That would certainly make the MSM either irrelevant or logical extensions of our story -- probably the latter.

The task would be to create a message which even the people who lie about anything would be stuck. In other words, to put them in a Catch 22 at every turn.

I think you're right. Obama's people knew what the Afghanistan speech would do to McCain. I wonder how to do that with the economy (at least after McCain's campaign gets done shooting itself in the face).

The MSM was all over Obama "refining" his Iraq stance, I wonder if they'll give such coverage to McCain adopting policy that Obama has been pushing for over a year, one that McCain personally spoke out against weeks ago before seemingly adopting it out of think air today (as did Bush). Will Obama get credit?

Here's a decent post by Matt Y about Obama's mysterious silence re: JMcCain's support for Social Security privatization.

http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/07/the_whites_of_their_eyes.php#comments

General conclusion of commenters: Obama seems to be rolling out a lot of substantive positive speeches right now, introducing himself and his policies to the electorate.

The hardest-hitting negative stuff is being saved for Sep/Oct.

Must admit I've been wondering about Obama's communications staff - there's a good post on this over at Daily Kos -
`Obama Needs to Fire Bill Burton

which crystallised things for me:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/7/15/8561/21079/775/551458.

Unfortunately, raider, I think the answer to your question depends on how much of Obama's message the press will let out. But Obama does have to work on his media game. The GOP machine is vicious and connected.

There's the message, then there's the context, then there's the effect of the response that he gives, given all of those factors being taken into account.

One of the things that Obama does so well, (and he accomplishes it in part by doing it the way that he does it) is that he doesn't come off as antagonistic, or shrill, or flaming at the mouth, because he always responds to the controversy and doesn't start it or stir it up by flaming. His response is always measured, well thought-out and well reasoned, while McCain's very seldom is. This is having an effect. And for the Obama campaign, it's a very positive one. It makes him look: smarter, stronger, nicer, more controlled, less shilling/pandering (for our beer-advertising-addicted contingent, more controlled, less shilling!) and more true to what he believes.

Has anyone noticed that McCain can only attack anything about Obama's campaign by either questioning Obama's surrogates' behavior, or doing the questioning using his own surrogates? Obama's got him tied up in knots, trying to be civil (and McCain will fail at this, and soon).

The only purpose of this post, to me, was to indicate that, just maybe, Obama has opportunities to start directing the message instead of responding to it. The administration and McCain are, to some extent, starting to say the same things he has been saying for a while.

But this is up to him. We can reinforce that he can move the message by supporting that idea, but, really, it is going to be up to him, and his ability to overcome the MSM blackout of his message and effectiveness, if possible.

Obama has proven his ability to outsmart the Clinton machine and the media. I'm confident that he has come up with an strategic offense plan to outsmart the media bias and McCain. I'm sure he continues to work on this as it is essential to his success.

But if Obama is elected, the media spin will be even more damaging, because it will work to prevent him from leading any meaningful changes that threaten media corporate interests. So ensuring Obama is elected is one thing, but an effort like SCAMMD will be essential to a President Obama's ability to make the changes he has been talking about.

Raider99, a late reply to your comment from a past thread:

...we need an MSM viewer's education system as well, though I doubt it would work, because anyone who is watching that crap is probably not going to be interested in being educated for real.

This is the sort of thing that could be handled by a viral, simple and educations slogan-- perhaps the slogan beneath each SCAMMD logo and link. It could then be sustained by the SCAMMD concept.

A quick example of a viral slogan that would need to be refined, then distilled into a single sentence:

"Listener beware: The for-profit corporate media in the U.S. does not always inform the public with the real facts. Information is often spun in a way that benefits the media corporate interests, not your interests."

There are ways to educate that are painless for those too busy to take the time to educate themselves and those who don't want to be educated (do people who don't want to be educated really exist?). After all, the media is (mis-)educating the people you speak about every day.

The constant repetition of "WMD," "terrorism" and the "threat level" were just a few of the little phrases that broke the treasury wide open and caused a willingness in many to give up rights and outsource their thinking to others.

THIS SIMPLE APPROACH TO REACH MILLIONS CAN WORK BOTH WAYS. Misinformation could be replaced with key facts. So what is called for right now is balance, a warning to Americans about the failings of the media and to encourage people to think for themselves. It's essential that unspun facts and education become a high-profile part of the daily input diet.

And honestly, I think most Americans are so ready think for themselves, but they just want some reliable information and aren't sure who to trust anymore.

There's a need waiting to be filled here. SCAMMD, properly implemented, can fill that need.