We're simply spending our dollars elsewhere than on the MSM. I missed Wimbledon on TV for the first time in thirty years because we don't get NBC anymore. Once the digital switch occurs, we're trashing our idiot boxes.

To do this right, we might need a separate site called something like MSM WATCH. Unfortunately, once a error iisue has been published, the world of journalism and cover reporting moves so fast, that our voices and others calling attention to the truth are like a Newspaper retraction of a front page story printed on page 14. It seems to me that we would need a volunteer crew and editors assigned to watch each MSM and react as soon as a dumb thing is published. As soon as it is spotted it would go to MSMWATCH where bloggers would investigate immediately and provide contrary sources-Then complete rebuttal story goes up. We might have to accept vounteers to take four hour watches like a ship at sea. Once it worked journalists would know they couldnt ignore MSMWATCH without taking a chance on being wrong and more important their work in debunking would already be done for them. FACTCHECK.org has decent reputation we would need to build the saem from the beginning

I do not understand why no one has yet gotten a group together to write [or call] news sources to complain every time they neglect to report McCain's flip-flops, fabrications and/or misstates facts and figures, etc..., but have no problem taking Obama's words out of context and call him a flip-flop.

Unless we start complaining MSM will continue misleading the electorate.

If they ignore us or refuse to take a balanced approach we could take it to their advertisers and threaten to boycott.

something along MSMWATCH lines could be co-ordinated with a local approach to news services by getting the support of several local elected representatives. During the election cycles, congressmen, state senators, mayors, etc, are in constant contact with local media. A grassroots movement (perhaps start with some members of congress who already owe the Netroots a favor or two from funding, etc) could therefore do three things-

1. Set up MSMWATCH, through campuses and volunteers. (difficult in summer)
2. Bombard local media with a daily digest of our findings.
3. Have local campaigns refer to us by name on a daily basis when in contact with local media.

Furthermore, it would be a good victory if any sympathetic local news organizations were to include a daily "MSM-BUSTING" feature - a column in the newspaper, a three minute item on the morning news. Even if it were light-hearted, the constant poking of fun at the MSM would eventually gain attention.

impatientraider99, you just posted this at 5.

I think these ideas are all first-rate and that elements of all could be combined into one comprehensive, streamlined campaign.

I love Jester's idea of a viral page (maybe a monthly viral page or anything viral). I think a viral youtube video would also be a great idea. Things like that and maybe an expose could be used to launch the program and get "brand" exposure.

So first a viral video and viral page launch on lots of sites and youtube and e-mail? And a central clearing house that covers MSM stuff that has arms that reach out to local independent journalist orgs and local journalism programs. A daily video icon that could go on national and local blogs, news sites and nonprofits that want to promote fact-based journalism and be considered trustworthy information and news providers.

Maybe the central clearinghouse heart of this organization has it's own muckraker type website as DonnaG suggested or is a remake of the Horses Mouth as Ially suggested. This central clearinghouse site as Raider's original idea proposes with the propaganda-buster incidents and write-ups and they promptly stream in from the volunteers on seniorobserver's 24 hour watch from tpmgary's local chapters.

This central site could also be the "action" site where readers could take action a la CarolBG and serena1313 pressure using tactics from Oregan activists media 101, Ripper McCord's AP plan, athelia's mass petition and encourage Donal's just say no approach.

As Jumping Jack says, maybe part of what the organization would do is have journalists who find misinformation, such as fogu2 comments, send their findings directly to the journalists who wrote the misleading articles or made misleading statements. That might motivate journalists to get jobs where they were given the resources and encouragement to produce fact-based reports.

Once a year, someone could put together an expose, a gold-standard report, to fill interested parties in on the status of MSM accuracy.

And perhaps Lux Umbra Dei will file a class action lawsuit based upon the evidence documented in the expose.

When I googled for news watchdogs, I found an advertisement watchdog group that has successfully pressured the networks to drop 50% of the ads it felt encouraged eating disorders. Interesting and worth a look at their methods:

Nationaleatingdisorders.org

More later...

I think talking with successful organizations that already exist is the best approach. I would think strategy conversations with such organizations would elicit some sage advice and plenty of help if the right plan was put together.

raider, send me your phone number to eddiestinkypants@att.net

Raider

Thanks and great post. See, things are happening and this will grow into a very positive and productive movement. You have lots of support. If we can get Josh on board and perhaps a site to list all the infractions and who to contact, I truly believe it can be huge. I've already talked to several who don't post here and even they are on board!
I'm so proud of you! And that you took your auntie's plea to heart, sigh. You always were my favorite nephew!

Just a few idle thoughts.

My litigation option was to follow unsuccessful regulation attempts.

But if time is of the essence, one could proceed with a class lawsuit against a test network, say Murdoch's outfit, using some kind of implied warranty theory combined with the original legislative intent in granting the networks their airwaves. That effort would fail, I can tell you. It is next to impossible to prove reckless disregard for the truth so I'm told, but that's not really the point. The point is that the suit would in itself be newsworthy and make it into the 24 hours news cycle.

Now I have never looked closely at the start or end of any of the news broadcasts, but if they do not put some kind of small print language such as "_________makes no warranty implied or expressed as to the reliability, truthfulness or impartiality of any content herein broadcast", then maybe the courts should force them to.

Raider, This is off recent list already. Please, keep it going, post another - as you can see it works. This is too important. People do care and want this continued!

Another idea. I used to try to write comments or letters to the editor or email to the TV/Radio Station/talking head on every item that Colorado Media Matters put up. It got too overwhelming & I have slacked off.

However, if we could get a whole army of volunteers to cover certain days or even specific media or issues, we could, perhaps, keep up the pressure without the burnout of trying to do everything... and make a lot more impact by having a group of people target each and every item.

Right now I think that it is catch as catch can as to how many responses get sent out. People pick the items that they are most offended by and respond to those or they get burned out, like me, and hope that others will take up the slak. We could organize better than that!

It needs to be much more than an online effort. Otherwise we are mostly talking to the choir. We need more effort in newspapers, radio and even appearances on local TV news shows.

Just think about the anti-war movement... there have been a lot of marches, some quite large, but if you were not activly searching for news online, you would never have known about them because the MSM refused to show them and if they did show them it was about 10 seconds and a tight shot that didn't show the full extent of the march or protest.

Volunteers could even have a list of others that they could contact if they were ill or otherwise unavailable to cover the items that they had committed to cover.

We could also use some training on how to respond to different items in order to get the best response. Not anything too rigid, mostly just known words or phrases that turn off the listening/reading audience.

How do you really engage people to listen to you when you criticize the MSM, or local media, get your point across about the inaccuracy of the media but do it with respect for the listening/reading public?

For one thing, I think that we should stay away from the word 'bias' in the media. A great portion of people in the country have been brainwashed to think that the media is 'liberal' so the word 'bias' may cause a backlash. There has to be a new way to approach the Bush/McCain positive bias of the MSM.

There are literally hundreds of 'liberal' blogs out there (and I use the word 'liberal' proudly! We need to take back the word and define it properly. No more letting the GOP define us!) but we need to organize where we can, get together to make a much larger impact!

I would even like to see a website that liberal blogs could be congregated on. Set up with topics/issues so that you could go to one place to access any liberal blog that was talking about an issue that you are interested in. Then you could see what blogs were saying all over the country, or world since there are so many Americans living abroad, about one issue.

The neo-cons have gotten ahead of us over the last 30 years by organizing. We need to make up for lost time. One example, I believe, is Center for American Progress. They do great work but I would bet that the 'middle of the road voter' has never heard of them. Even c-span rarely has them on. C-span seems to think that Heritage and AEI are actually non-partisan!

We need to take advantage of the few 'liberal' think-tanks that we have and promote them whenever possible. This can't be just about bloggers, it has to be about a total message including as many outlets as possible.

OK, so maybe I got a little carried away.

Ripper McCord had a good post on how he has dealt directly with department heads at the AP, and has even had stories changed based on his criticism.

Jumpy Jack suggested doing the MSM’s homework for them and emailing journalists with the real stories, complete with facts and truth and all that.

I'm glad Ripper's had success. I've tried writing directly to the "journalists" like Jumpy Jack has, and I have received some pretty defensive and sometimes kind of nasty responses. But I didn't involve editors or department heads, which is, of course, the smarter way to go about it. There's nothing that compels the journalists to pass our comments along.

In my next post, I printed a message I wrote to Media Matters and Free Press suggesting a landing page that more or less fit the description above. I asked people for their ideas, and several people supported this concept, even going so far as to write to these sites themselves to reinforce the idea.

Regarding Media Matters, is it possible to draw on their reports and disseminate them as support in the "viral" emailing? If we were to credit them properly, would that be violating copyright?

I've sent many stories out to my political mailing list (mostly composed of people friendly to the message but not aware of the issues) that I credit to Media Matters but frame myself.

Or perhaps a group of us needs to establish a Website devoted to debunking and correcting (I don't think what you're proposing is actually muckraking)? Do we take up a collection and direct donations into a PayPal account designated for supporting the Website?

Once the Website had been established, an email list can develop from our own email lists. I don't think I'm the only one here who sends out political stuff to people I know. The list can grow by asking people to forward our emails if they think they're valuable to people on their lists. We can make it easy for people to register at the site to receive updates, the way Media Matters does. I think that this would be a better way to get the information out than relying on the viral method, but maybe you and others think that the two methods can work together.

It would take a commitment from a core of people who would stock the site with MSM smears and errors copied from the sources and the corrections. That core would also be responsible for ensuring accuracy in what the site presented as the real story. Then the emails would have to be constructed and sent out. This would require more than one person to have administration functions, unless there's one soul out there who's willing to take it on alone. (We're an anarchic syndicalist collective who take it in turns to chair meetings ...)

I agree that there needs to be an ongoing method of calling the MSM's bias and outright laziness to account, and it can be done. I am clear on the concept I'm envisioning, but I don't have the technical knowledge even too start it. It's not that we'd have to invent something new; there are models out there to follow.

Reactions?

So, I think I've read just about every comment in the thread, but I didn't see Fair.org mentioned. Just went to their website and they have an "Action Alert Network", so I joined. I'll let you know how that works out.
I think your SCAAMD org is a great idea. How about setting it up with links to all the other sites concerned with the fourth estate's abdication of its responsibilites?
For my part, I will undertake to monitor my local newspaper ("Bakersfield Californian"), do fact-checking on stories concerning the election, and let them know when I think they've published erroneous information or completely missed stories that were newsworthy.
Of course, all this focus on having the MSM get stories correct and publish stories that merit telling presumes an electorate that: 1) actually pays attention to the news, 2) is capable of thinking critically about the implications of that news, and 3) is willing to make the efforts required to act on those implications. Sadly, there is not a lot of faith in Americans' having those characteristics ("Dark Ages America", "Just How Stupid Are We?", "The Dumbest Generation").
I'm willing, though, to make my puny existential effort and hope that my and others' concern is able to work a change in what information we get and how we get it.