Proposal for a
Progressive Media Strategy

By Carolyn Kay
November 14, 2007

[I]n recent years the GOP has turned the technique of making hay from their opponents’ words into a reliable formula for success. Here’s how it works: First, find something your opponent said that might be open to multiple interpretations. Next, take it out of context. After that, distort it beyond all recognition (and don’t worry, the truth-seeking press will offer you no sanction for this deception). Express your consternation, your anger, your amazement that your opponent has revealed him/herself to be such a deplorable reprobate for whom no decent American could consider voting. Finally, repeat the offending statement over and over, from now until election day…

[A]ll too often, Democrats give Republicans a helping hand.

 – Paul Waldman, A Guide to Media Manipulation, Republican Style, The American Prospect (web only), August 29, 2007

We see the same techniques used over and over, against Democratic candidates.  Paul Waldman sees the problem clearly.  So do other progressive media watchers—Eric Boehlert, Eric Alterman, Glenn Greenwald, and others.

Don’t forget some of the gems of the past year.  Queen Nancy Pelosi demanded a fancy plane to travel back to her district! Hillary Clinton is unelectable!  Barack Obama was indoctrinated as a child in Muslim fundamentalism at a madrassa!  Clinton is divisive!  Obama’s middle name is Hussein, and his last name sounds like Osama!  Edwards pays $400 for a haircut and has a big, luxurious house, but acts like he cares about the poor!

According to the perspicacious blogger Digby, the 2008 race for the Democratic presidential nomination has degenerated into a contest among “‘the Bitch,’ ‘the Black’ and ‘the Breck girl.’”

Dimwitted, stupid, petty, ridiculous—but effective.  If these attacks weren’t effective, the highly paid right-wing message merchants would be doing something else.  Because there’s one thing they know how to do extremely well, and that is to sell poison to Americans.  As Bob Somerby of The Daily Howler said earlier this year,

As we’ve said, for years and years—it’s precisely … “dimwit stories” which have driven our recent electoral politics. It has taken Dems and liberals a very long time to recognize this reality-based fact. By instinct, bright people will often prefer to work on matters which aren’t quite so dumb and dim-witted. But: In ignoring this part of our modern politics, we’ve been allowing the dimwits to win.

Even Democrats who are otherwise savvy when it comes to the media failures of recent years don’t seem to realize the importance of the poison pills that flow through the right-wing noise machine and slop over into the mainstream.  Perhaps they think these attacks are so silly that no one would possibly believe them.  What these intelligent people don’t understand is that belief isn’t necessary for a smear to work.  All it has to do is to establish doubt, like many Hail-Mary efforts in the courtroom.  The faithful foot soldiers of the right absorb the nuggets, and then fan out to foster doubt in the world of mostly sane people.

The situation with our broken media isn’t just sad and indefensible, it’s actually a matter of life and death.  Or so said Bill Moyers in his PBS special, “Buying the War” (available online here).  Moyers showed us how the American media, in 2002 and 2003, became nothing more than conveyors of propaganda supporting an attack on the practically defenseless country of Iraq.  The media played a part in belittling the voices that spoke out for sanity and reason, against the war.

As a result, thousands of our soldiers have died, and tens of thousands of them have been physically and mentally wounded.  Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have died, and millions have been displaced from their homes.  When those who present the news to the public allow themselves to become co-opted by powerful, immoral interests, horror and devastation can follow.

How did this happen?

Since the early 1960s, a group of rich families has spent many millions of dollars to build an infrastructure that promotes right-wing ideas and demeans contrary beliefs.  David Brock and Eric Alterman have written extensively about this movement.

The part played by the American media in the lead-up to the Iraq war is only the latest example of the success of these elites’ campaign to conservatize the country, and the utter failure of the few and feeble attempts to counter it.  We are now in the position that Republicans, conservatives, and even right wingers dominate media commentary.  Belief in any kind of collective action other than war is belittled and downgraded, hour after hour, day after day, on the airwaves and on cable television.

What the right-wing elites have done so successfully over the last 35 plus years is to develop their own media outlets and find, develop, and fund the talent that provides the content for those outlets.  Meanwhile, on the progressive side, we have gotten along with a few lonely voices who are paid for their efforts, plus a certain number of dedicated people who do the work for the love of the cause.  Naturally, most of those who are not paid for their political work cannot do it full time.  And that, funding vs. lack of funding, is the very reason why there is such an imbalance in media coverage today.

We must change the imbalance, but we must have a comprehensive plan to do so.

Didn’t we solve the problem already?

But why worry?  Didn’t the Democrats win a big victory in 2006?  Doesn’t that mean the tide has turned, and we no longer have to worry about media imbalance?  If you think that, then maybe you haven’t been paying close enough attention.  The recent examples above show that nothing has changed as far as the mainstream media is concerned.  There’s still a huge double standard in the way Republicans and Democrats are treated.

And we must not be complacent about that win in 2006.  Democrats prevailed, but that’s not the same as saying they won by advocating better solutions for problems facing us today, or even by superior strategy. Certainly the party and its supporters did a much better job of getting out the vote than in the last few elections.  But it was Bush administration incompetence in Iraq and after Katrina, its relentless catering to the richest and most powerful Americans, and principled Republicans who convinced Americans to vote against Republicans and therefore for Democrats.

Those principled Republicans include former administration officials John DiIulio and Paul O’Neil, who spoke out about the politicization of all decision-making in the administration.  Former Republican strategist Kevin Phillips showed us how today’s economic disparities are like those of the Gilded Age of the 1890s and documented the autocratic and secretive nature of the Bush dynasty, going back several generations.  Former White House Counsel John Dean told us that the secrecy of the Bush administration is worse than that of the Nixon White House in which he served, and described the current foundation of the Republican Party as anti-democratic authoritarianism.

And then there were the prosecutors.  Republican appointees prosecuted lobbyist Jack Abramoff and congressman Randy “Duke” Cunningham, among others, for some of the most blatant corruption ever seen in this country.  A brave Republican prosecuted former vice presidential chief of staff Lewis Libby for lying about his part in revealing the identity of a covert CIA operative.  These prosecutions, along with the prosecution of Tom DeLay, helped provide a steady flow of revelations about wrongdoing at the highest levels, even as Congress refused to investigate any of the administration’s wrongdoing..

But those were just chinks in the armor.  Those revelations allowed Americans to see without blinders the administration’s incompetence in waging the war in Iraq and in handling the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.  Those failures contributed to Americans’ dissatisfaction, along with the growing disparity between rich and poor and the ever-increasing price of gasoline and heating oil, housing, and even food.  And the final nail in the coffin of Republican dominance was the Tom Foley congressional pages scandal, which was brought to the public’s notice by Republican staffers.

Americans were so disgusted with Republicans that they gave Democrats majorities in both houses of Congress.  But that doesn’t mean Democrats will prevail in the long run.  The right-wing media machine is still working furiously to gloss over the Bush administration’s failures and to lay the groundwork for future Republican victories.

We ourselves bear some of the blame.

What most progressives fail to understand is that we are helping the right wing prevail.  Even if you have become a member of MoveOn.org’s media project, even if you participate in the action alerts sent out by Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) and by Media Matters for America, you play a part in the downgrading of progressive thought and ideals.  How?

·    We do it by donating to candidates who spend most of that money on advertising in the mainstream media.

·    We do it by subscribing to mainstream newspapers and magazines and their websites.

·    We do it by buying the products of those who advertise in the media.

The subscription and advertising dollars go into the pockets of the very media moguls who pay their employees so well to promote right-wing ideas and denigrate progressive ones. In other words, we ourselves are paying for the destruction of our most deeply held beliefs.

This lamentable situation could change more quickly, more certainly, and by larger leaps, if we progressives were willing to work together to build a media infrastructure dedicated to the truth.

What can we do?

Progressives need an organization dedicated to establishing, developing, and supporting talented researchers, linguists, writers, investigative reporters, social psychologists, speakers, filmmakers, and cartoonists who believe in truthful reporting and commentary, and making sure their work receives wide exposure.  Creating and supporting new and independent media outlets is one of the ways of accomplishing this goal.

The purpose of this organization would be twofold.  The first objective is to inform as many Americans as possible about progressive issues and the fact that our issues are their issues, and to persuade them to support those issues.  A second important goal is to persuade the Democratic Party to support the people’s issues.  Too many Democratic leaders have been just as misled by the siren songs of the right as have so many American citizens, who have almost completely stopped their demands for fair treatment and honest government.  And too many Democratic leaders have been seduced by corporate money.  The way to entice politicians to fight for us and our issues is to show them how many Americans believe as we do.

Unfortunately, we have to lead the leaders.  Fortunately, we are up to it.

We must build a complete media infrastructure that promotes reality-based content and is dedicated to truth.  The organization should own television, radio, film, newspaper, and book publishing (including audio books) outlets.  I leave out magazines because there are already some good reality-based magazines, which this organization should support.  In addition to owning outlets, the organization can create content for established progressive media.

This is an outline of an overall plan to change the media imbalance in America by building this media empire dedicated to truth.  I realize that the objectives presented here cannot be accomplished all at once, and that opportunities should be taken as they arise.  But without a vision of the future, individual efforts may be less effective than if they are part of a larger strategy.

We, like the Right in the early 70’s, have to fund ourselves, and attack relentlessly at the structural level, and we have to fund that attack in a big way, and it can’t be 3 famous lefties, we need a thousand populist economic, journalistic, legal, sociological and philosophical experts attacking the corporate media.

 – “Robert Kane Pappas’ Reflections on Orwell, 2005,” BuzzFlash Interview, BuzzFlash.com, March 10, 2005

Proposed Financial Structure

I think the top-level organization of the media empire should be a 501(c)(3), so that contributions are tax deductible, and so that it can never be bought out.  I cannot stress enough how important it is to insulate the organization from those who will surely destroy it if they can.  Each type of media outlet or content production group can be set up as a profit-making entity, with at least some of the profits flowing back to the top-level organization.  That way, donations to the top-level organization can be touted as a gift that keeps on giving.  Also, profit-making media organizations are not subject to FEC limitations on political content.  Far-sighted investors who recognize the current media imbalance would have the opportunity to invest in the profit-making ventures.

Progressive organizations could help obtain seed money to start this new organization from big donors, but I also think we could get ordinary citizens to contribute, as well.  It seems to me that we can offer people a chance to be the Richard Mellon Scaife of the truth, for only the price of a movie ticket per month.

I would like to see us offer our members a subscription that would include full access to the magazines and the progressive news websites that we support.  If possible, the subscription should also include long-term access to articles of interest to us that are published in the mainstream media, even after they are archived.  We would have to work out a payment model for the media involved, but it could be based on the number of accesses by our members, up to a negotiated maximum.

Legally, we could give direct financial support to other 501(c)(3) organizations, if we so desired.  We could support profit-making outlets, such as Air America Radio, by buying advertising in them for the top-level organization and our lower-level outlets.

Decisions on who and what to fund should be made by our contributors, via a website for rating projects, and a Board of Directors/Advisors.  There can also be a section of the website for matching projects directly with funders.  As long as we vet the people proposing projects, to make sure they are legitimate, and make sure the big funders know about what the proposers are offering, we can help some projects get funded without much effort on our part.  Once the website is up and running, we could start planning a conference for matching donors with content providers, something like a cross between the Davos Conference for media and Bill Clinton’s Global Initiative conference.

Media Content

We must support individuals and organizations that provide content for our media outlets and for other outlets  willing to pay for it.  Most important is investigative reporting—we must support the work of Greg Palast, Robert Parry, and the Raw Story investigative group, just as a start.  But we must also syndicate writers, cartoonists, radio bit producers, and speakers. 

We should have a speakers’ bureau, and we must see that the speakers are trained to deal with right-wing bullies and still get our points across.  I’d even like to see us develop tours of speakers and panel discussions that discuss our issues.  I used to be a university student activities advisor, and I can tell you that campus activities departments love to have free programming, especially if we do some of the publicity for them.  And colleges and universities are blue oases even in the reddest of regions in this country.  College tours, using the same set of university contacts, could also be used to promote the books of progressive authors and films made by progressives.

We must support first-time book authors who have good ideas that they express well, but who need funding to complete their work.  For example, I am writing a book about the American political process, Off Balance, exposing information that has never been applied to recommendations for politics.  David Corn, of The Nation, read my book summary and said I have “a lot of intriguing and common-sense ideas.”  After several years, I am still unable to find a publisher.

There was an idea brought up during the formation of Air America Radio (in which I played a small part) that deserves some study.  The proposal was to have a news bureau consisting of journalism students, by allying with journalism professors across the nation.  The professors could supply much of the editing, the students could get course credit, and we could get some good stories for little to no investment.  Unfortunately, the Fox News Channel has already started a similar capability for filmed reports.  Since I initially published this suggestion several years ago, I have to wonder if the right wing is reading and borrowing my suggestions, while the left ignores them.

We must encourage Hollywood to create television series and movies that tell compelling stories about people trying to do the right thing, like the wonderful television series, Judging Amy, which had a long run on broadcast television and then on cable. As another example, I have written a treatment for a TV series, Newsroom, about a Chicago newspaper that is taken over by a bottom-line oriented media mogul.  Because of restrictions on the sale he is forced to pay attention to the award-winning managing editor about the importance of informative and truthful content.  (And by the way, I had this idea before Rupert Murdoch made a similar deal so that he could buy the Wall Street Journal.)  Much of the drama in the series is provided by the owner and the editor trying to make the other understand his point of view.  Hollywood could help Americans relearn important values, like arriving at an understanding by frank and open discussion, that have been stifled by the right-wing hate machine.

What we must do above all else is to debunk the many myths and outright lies promoted by the right wing, to make sure Americans are given the tools to see through right-wing tactics, and to counter the sound bites that resonate with Americans but either mean nothing or actually promote policies that are inimical to the best interest of most citizens.  There are examples of the kinds of things we need to do on my website.

·     Some myth debunking is here.

·     An example of exposing tactics is here.

·     Granny Bee, a cross between sweet little Aunt Bea of Mayberry and Sam “I’m just an old country lawyer” Irvin,  turns the tables on the “slippery slope” phrase - Click here and then choose a player for the “Assault Weapons” commentary.

·     Granny Bee debunks the idea that tax money is “your” money - Click here and then choose a player for the “Taxes” commentary.

Granny Bee could be an important influence to help Americans become more skeptical—to think beyond the flip phrases invented by the right.  But she needs support to continue her work.

Other ideas:

·     Support psychological research that will help us understand better how to combat the right wing appeals to racism, sexual fears, and narcissism.

·     Buy a media contact database so that we can pinpoint the right editors to whom to send our information.

·     Present good news and encouraging stories, especially of successful grassroots efforts.

·     Find “real people” with real stories about issues that are, and are not on our table. This would allow for such a wonderful contrast to the amazing, and non-ending, flow of “experts” and “consultants”

·     Present Small Business commentaries and reporting.

·     Present labor commentaries and reporting.  Speak to the working man and woman, especially regarding equal pay, minimum wage issues, labor issues, anti-globalism, privacy issues, school care, and child care.

·     Encourage contributors to create games and quizzes with political content, for the website.

·     Bill some of our searches for talent as national talent searches, similar to American Idol and Nashville Star, to get people involved.

·     Use humor as much as possible.  Support talented political cartoonists and humorous writers.

Media Outlets

We should develop a process for buying advertising in alternative print media.  It is a way to support them, but it is also a way to get the message to more Americans, especially young people, about the alternatives available to them for getting information.  Progressive organizations should consider placing at least some of its advertising through this alternative process.  Both organizations and candidates for office spend a great deal of money supporting the same mainstream media that diminishes and denigrates them at every opportunity.  Candidates, of course, will always buy in mainstream media for a general election, but they might be persuaded to spend more advertising dollars in alternative media during primary campaigns, especially if there were an easy process in place to facilitate doing so.

We must find ways to support media reform organizations – Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR), David Brock’s Media Matters for America, Bob McChesney’s Free Press, and others.

We must support existing magazines, especially The Nation, In These Times, Mother Jones, and Salon.com.

We must support existing websites that point progressives toward the information they need and that provide a history of truthful reporting and commentary.  One of the things the right-wing elites have done so successfully is to support many organizations and many media outlets, so that it appears their message is coming from many different sources, seeming to give it more validity.

Examples of websites we should support are BuzzFlash.com, Common Dreams News Center, AlterNet.org, truthout.com, and progressive bloggers.  One of the ways we can support them is to pay them to link to their content, just as we would (and perhaps will) pay the news services, such as the Associated Press, Reuters, and Agence France Presse.

One reason for supporting progressive websites is that the people behind them have already shown the interest, the talent, and the stick-to-it-iveness necessary to make an impact.  Another reason, especially for supporting the sites that archive articles of special interest to progressives, is that though it is said truth drives out lies, that does not appear to be the case on the Internet.  Because the more or less factual stories printed by the mainstream media are cycled into the pay-as-you-access archives after a certain period of time, most of the stories and commentary that remain available to people researching issues on the Internet is the distorted information presented by such right-wing sites as Townhall, WorldNetDaily, and NewsMax.

Just type [“al gore” lies], without the brackets, into Google, and you will see what I mean.  You will see many articles and editorials repeating the 2000 Bush campaign’s opposition research claims that Al Gore lied in the campaign, but very few links to the factual stories that debunked those claims.

One of the concerns I have had is that there are millions of people who would be interested in what our side has to say, but who do not have access to the Internet.  We need a free newspaper with political content to reach those people.  The publisher of the New Hampshire Gazette (home of the Chickenhawk Database) is trying to encourage people to start their own free alternative newspapers in their neighborhoods, where he provides the content and they sell ads to local businesses and do their own printing and distribution.  We could encourage this idea and help it along.  And these “publishers” could hook up with the student journalism corps where possible.

I have book publishing and audio book publishing contacts who want very much to help make book publishing part of the progressive media empire described here.

All it will take to get this ball rolling is a few people with the willingness to make it happen.

Carolyn Kay
MakeThemAccountable.com
caro-at-makethemaccountable-dot-com