Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Coalition to Fight Media Bias

IMO the MSM is clearly out of control.... anyone think this kind of effort can help to turn the left wing tide?

Lots of links here:
http://www.50millionamericans.org/


A Citizens Coalition to Fight Media Bias

We the People have been duped. It is painfully apparent that many of the largest media and news organizations in this country are corrupt and are incapable of being straight with us. These organizations have rejected their ethical obligations and now serve as voluntary propagandists to an openly biased political and social agenda.

In just the last few days we've witnessed several different reports where mainstream-media (MSM) representatives have dropped any pretense of objectivity and have openly admitted working with an institutionalized bias. They have confirmed purposely attacking people who do not fit this bias, and confirm failing to do their duty to adequately investigate those people who best fit the bias.

Some have gone on to inform us that they intend to continue to work with a bias because "they must do all they can to make this new presidency work". How much more misdirected and professionally compromised can you be as a news commentator or journalist?

It is every American's duty to help ensure our young President-Elect succeeds, makes the right decisions, and guides the nation to a prosperous and safe future. This can not, however, be done by burying our heads in the sand and hoping.
Main stream journalism is corrupt, and probably has been for decades.

While the recent election dominates the current examples of MSM's failure of duty, this is not an entirely partisan problem. Our media's laziness and bias misinforms Americans on many subjects and events locally and globally, and presumes we lack the intelligence to form opinions for ourselves when given the news.

This is unacceptable.

I was reading comments at HotAir - and the frustration, disappointment, anger, and sense of urgency to "do something" about this besides complain was apparent.

One of these comments in particular (top right) inspired me to create this website as a beacon to other like-minded citizens, so that we may have a place to gather and organize, share ideas and resources, and create a meaningful referendum to demand objectivity from American journalism.

I alone am completely unqualified to make this happen. But if enough citizens and consumers join together, set aside whatever petty differences that may divide us, become involved and truly focus on accomplishment, we can use real market pressure to demand more from our MSM than yellow journalism.

Judging by the level of response to this idea, I'll spend more of my own time and money to create a forum, bringing together whatever web-based tools we need to accomplish the task.

I have no idea if it will have an impact, but at first look, I like it.

Providing facts, not formulating opinion is what a free press was intended to be about.
Political advocacy is subject to law, the press now being advocates, should be as well.
The next step is demand political neutrality in educational institutions that receive public dollars.

Sorry, but I believe in the first amendment. There are some stupid things said on radio T.V. and the internet. A lot of it is just entertainment. If you are not smart enough to read, research and decide then maybe you are not cut out to be free.

Both parties would love to silence the MSM and have you only hear their talking heads.

Piper

If YOU are not smart enough to understand that control of information matters you haven't read much history..... comrade

As opposed to what? Just the Democrat's talking heads, cuz that's what the media is.................. That First Amendment has to cut BOTH ways, or it's useless, like it is right now.

The first amendment does cut both ways. Fox, Rush, Mewsmax are not my idea of Democrat talking heads. In fact there are hundreds of Conservative programs and well as hundreds of liberal ones.

Are you proposing that we do away with the first and hire a e of hundred thousand trustworthy souls to moniter and control what is said and printed?

How about we ban and burn some books while we are at it? Then we could appoint a group to look at the various forums and control what is said here.

Nope , sorry, but as I said before I believe in the Constitution: all of it.

Piper

It sounds OK, but will be just some more preaching to the choir and having "members" pay him a good salary, IMO.

I see nothing here addressing advocacy of the press for a political party.

I do have an issue with a moment of silence, or prayer being banned though.

Newspapers being advocates of parties or candidates goes back to the founding, so it's clear the Framers of the Constitution had no problems with it and in fact welcomed it.

You and I look at this differently. You look for strick wording to say something is OK to do. I look and don't see anything preventing it. I also do not see anything preventing a moment of silence, but do see a problem with the Government promoting one religion over another.

Now if this guy wants to collect money and set himself up as a bias czar, let him raise the money and see who follows; that is the American way. Kinda strange to me that someone who shows bias as he does wants you to think he is against bias.

Piper

We certainly do see it differently. One protection of the first, is for a free press. Free to be critical of the government, in fact ensure that it was held in check.

What we have now is a press that is an advocate for a societal change that our founders fought to bury, a central power.

Jeff

Its real simple; you either want a free press or you don't. I can see from your tag line you don't believe in a free press so I'm sure I'm wasting my time.

I feel about this like I feel about those that think the 2nd. is quaint and needs to be stricken from the books.

You can't have a free press and tell them what they can print.

The readers/advertizers get to decide with their dollars. Readers can and do write taking exception to various views. It's a pretty good system.

Piper

My tag line is self explanatory and a long way from your interpretation of it.

A free press is vital, a propaganda arm is suicidal. There is quite a bit of historical evidence, and dead dodies, to support that.

Jeff

I think I do understand your tag line. You are saying we don't have a free press. To a point I'll agree with that, but I'd add that you can't make it free by controlling what can be said.

You can start a blog site and advocate for anything you wish; should something/someone be able to control that? You can write a book or have a T.V. or radio show and do the same thing.

Now be honest; is Rush a beacon of truth or an propoganda arm ?

I think Rush is a windbag but IMHO he has every right to say what he wishes.

Piper

Those that listen to,....and understand "Narco Corrida",....broadcast internally,......in this "Good Old",

......just may take a different approach to " Freedom of the Air / Channels"

......cutting the towers off at the ground might be a good place to start,

....albeit " Discriminatory / Unfair"

Cryin' out loud,....grow up,....Piper.

GTC

Well gee crossfire. Since radio waves can travel around the world; I can sit here and listen to RFA or BBC what we really need is someone brilliant like you to work up a radio wave inteceptor and man it 24 hours a day, only letting those messages that you approve get through. We can let Jeff handle the internet blogs.

Get to work on that and keep us posted.

Piper

Huge difference:




As to any reference to Rush Limbaugh, he doesn't claim to be anything other than an entertainer. That is no threat to me. NPR, the Saint Paul Pioneer Press, ABC, etc.. claiming to be press organizations, while actively pursuing democrat power is.

A free press dedicated to challenging the governments lust for power is what we are supposed to have.

Having a press supporting one parties views, does that alarm you?

......I reckon that with that somewhat turgid post you've just put a whole new meaning on "Missing the Point"

.....like most of your ilk,....too damn tied up in your own agenda to actually READ and interpret something right in front of you.

Opinions solicitted,.....was my point all that hard to make out?

GTC

"� ouR PictuRes Must alWays tell the tRuth�

Some distortion seems to have crept into that creed... still an interesting read.... well worth a look IMO

http://rising.blackstar.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/photoethics.pdf

I didn't have a clue as to the broadcast you refer to, but will try to learn. The balance of the post I deciphered.

Above the fold

"Wall Street greed tanks markets"

Below the fold, a photo --altered, or not-- of President Bush.

Page 11c: "Mortgage markets involved in bail-out", no photo accompaniang. Paragraph one of the story will point out the republican efforts to deregulate markets was key. There will be no mention of democrats mandating junk loans.