, or some story they didn't cover, these supporters are further damaging Paul's chances to be featured in campaign media coverage.

The more interesting question in the long run becomes: Will this result in the "old media" themselves becoming more marginalized? My hopeful side likes to think yes, but judging how easy it was for the media to boost Huckabee in the polls (although I am sure they will be just as happy to tear him down), it is obvious they still have of power to manipulate public opinion.

I think it is a mistake to target the old media with negative attacks. There has got to be a better way.

 

[Patriot]

Actually RP is getting more coverage. He was mentioned on all three cable networks this morning. He will get one hour on Glenn Beck and maybe one hour on Meet the Press.
I think we need to stay positive with our PR efforts.

I mentioned in this forum or the other one, about a Ron Paul Golden dollar day. Where we all make our purchases with the golden dollar coins on a given day. Anyone up for that?