They Ignored BTO. Now It's Time For an Occupy The Media

[Lymeade-Lady]

Sitting in audiences and waving signs on streets on GMA, etc. with Black Blindfolds on? (they could be a sheer material where you could still see somewhat). That's what I'm picturing, but I don't know how it would work. Or wearing a black ribbon (like the pink breast cancer ones)?

 

[slamhead]

I don't know how it will work as they will just ignore the people at their front doors. Look at the Geraldo incident down at OWS. They chased the Fox news crew out of the park. "Fox News lies". I did not see one single report about that. The thing that is going to turn the tides is RP doing well in Iowa, NH, and Nevada. All we need at the least is a 2nd place finish in any of those primaries.

 

[trey4sports]

I don't know how it will work as they will just ignore the people at their front doors. Look at the Geraldo incident down at OWS. They chased the Fox news crew out of the park. "Fox News lies". I did not see one single report about that. The thing that is going to turn the tides is RP doing well in Iowa, NH, and Nevada. All we need at the least is a 2nd place finish in any of those primaries.

2nd place will go unmentioned. Win or bust.

 

[bunklocoempire]

*SNIP*

...I think it needs to be stopped because the candidates that they are shoving down our throats are more alike to each other than they are different from any other party. For instance, Ralph Nader was blamed by Democrats for costing Gore the election but if you compare Gore's policies to Nader and Bush, Gore was actually closer in practice and philosophy to Bush than he was to Nader. Will you join me in my efforts?

+ rep

This talking point is gold and of course can be applied currently.

Nice! Thank you!


Bunkloco

 

[Captain Shays]

BTO wasn't just to get media, BTO was to get advertising money for Ron

If We raised $20 million it wouldn't be a drop in the bucket compared to what Romney, Cain and Perry have been given FOR FREE

 

[Captain Shays]

I don't know how it will work as they will just ignore the people at their front doors. Look at the Geraldo incident down at OWS. They chased the Fox news crew out of the park. "Fox News lies". I did not see one single report about that. The thing that is going to turn the tides is RP doing well in Iowa, NH, and Nevada. All we need at the least is a 2nd place finish in any of those primaries.

I don't have ANY confidence at this point to insure me that IF Ron Paul won Iowa the media would give him the proper coverage. It's still fresh in my mind what FOX did when he won CPAC and how they treated him when he virtually tied Bachmann at Aimes. NO This has already gone too far. We have already gone into too many unnecessary wars. We have already elected their guy too many times who has driven us into debt, robbed us of our freedoms, violated our Constitution corrupted our entire politicial process from top to bottom. The media is not the only entity to blame. It's the symbiotic relationship between the media and the elites in the banking and military sectors. But the media is their tool and I want to take that advantage away from them.

 

[ScotTFO]

I made the suggestion before to compile a list of advertisers who advertise during MSM boardcasts and to bring attention to and boycott those companies. I think the only way you are going to hurt the MSM is to take money out of their pocket. A lot of companies would shun away from networks if it is causing them negative attention which would drive the advertising costs down for that time slot.

Also my suggestion for a name is "Black THEM Out"

 

[MrAustin]

Some points that I think need to be made:

1) We cannot compete with the MSM on thier turf. They own television. They won a long time ago. It's over. Ads aren't going to do it, and a new news network would never be able to trump them.

2) The future, and our best weapon, is the internet. That's what ushered in the Ron Paul Revolution. The internet is the printing press of our day. And we will win the battle sooner or later.

3) I think our primary objective should be this: make the shift come sooner rather than later. And protect the free flow of information on the internet.

So the question is: What creative ideas can we come up with to make the sheep (especially the older generations) start going to(and trusting) the internet for information and not the MSM.

 

[1stAmendguy]

I made the suggestion before to compile a list of advertisers who advertise during MSM boardcasts and to bring attention to and boycott those companies. I think the only way you are going to hurt the MSM is to take money out of their pocket. A lot of companies would shun away from networks if it is causing them negative attention which would drive the advertising costs down for that time slot.

It seems like we talked about this in 2007 too. Here is an old thread with a list of FOX News sponsors: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?67765-List-Of-Fox-News-Sponsors

Of course their sponsors have changed now I would think.

 

[Original_Intent]

The quandry we find ourselves in is "How do you convince someone whose primary source of information is the media, that the media is a bad source of information?"

I have been trying to learn that secret for 20 years.

Us: "Don't listen to Sean Hannity, he is a shill and is covering for those in power that are causing you pain!"
Sean Hannity: "They are all nutjobs!"
Target audience: "You are right Sean, they clearly are living in their own little world - I trust you more than ever!"

You will never break another person's paradigm. The harder you try to break the shell, the stronger it becomes. It can only be broken by the individual, and finding the way to convince them to do that is the goal and the paradox and the difficulty that we face.

 

[RDM]

If We raised $20 million it wouldn't be a drop in the bucket compared to what Romney, Cain and Perry have been given FOR FREE

It wasn't for free. Favors must be paid once in office.

 

[The Free Hornet]

Honesty. Truth. Understanding.


Good food for thought. My $.02.

• Buy radio ads. Small markets to start - Christian radio, Country Music in Middle America, Obscure talk, then progress to more major markets.
• Direct coordinated "professional" sales call visits to local TV & Radio Stations to let them know our intentions.
• Inserts in Newspapers with carefully crafted flyers.
• Other ideas? Targeted boycott messages? Protests?

Fox News gets about half their revenue from subscribers (Xfinity/Comcast, Dish Network, DirecTV, AT&T, etc.). The other half is from advertisers.

Step 1: Cancel your cable or dish plans for INTERNET ONLY service.
(if you are near a major city, even if not, have an HDTV antenna setup and have no monthly bill)

Step 2: If you are buying from their sponsers, stop and let those people know why (I think both steps are important)

I would focus on one company and that is Fox News. Even though there are allies there, there are far more enemies. There are some old lists of sponsers and it might take some updating:

http://foxnewsboycott.com/fox-news-sponsors/bill-oreilly-sponsors/

I would not recommend buying ads from the same media that is blacking us out. The internet is eating the lunch of all these a-holes, we can accelerate that.

PS: These products helped me cancel Dish Network:
http://www.roku.com/
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=CM+7000PAL

Regional papers (both the Chicago Tribune and Sun Times have had good editorials for Ron Paul) are giving better coverage and that would hit those not yet converted to the internet for all news.

 

[MrAustin]

The quandry we find ourselves in is "How do you convince someone whose primary source of information is the media, that the media is a bad source of information?"

I have been trying to learn that secret for 20 years.

Us: "Don't listen to Sean Hannity, he is a shill and is covering for those in power that are causing you pain!"
Sean Hannity: "They are all nutjobs!"
Target audience: "You are right Sean, they clearly are living in their own little world - I trust you more than ever!"

You will never break another person's paradigm. The harder you try to break the shell, the stronger it becomes. It can only be broken by the individual, and finding the way to convince them to do that is the goal and the paradox and the difficulty that we face.

Agreed. Here's an idea:

If we are trying to change the way people think, and people think in terms of words that they hear and use, then we need to change people's vocabulary by changing OUR vocabulary.

For starters, I think a simple yet very powerful thing (if we ALL do it) that we could do would be to stop referring to it as the "MAINSTREAM media" or even "THE" media. When we do this in conversation (even if we are speaking negatively about the media), we are giving them credibility through our word choice before we even complete our sentence. These both infer that there either is no alternative, or that the only alternative is fringe (since it is not mainstream.)

The establishment uses this trick all the time, and it is has a very powerful effect on the sub-conscious. We need to use it back.

We need to lead the sheep in a different direction so they can wake themselves up - and I think part of it is re-labeling the establishment controlled media.

Compare:

Sheep: "Ron Paul is nuts"
Awake person: "No, that's not correct. Too many people get their information from the mainstream media."
Result: Ineffective. Sub-conscious resistance.

VS

Sheep: "Ron Paul is nuts"
Awake person: "No, that's not correct. Too many people get their information from the old media."
Result: Probably some resistance still, but now the sub-conscious is saying this: "Old...? Am I old? What's the new media....?"

 

[1stAmendguy]

I've heard people refer to them as the "Dinosaur media". Is that an effective term you think?

 

[chri5opher]

//

 

[kill the banks]

start an Internet tv network and promote it

 

[Sentinelrv]

This is a major problem.

- Boycotts won't work because not enough people will participate to make a difference.
- Protests won't work because you'd need the media on your side in order to get the word out.
- You can't convince people that the media is controlling them because they'd think you're crazy.
- Creating our own media organization is unrealistic. Too much money and not enough time.

The only thing we can really do is bypass the media like we've been doing and hope that the polls rise enough before the primaries to make a difference.

 

[scottish]

MY 1st real post on here,I usually only come on to see how the great Ron Paul is doing..I must admit I find it alarming(considering his message)how he is treated by the media and it is very clear to me the propoganda and corruption being used to detract potential voters from him..

This idea might be far fetched but considering your fervent support and excellent fund raising capabillities,would a glossy magazine not be a great idea??Funded by the support, a monthly hard hitting expose on the good and bad of US politics,calling out the media on the lies and dis-information they pass as truth to the public..Exposing the corrupted with fact based snippets taken from the very machine that distorts fair unbaised opinion..

How many public opinions would be swayed with such a magazine in circulation across the country?As I stated previously it might be far fetched and not such a viable idea but I would love to see something like this,playing the media at their own game..

If it got up and running a nominal fee could be charged to make the publication self sustaining..

Just a thought people,be nice and dont go for the jugular lol..

 

[Original_Intent]

Agreed. Here's an idea:

If we are trying to change the way people think, and people think in terms of words that they hear and use, then we need to change people's vocabulary by changing OUR vocabulary.

For starters, I think a simple yet very powerful thing (if we ALL do it) that we could do would be to stop referring to it as the "MAINSTREAM media" or even "THE" media. When we do this in conversation (even if we are speaking negatively about the media), we are giving them credibility through our word choice before we even complete our sentence. These both infer that there either is no alternative, or that the only alternative is fringe (since it is not mainstream.)

The establishment uses this trick all the time, and it is has a very powerful effect on the sub-conscious. We need to use it back.

We need to lead the sheep in a different direction so they can wake themselves up - and I think part of it is re-labeling the establishment controlled media.

Compare:

Sheep: "Ron Paul is nuts"
Awake person: "No, that's not correct. Too many people get their information from the mainstream media."
Result: Ineffective. Sub-conscious resistance.

VS

Sheep: "Ron Paul is nuts"
Awake person: "No, that's not correct. Too many people get their information from the old media."
Result: Probably some resistance still, but now the sub-conscious is saying this: "Old...? Am I old? What's the new media....?"

I agree. I had not even thought how saying "mainstream media" actually strengthens their position - I have always used it in a derogatory way, but you are 100% correct. I like "old" media as well. I bet there are lot sof other areas where we unthinkingly strengthen our adversaries.

 

[V3n]

Use your local affiliates. Paper them with Ron Paul op ed's. All the newspapers, all the local stations. Everyone write an article, write an opinion.
Pick a day and everyone mail - snail mail - in your stories.. so many letters it will look like Miracle on 34th street!
We can still use our local tv stations and newspapers - they are not beholden to their Networks, they are just carriers who want to make money for themselves.