« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Mission Statement: Tools to Counter the MSM Distortions
Below is a beginning concept of a mission statement and some suggested specific tools that we might be working toward in our attempt to counter MSM lies, distortion and propaganda. Over the past several posts, we've heard many great suggestions. I think we should not limit ourselves to one approach, and so what I've suggested below is just one of many possible directions we could go.
I'm posting this as a starting point for discussion, and, as always, I welcome comment and suggestions. Obama is fond of saying that this is OUR compaign. He says YES WE CAN! Do we believe him? If so, then maybe we can be successful at making a difference, even against long odds. To me, it's better than sitting around complaining about the state of the nation or the various peaks and valleys of this electoral season. I'll do that too, to be honest, but for once, I want to try to accomplish something that makes a real difference. Please join me and a small, but growing, group of people who are willing to believe in a long shot with a big potential up-side.
Mission Statement
To develop or encourage the development of tools to facilitate immediate, large-scale citizen action against media distortions, lies and propaganda, and to create a viral campaign to inspire people to speak out.
Tools required:
* Rapid Response systems aimed at current media issues that violate truth or show partisanship in the guise of news.
* Full list of relevant contacts at various media, including but not limited to:
* Main Company email, fax number, phone number, website and mailing address.
*Managerial (directly related to the media issue in question) level email, fax number, phone number and mailing address.
*Top level management email, fax number, phone number and mailing address.
*Author/commentators email, fax number, phone number, website, mailing address
*Public relations firm handling author/commentator – email, fax number, phone number, website, mailing address.
*Advertisers email, fax number, phone number, website, mailing address. (Including their customer service contacts, public relations contacts, and management contacts.)
*A quick response system that simplifies the process of responding. Suggestion: List the contacts that are relevant to an issue with checkboxes. Responder checks those to whom they want to send email, writes their custom response, and clicks “Send” to send it to all checked contacts. For other means, methods might vary. For phone calls, perhaps a list of menu options needed to reach the correct person.
*Send to Friends button to forward this issue to your friends and encourage them to respond as well.
*Media outreach: Send to selected media outlets (NYT, WaPo, ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, Fox, HuffPo, etc, etc.) a copy of your message and the people it was sent to. This would be to media outlets other than the one involved in the current issue. This places awareness that citizens are responding in the hands of other media. It places them on notice, for one, and it ultimately could become news itself, if enough of these messages begin to flood their systems.
Comments (33)
Outstanding. Only suggestion is that all understand media is not limited to national/cable outlets, but also local and state newspapers, news broadcasts, radio and state political websites.
In my experience, this leads to ground swell of grass roots movements.
As always, great job Raider. So appreciate all you're doing (Ripper, Carol, et al. too.)
July 13, 2008 2:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agree with your comments about local media. That should have been included or at least clarified. Thanks.
July 13, 2008 3:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would add to the broad mission statement:
1) to insist that news media owners and journalists universally adopt and comply with the Society of Professional Journalists' Code of Ethics, particularly in regards to coverage of elections and politics
2) to encourage and assist news media in developing "open-door" policies so that public complaints about inaccurate, misleading or otherwise biased news coverage may reach appropriate content managers for timely review well within the natural life cycle ("legs") of the story involved, whether through an ombudsman or through more direct public communication with writers, reporters, editors, producers and managers.
July 13, 2008 3:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good points, Ripper. Thanks.
People, if you think this series of threads has merits, please join in the discussion. If you disagree with it, please say why.
If you want to see this grow, please recommend.
Initial post:
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/07/can-our-voices-be-heard-how-do.php
July 13, 2008 3:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wrote a comment, that hasn't posted yet, about trying to build on what Media Matters has done but your suggestions are what could distinguish what raider is trying to do from MediaMatters... for example don't make it ideological but insist on a real journalistic code of ethics.
This could boost the 'clout' of what you are doing!
July 13, 2008 4:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
I tried to post all the previous posts in a reply, but it got removed by TPM. I guess too many links on one reply. So here's the second post:
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/07/followup-our-voice-and-the-med.php
July 13, 2008 3:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Third post:
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/07/our-ammunition-countermeasures.php
July 13, 2008 3:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fourth post:
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/07/sudden-citizens-action-against.php
July 13, 2008 3:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fifth Post:
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/07/msmwatch-weekend-edition.php
July 13, 2008 3:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Would it be more effective to concentrate our efforts on the really big msm in the beginning? The AP might be a good place to start given their obvious bias. Local resources frequently take their cues from the parent. That's not to say individuals shouldn't contact their local media, but at the project level it seems more efficient to concentrate on the real perps.
Questions that come to mind: In all honesty are we going to keep tabs on unfairness (if any) aimed at McCain, for instance, and if we don't can we escape being seen as partisan? Are we going to operate as a group or as individuals? Will we have a clarion call for action and if so, who sounds the cry?
A republican for Obama on my local city for Obama list has taken it upon herself to contact Fox sponsors about some of the slurs on Fox *news*. She has received responses from some, mostly thanking her but otherwise noncommittal. Carnival cruise line, however, said too bad. Fox viewers fit their user profiles and they would continue to advertise on Fox.
I wish we had a home of our own. Is there anyone who can furnish a web site?
July 13, 2008 4:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good questions, gettex. Also, a good point about AP being a HUGE supplier of news to local media and worth targeting before the local edition. I'd like to see a study of how different pressure points affect the media. Anyone know if such a study has been done?
July 13, 2008 5:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good comments, gettex. First, I have been a journalist of some kind for most of the last 33 years. Speaking as a responsible journalist, I would report unfairness that I saw against McCain, too.
Speaking as a person sick and tired of the atrocities of the neocons and the GOP complicity with them, I would advocate that the entire Republican Party be banned from the country. Well, that is how I feel about it, after seeing them rubber stamp Bush's attacks on our country, in addition to others. So, as a partisan, I want to get Obama and other Dems elected.
So there is a conflict for me. One is my sense of integrity and honor, generally, and the other is my belief that these people have largely been traitors to our way of life and don't deserve anything but scorn.
But that's just speaking personally. On the subject of this process - this milestone - I think we are faced with the reality that we don't currently have the resources or the staff/volunteer power to do much for now. We're small, and I don't know if this acorn will grow into an oak tree or get run over by a bus.
So for now, what is our mission? How can we further it?
Media Matters has a system. I've subscribed to their email alerts. It's not perfect, but it's something. I do get alerts from them. It could be a lot better, and that's what the "tools" above are meant to represent - a faster, easier way to respond to the system as a whole. However, it's unlikely that Media Matters will adopt our suggestions for a variety of reasons, and so, if we believe in this mission, we may have to find a way to make it happen. If some philanthropist were to discover us and think we actually mattered, perhaps we could get money to implement a clear plan, but at this point, to say I would be surprised if anything like that would happen is a vast understatement.
If we agree on some path of action, however, we can continue to spread the idea, post our message and mission statement on other sites, and spread it as virally (is that a word?) as we can. But even then, we have to have a central place for people who want to participate to go to. We also have to have a way to assess whether we're having an impact, which would be useful as we go forward.
So, we would need something - a web page, perhaps, and an identity. We could create SCAAMD pages in Facebook and MySpace and put messages on other social sites. Blog on other blog sites, as well.
This is, by my count, the sixth specific blog on TPM related to this idea. In that, it's unusual. If we keep this alive long enough, get specific enough, will TPM eventually endorse us and give us a platform from which to work? Or do we have to go out and create our own presence from scratch?
July 13, 2008 6:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
On the subject of Carnival Cruises, at least she got an answer. Now imagine if they got, not one or a few contacts, but thousands. Imagine if their name became associated with unfair reporting or other abuses of the public trust by a citizen's action network that actually reached people. Would they then pass it off as unimportant?
They will generally (though not always) ignore our voices if issued separately and in small numbers. Statistically, we mean little to nothing. We have to become statistically meaningful to be effective. That is the entire nature of my original post (though I didn't use the word "statistical"). It is the force of the waterfall wearing down the rock. Except, I hope, faster.
July 13, 2008 6:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think a web site with all the tools listed in a manner that folks like me could simply cut and paste them would be helpful. Then any alert could be posted and responded to post haste from a single souce. I think an occasional alert on mis-information about McCain would give the impression that we only seek to have the truth told. But not too often. The more dirt on him the better.
And when some is reporter or questioner in one of his town halls going to goad him into exploding. I am on pins and needles.
July 13, 2008 5:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you want to see his temper get more veterans like this one to challange his 'getting awards from all veteran organizations'.
http://www.progressnowaction.org/page/community/post/al/CqyL
DAV gives McCain a score of 20%, Obama gets a score of 80%.
July 13, 2008 5:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
On the question of unfairness towards McCain, I'm reminded of something that Josh wrote a few months back.
Look, fundamentally, as Democrats, we KNOW we are right. We know that if everyone cooly looked at the issues, and the candidates, then this election would be a no-brainer. Part of the "change" that I think this election season should be about is that we shouldn't be hesitant about our own beliefs. Instead of making our arguments within the GOP frame of reference, ie, presupposing that their ideas are simply superior to ours, we need to start making our OWN arguments on our OWN merits.
Let me give you an example of how this is relevant (and it brings me back to the thing Josh wrote). On the issue of "100 years". All of us know that, in reality, we're stretching John McCain's meaning when we tut and shake our heads repeating, "100 years". This is unfair to McCain. What he's talking about is 100 years of non-violent occupation. BUT, the simple fact is - this doesn't mitigate the '100 years' claim in any way, since it is basically saying: At some, undisclosed, point, we will "win" the war. At that point, we can then begin to be in Iraq for 100 further years, and no one will mind because it will basically be a vacation for our troops in a sunny, stable democracy.
So the problem is that McCain hasn't told us how/when/if we're going to get from stage A (what Iraq is like now) to Stage B (what it's like in his fantasy dream, where it's so good we decide to stay for a century.) *THAT* is the problem with the 100 years claim, not the '100 years' part, per se.
The problem is, in the minds of most voters, the argument just comes full circle, since we're back to McCain not having a plan to get us out, which is basically the same as saying he wants us there for 100 years. So do you bother correcting the MSM if they use this claim? I don't know.
July 13, 2008 7:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not sure that any of that made any sense. I've had two hours sleep in the last two days. And now I've just about got time for another four hours before I have to be up again. So, goodnight.
July 13, 2008 7:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
It does make sense (I say to a hopefully sleeping TTGZ), but the only issue I have with it is a matter of personal integrity. I know that McCain said what he said. But I also believe that it was an off-the-cuff statement, and that he has since modified the position somewhat. The core issue remains, and the fact that he is someone who is prone to making inflammatory and poorly thought out statements like that (and is very sickening joke about cigarettes killing people in Iran) is a part of his weakness, but it's a subtle thing. Reagan was like that. He quipped, and his based loved him. Reagan once said, "You've seen one Redwood tree and you've seen them all."
So, you and Josh are probably right. We might win better by spinning our points and doing it the Rovian way, but it diminishes us in my mind, and ultimately, I think we can win by telling the truth.
Having just said that, the truth may be too subtle for the average American to grasp for a number of reasons, not all of them disparaging. So in that case, I tend to agree with you because "100 years" is a meme that simply gets embedded in people's minds, like flip-flop and swift boat. That seems to be the level of discourse in our country now, and it can decide elections. Given that framework, I would agree totally with you. Go after McCain with sound bites, but have somewhere for deeper analysis if anyone has time to discover more and the requisite interest to do so.
July 13, 2008 7:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Makes sense to me.
July 13, 2008 7:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Self indulgent waste of time and energy.
July 13, 2008 8:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
You must be describing your comment.
July 13, 2008 9:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mandy, you have twice made hit-and-run attacks on this idea, but without really offering any substantive reason for your scorn. Now I'm not saying that this idea will work. I've never said that. I'm saying that we're trying to find a way to make our voices heard. If we fail to do so, then we fail - but at least we tried.
Self-indulgent? What is TPM Cafe, other than the self-indulgence of all of us expressing our opinions in this vacuum of anonymous net space? At least, in this effort, we're trying to do something, however unlikely, that makes a real difference outside of this little insular self-indulgent world. Have you something to offer that is better, or that would make a difference, because, if so, I'd love to hear it.
July 13, 2008 11:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Full support here for everything - great work, Raider and everyone. Off message, I wonder if Reagan ever visited Muir Woods? One redwood wouldn't be anything like.
July 13, 2008 9:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I lived in Marin County at the time. My point exactly. Reagan's "quip" about redwoods pissed me off and forever soured me on him. It was sick, as anyone who has seen a redwood grove can attest. And if you haven't seen a redwood grove, I hope you will sometime in your life. They are magnificent.
July 14, 2008 12:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
I love it. My only concern: do we want to flood every system? Wouldn't it be prudent to only flood the systems which lie? And specifically, to flood those systems within 24 hours of their dishonest broadcast?
We should notify all the systems when we start a flood, but not flood them too. Then we would be sending the message that we're going to flood everyone no matter whether you report the truth or not. I think we're trying to impose a control system on these systems. We don't want to shut them down entirely; we just want them to know there will be consequences if they lie.
On another level, we are like a Truth Police. We don't want to create the impression we are terrorists -- even though Fox and company will say that anyway.
July 13, 2008 9:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good points. Not sure what's best here, but if we get so far as to really be able to start this kind of campaign, we can experiment with different approaches and gauge the results. I've learned that even the best designers in the world don't get it right from the start. It takes the positive/negative feedback loop to refine any concept or idea or movement.
July 13, 2008 11:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think you're right: the loops are necessary; no one gets it the right first go-round. Our approaches will evolve. I think we still should aim for a clear cut blueprint -- make sure we're all on the same page so that we can move as a unit.
July 14, 2008 3:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed. We're trying to refine and agree on a message and method.
July 14, 2008 10:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
What about branding posts that refer to this/these specific endeavors with SCAAMd in the title for quick reference?
July 14, 2008 2:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
I like that idea a lot... headline "SCAAMD: xxxx"
July 14, 2008 5:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's a great idea if we brand ourselves. I think we're still figuring out if we are going to try to work with existing sites and encourage them to improve their methods or start something of our own. The starting something of our own is definitely a challenge that I don't think we are, so far, up to solving. If we head in that direction, we will need some dedicated volunteers and some resources.
July 14, 2008 10:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Satyagraha has posted a nice revision of the mission statement here:
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/07/scaamd-tools-repackaged-1.php
Definitely worth a look.
July 14, 2008 11:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am not sure about the effectiveness of the complaint/activism portion of the approach wrt feedback to the offending party, the MSM seem pretty tone deaf to anything that does not negatively impact the bottom line. We need to find something with more teeth. (Public executions??)
I would love to see some form of accreditation, as I saw in a related post about there existing a standard of journalistic ethics, whereby journalists and/or media outlets expecting press credentials be rejected for failing to adhere to accepted standards of reporting.
As I posted elsewhere I am beginning to lean toward some form of tax exempt status for genuine news outlets. We regulate churches for what we consider political speech, and we are able, in courts of law, to determine what is perjurious or misleading testimony. These tax exempt news outlets would be prohibited from engaging in inaccurate reporting or political speech or chance losing their tax status.
This is an incomplete thought but just thought I would throw it out there for discussion. News outlets if nothing else need to be shamed, or compelled, to adhere to a minimum standard of journalistic integrity with regard to the facts. The press enjoys special protections under the first amendment and we should demand that they fulfill their obligation to act in the public interest to continue to enjoy these protections.
It used to be with the greatest humility that journalists would publicly retract erroneous statements or implications. The research and editorial departments of the major media outlets should be ashamed of the pudding they put out there labeled as reporting these days (80% speculation and innuendo - maybe 20% facts).
Because this entertainment news media consolidation thing just isn't working out.
Just a thought.
July 14, 2008 11:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment