Man, is this ever long overdue! I've been wondering for years why someone didn't step forward to launch a REAL news network that wasn't owned and controlled by corporate interests.
FINALLY, the call has been answered! I wonder how long it'll be after it hits the TV, before the current mainstream media is reduced to the laughing stock that many of us already think they are?
I believe that this will be the most important launch in US media history, and could very well hold the potential for saving this nation from the death grip of fascism that it is currently succumbing to. As Jefferson said, "A strong democracy needs an informed populace." Yet, as we all know, our mainstream media just flat our refuses to inform us. Real news is the solution.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 66
Will bookmark it, the site looks great even in beta form! Thanks for directing me to this, Clark!
Soooo worth the donation of $10 a month. It is about time.
I hope it works and stays!
Thanks, Clark~my hero! ♥
J
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
This looks interesting. I hope this news network will be ACCURATE and honest.
America is so in need of truth.
Control your communications systems and you control YOUR world
The rantings of a nut, right?
I figured no one would have a clue as to what I was talking about, but you got the cryptic message, obviously and I thank you.
Gore Vidal was all I needed to see on the link to tell me that it was legitimately a valid source for information and -- perhaps-- one I can trust.
Clark, I do not trust the media. We've always been taught the "enemy" promotes and distributes propaganda, such as Communistic "Pravda", but what about our own media? What about our entire communications system, and I mean everything from radio, TV, satellite, cable, telephone, newspapers, magazines -- whatever falls under the category of "communications" IS controlled and frankly my patience is growing (oh, and I forgot, the Internet, which was created by the Government), but patience is growing short with those who SLEEP.
Thank you for getting it, and for the link. I shall begin to use that source, at least it is something.
By the way, check out, if you already haven't, what Gather has done to Stacey H. She says she's off Gather now. I don't have the full story ...
For the first time since I've owned computers my anti-virus system is picking up
"Trojans". So far it's identified 3 and counting. Yes, that's what I awoke to. And I thought I was being cryptic
Control your communications system and you control YOUR world
People still won't get it, Clark.
They'll still think I'm some kind of nut, but THANK YOU!
I need to see if I can't figure out what's going on with Stacey, and find the Achilles heel in some Trojans -- 3 ... and counting! :=)
I miss the days when newscasters just READ the news, and didn't inflect their own opinions into the mix. I'm skeptical that truly unbiased news can be reported these days.............but I'll watch with hope.
Sorry. The truth has an obvious, overt liberal slant. You're going to be sorely disappointed with this network, I'm sure, because they're going to report the truth.
You have to dig deeper to find liberal, and as has been said, there you will most likely find the truth because that is more what liberal stands for. For those living a preferred slanted falsehood, even the truth is a dirty word ... much like liberal is to them ... they have 'facts' though ... just ask them.
Truly blind. No wonder you spew the Bush hatred.
The "Left" means any who do not accept this fable. Any who do not believe in some sort of incorruptible dream America, which exists in the minds of those who call themselves "right" Americans. They cannot see any problem at all with labeling the main stream media liberal, because every once in a while someone on it criticizes the fabled America in some way.
That proves it, they don't faithfully adhere to "team America". They actually doubt the assumed "rightness" of it, which is itself a "leftist" indicator. It is the universal acceptance of the fable which is seen as the only acceptable goal for a "centrist" to have, and is the starting point for measuring what is left, and what is right.
These people actually believe this approach is what it means to be a good citizen, they actually believe it's that simple.
From the Wikipedia entry:
"Democracy Now! is the flagship national program of the Pacifica Radio network on which it airs. It also airs on NPR and community radio stations; public access cable television stations; and both Free Speech TV (channel 9415 on DISH Network) and Link TV (channel 375 on the DirecTV and channel 9410 on DISH Network). Democracy Now! is available over the Internet, as both streaming audio and video, and as a podcast."
We're so happy to have you explain, but it is funny that you never hear that out of our mouth. Hmmmm... could be your far left liberal bias. Maybe ;)
It's reallly sad that so many seemingly intelligent people will choose a clearly biased news source and call it "real news" with the idea that there is NO slant in their news reporting. Are you people that stupid?
Really?
Victor said,
"Media today is overwhelmingly liberal and you yourself said that it fails to inform us."
Facts:
Keep up with the truth about our airwaves,
http://www.cspanjunkies.org/who-owns-the-airwaves/
excerpt:
In the 1980s, Fritts worked with the Reagan administration to help kill the "fairness doctrine" that required broadcasters to give equal time to countervailing viewpoints. In 1992, he and his top lobbyists persuaded Congress to override a veto by then-President Bush and pass the Cable Television and Consumer Protection Competition Act, which put restrictions onto a burgeoning rival industry. Now Fritts is up against an array of new opponents: public safety officials, wireless carriers, and technology companies, as well as public-interest groups fed up with broadcasters.
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/04/11/461/
Take Back the Airwaves
by Amy Goodman
As the TV pundits on the networks gab about the tens of millions of dollars raised by the top presidential candidates, what they don't talk about is where that money is going: to their own networks.
Money is now considered the single most important factor in our electoral process. Ideas and issues take a back seat to the bottom line. This prostitution of our electoral process has one key culprit: television advertising.
Political advertising makes or breaks candidates, and it takes a huge amount of money to implement a national advertising strategy. Now more than 20 states are piling onto Feb. 5, 2008, as their primary day, including states like California and New York with large, expensive media markets. The early, deciding role of money and television advertising in determining who gets to run for president is secure.
The costs of running for federal office have been skyrocketing. More than $880 million was raised by the 2004 presidential campaigns. The 2008 election is expected to cost more than $1 billion. Sixty percent will be spent on advertising.
The citizens are the losers, and the broadcasters and elite political consultants are the winners. We ought to turn this around. The public owns the airwaves that are being used by the big corporate broadcasters. The broadcasters, like NBC, ABC and CBS, have an obligation to use those airwaves "in the public interest, convenience and necessity." These profitable corporations take these public airwaves for free, then peddle them for exorbitant advertising rates.
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/McChesney/OurMediaNotTheirs_article.html
excerpt:
activists are well aware that over the past generation the political right has zeroed in on the media as a primary target for their political work. According to Sally Covington's study of leading conservative foundations, they have spent in the vicinity of one-half of their funds to promote pro-corporate, right-wing media and media "deregulation." In addition to having deep pockets, these big-bankroll conservatives march in ideological harmony with much of the commercial news media, especially on matters of neoliberal economic policy, free trade and military interventions abroad. As the media cheer on a potentially perpetual war that has yet to be declared-let alone explained in a coherent manner-it feels like the situation is only deteriorating.
Demoralized about the prospects for structural changes, progressives channeled their energies toward what they can change and improve: their own media. Yet as important as this work is there are inherent limits to what can be done with independent media, even with access to the Internet. Too often, the alternative media remain on the margins, seemingly confirming that commercial media conglomerates have become so massive because they "give the people what they want."
The problem with this disconnect is that it suggests that corporate media have mastered the marketplace on the basis of their wit and wisdom. In fact, our media system is not the legitimate result of free market competition. It is the result of relentless lobbying from big-business interests that have won explicit government policies and subsidies permitting them to scrap public-interest obligations and increase commercialization and conglomeration. It is untenable to accept such massive subsidies for the wealthy, and to content ourselves with the "freedom" to forge alternatives that only occupy the margins.
The mainstream media is not liberal in the least. There IS a liberal media, but it does not exist in the mainstream. There is also a right wing media. The difference is that the right wing media has figured out how to penetrate into the mainstream media, to drive their message. Their most critical message is that the mainstream media is "liberal."
Why? Because, if they cannot get people to believe that, they have no defense when harsh truths are told that tear off chunks of the right wing agenda. What better way to get 1/2 the population to ignore reality than to convince them that, whenever they hear or see inconvenient truths, it's because of the "liberal media," and they can simply ignore those truths.
This myth of a "liberal media" is really the #1 weapon that the right wing media has used to numb their audience and prepare them for psychological assault. First, you have to eliminate or negate the effects of truth and reason, if you're going to shove an agenda down the throats of the masses that runs completely counter to their own best interests.
It's devious, twisted, and evil, but it's shockingly brilliant and effective. You can see for yourselves right here that those who believe in a "liberal media" truly, deeply believe that to be the case, regardless of how irrational or baseless that may be. They will likely never believe otherwise, because this mantra has been hammered into them ever since Limbaugh took to the air.
It really doesn't matter, however, because the truth always finds a way out, and is quickly absorbed and spread by those who see that we're being manipulated. Consider the rather disturbing fact that, in a recent study, viewers of the Comedy Central version of news were the most informed viewers in the country, while those who watched Fox were the least informed. What does that say? One network is providing humor, by showing the country how absurd the right wing machinations of the media are, while the other is in the business of manipulation. That the comedy version, which holds up the blinding hypocrisy and shameful failures of the mainstream media, actually provides some real news that people embrace is a sign that something is very, very wrong.
"A strong democracy requires an informed populace." By today's standards, our only hope for democracy is Comedy Central. God help us.
Some years ago, shortly after 9/11, I turned off my television, and began to gather my information solely through Al Gore's glorious invention. I already knew that the right wing media lied, because they'd done so overtly during the 2000 campaign and beyond. And, I knew that those lies frequently made it into the mainstream media. (Those with an interest in examining this further should get a copy of Robert Greenwald's "OUTFOXED," and read David Brock's books "Blinded by the right" and "The republican noise machine." Both illustrate exactly how the right wing media gets their agenda into the mainstream media).
At any rate, I began reading articles from around the world. I was immediately taken back at how much a single story could change from one publication to another. I also hung out at another message board, so I knew what the mainstream media was obsessing over, and what they said about specific issues. I was disgusted at how they presented stories.
There was never any attempt to portray the truth. There was never any attempt to view any story from different angles. Often times, I would read articles covering the same story, about something happening overseas, for instance, and would actually get a view of the OTHER side of the story. The mainstream media NEVER examined this, and in fact, if ANYONE, even a guest on a pundit program, mentions any view from another angle, they're instantly cast as "lefty liberal."
Why? Why is it that anyone who is willing to look at ALL angles of a story, and is willing to accept whatever truths lie within, and refuses to accept the manipulations of the mainstream media, is a "lefty liberal?" Why couldn't it be that that person is simply intellectually curious and has too much integrity to allow himself to be manipulated?
See, this is the insidious nature of the right wing mantra of a "liberal media." No story can be truthful or accepted, unless it is seen to favor the right wing agenda, or at the very least, not to damage it.
So, an organization like "Democracy now," which provides brilliant journalism and truly presents multiple views of stories, and without a political agenda, is viewed by the robots as "liberal." Amy Goodman is certainly liberal, and she hasn't attempted to hide that, but that doesn't mean that she presents her interviews and stories with a liberal agenda. She is liberal in the sense that I am, with regard to news. She wants to see ALL sides of a story, and presents them that way, rather than accepting the manufactured version that the mainstream media shoves down our throats.
The interesting thing to note when a Don attacks a Democracy Now (or later, without doubt, REAL NEWS, since they will present factual information as well, which, as we've already seen, has an obvious liberal slant), is that they cannot see that the stories presented on a Democracy Now are not the same stories, and not the same angles of stories that are presented in what they deem the "liberal media."
If the media were truly liberal, wouldn't they be hiring an Amy Goodman, and pushing a liberal agenda, instead of simply regurgitating the same manufactured "news" that appears on all of the mainstream media? And, why on earth would the mainstream media focus so intently on utter nonsense that means nothing to anyone, such as the ridiculous Paris Hilton? If the mainstream media were liberal, wouldn't they instead want to focus on driving the "liberal agenda?"
In reality, the mainstream media, aside from AM radio and Fox, of course, is neither left wing nor right wing. It is a profit center, and the stories presented, and the manner in which those stories are presented, are driven by the need for profits. Wars are profitable, particularly for defense contractors, many of whom are tied to the mainstream media in one way or another. Thus, for nearly a full year, every "news" channel blasted "WAR WITH IRAQ," while not a single one blasted "PEACE WITH IRAQ."
However, the right wing media, as I've stated, has been VERY successful in promoting their talking points right through the mainstream media. Again, OUTFOXED may be the best example of how this is done. Remember, during the final phases of the 2000 campaign, when there was a new story nearly every day, of how Al Gore was lying or stretching the truth? Did you know that not a single one of those stories was factual? Did you know that every single one of them originated in right wing think tanks and distributed to pundits and columnists in the right wing media to repeat, over and over again?
Remember the swift boat liars? Did you know that their agenda was uncovered, and many of them were PROVEN to be liars with a financial incentive to do what they were doing, withing a day or so of the story breaking? Yet, how long did the "liberal media" obsess over this story? For nearly a full month, this was the ONLY story on every "news" network in the country, even though it had almost immediately been proven a non-story. The result was that Kerry's substantial poll lead was whittled to a dead heat by the end of the month. Some "liberal media," huh?
The fact is, there will always be a few Don's, Rich's, and Victor's, who refuse to accept truth that doesn't fit their agenda. For them, anything that offers multiple views of a story, so that a reader or viewer can actually formulate their own opinion, rather than rely upon the opinion of an ideologue, and especially anything that offers truths that they simply do not wish to accept, will remain a threat, and they will forever attack it and brush it aside.
The rest of us can breathe a sigh of relief that we're about to be blessed with a news network that actually has the courage to speak the truth, regardless of who that truth offends, or who finds it inconvenient to accept.
But after reading the comments I am blown away with the wisdom and truth so eloquently expressed.
Thank you gentlemen and women who have enough smarts and all of the other decent qualities to seek and express truth. You all said it so much better than I ever could have ... I am grateful to be in such company ... it gives me some hope after all for our nation and the world !
I must add one thing though to where Clark says that the MSM is neither conservative nor liberal ... only seeking profit.
I must add that PROFIT IS what the RIGHT IS all about !!! ... and in that regard, the MSM ... including the NYT IS CONservative ... and we are all being CONNED because THAT IS their INTENT.
Just as the major FOX 'news' programs have a 'representative' liberal on as a foil for the audience to both HATE for the in-their-face liberalism presented ... that being the whole idea ... get the righties that watch such to hate all the more the message they despise already ... and also to be able to defend their source as 'fair and balanced' when us 'others' declare FOX (and MSM) as being too far right.
When one truly seeks TRUTH, they will never settle for the 'usual' sources, they will dig deep and look at the entire offering of information wherever that takes them ... it is very obvious to a truth seeker which commenters here have done their homework.
So anyway, as a much more informed consumer than the righties commenting here it seems, I know for a fact that even the NYT is NOT liberal because the liberal that I know of seeks the whole story and is solely about truth ... that seems to be the meaning of liberal in the truest sense of the word. Do unto others as you would have done unto you. Jesus was a liberal by ALL standards worth a damn. There was nothing 'neo' about him. One that knows 'that' truth, realises that right wing Evangelicals are just NEOchristians.
Clark, your article and the entire thread deserve much wider exposure than it gets just here ... thanks for your interest and labor to spread the truth !
What an absurd statement. Where is this study and who backed the study, or do we just buy into your crap hook, line and sinker? I could tear apart every other sentence that comes out of your mouth.... I just don't have the time or patience.
" Did you know that every single one of them originated in right wing think tanks and distributed to pundits and columnists"
Id love to see your evidence here. Any documentation?
Here's your evidence and documentation, Rich. I don't mind doing your homework for you. The least you can do is go to the links and READ THEM!
http://consciousearth.blogspot.com/2006/08/gore-cracks-conservatives-lies_20.html
http://mediamatters.org/items/200606010001
The goal of the right wing think tanks is to bring about a conservative "devolution." To make that happen, they come up with goals for what they want to accomplish-- policies, actions, legislation, organizations to be formed, demographic groups to be converted to allies and supporters of the policies. There are five or six of these think tanks that have been doing this work for up to thirty years and now we know. Their work is fabulously effective.
http://www.opednews.com/Kall%20if_wealthy_liberals_and_liberal_.htm
"I admit it -- the liberal media were never that powerful, and the whole thing was often used as an excuse by conservatives for conservative failures."
William Kristol, as reported by the New Yorker, 5/22/95
http://www.webpan.com/dsinclair/myths.html
"Consider the rather disturbing fact that, in a recent study, viewers of the Comedy Central version of news were the most informed viewers in the country, while those who watched Fox were the least informed. What does that say?"
What an absurd statement. Where is this study and who backed the study,
Here you go, Don. GO TO THE SITE AND READ THE COMPARISONS
http://www.wired.com/culture/culturereviews/magazine/15-07/st_infoporn
More than a decade after the Internet went mainstream, the world's richest information source hasn't necessarily made its users any more informed. A new study from the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press shows that Americans, on average, are less able to correctly answer questions about current events than they were in 1989. Citizens who call the Internet their primary news source know slightly less than fans of TV and radio news. Hmmm... maybe a little less Perez Hilton and a little more Jim Lehrer.
The Center is an independent opinion research group that studies attitudes toward the press, politics and public policy issues. We are best known for regular national surveys that measure public attentiveness to major news stories, and for our polling that charts trends in values and fundamental political and social attitudes. Formerly, the Times Mirror Center for the People & the Press (1990-1995), we are now sponsored by The Pew Charitable Trusts and are one of six projects that make up the Pew Research Center, a nonpartisan "fact tank" that provides information on the issues, attitudes and trends shaping America and the world.
The Center's purpose is to serve as a forum for ideas on the media and public policy through public opinion research. In this role it serves as an important information resource for political leaders, journalists, scholars, and public interest organizations. All of our current survey results are made available free of charge.
The research program includes five principal areas of investigation:
The People & The Press - explores public attitudes about the credibility, social value and salience of the news media.
The People, The Press & Politics - features a typology which divides the American electorate into distinct voting groups and identifies the basic values and attitudes that animate political behavior.
The News Interest Index - measures on a regular basis how closely the public follows the major news stories and links this to views about politics and policy issues.
America's Place in the World - a series of in-depth surveys and analyses of the public and opinion leaders on international policy in the post-Cold War era.
Media Use - major surveys that measure the public's use of, and attitudes toward, the Internet and traditional news outlets.
Independent pollster Andrew Kohut, founder of Princeton Survey Research Associates and former President of the Gallup Organization, is president of the Pew Research Center and serves as director of both the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press and the Pew Global Attitudes Project. Our sponsor, The Pew Charitable Trusts, is a Philadelphia-based public charity that serves the public interest by providing information, advancing policy solutions and supporting civic life.
If you "see through the lies"... provide the documentation to back them, rather than provide strawmen.
I read them and conclude that a) it is only three questions and b) Fox News has a much broader audience so of course the average political knowledge will drop as the audience gets bigger.
Anyways, if you feel that you can stay better informed watching the Daily Show, then you go dude... all on you.
How do you figure that if the audience is larger, knowledge drops? That statement made absolutely no sense to me.
I seek truth, never bias. Truth speaks for itself and there is nothing greater in my opinion. Yet truth is relative because there are always at least two possible perceptions ... so if I assume the conservative defenders of that view here are speaking 'their' truth, and I have my own which may be completely opposite to theirs ... then that just says that they and I are in opposition about the truth.
It is possible for something to be that way, a truth for the one and a falsehood for the other. Perceptions and perspectives do differ ... but also does the desire and willingness to work harder to find the essence of things, the deepest and most profound truths, the higher truth, that more transcendent, closer to what God might consider a truth.
It is very evident here on Gather that there is a huge difference between truth seekers based upon their comments and linkages as well as thinking involved with all of the messages involved.
It will always be that way, our goal, for everyone, SHOULD be one of ever higher truth seeking ... those a bit 'lazy' should exercise more in that regard.
We all know deep down where we fit in this difference. Some seek to help all improve, others seek to bring others down to their level, the latter is called 'defense' and it appears 'offensive' to others.
Rich either has not created a profile or has not allowed you to view it. ... and a few others ... so as to not make it too personal.
This is an amazing display of poor logic;
"Citizens who call the Internet their primary news source know slightly less than fans of TV and radio news" (NH)
"And there you have the basis of Clarks information. Didnt he admittedly turn off the TV (and Im assuming print and radio as well) so that he could rely on the internet"? (Rich)
Just where does one begin? How on earth can such a mind be reasoned with? The number of irrational assumptions which are required to go from a raw fact about that those who "call" the Internet their most relied on source for news being less informed, to the bizarre conclusion that utilizing the Internet will somehow dis-inform you, is staggering.
There is clearly no basis upon which to discuss such matters with you Rich. You simply don't think, you react. You are not "debating" at all, but merely drawing any conclusion, and making any statement, which will allow you to feel comfortable with your allegiances.
"And some wear stupid hats"
While you, on the other hand, would let your ears freeze off to avoid the appearance of being stupid.
Interest level is at zero. I'll pass.
I came "this close" to saying even you would not attempt to argue the sort of ludicrous rationale Rich is working from here.
btw, has anyone ever encountered an intelligent hat?
I always try and check there to get to know as best I can those that I communicate with here on Gather. Those that I have generally been in agreement with, it often shows why, (birds of a feather stick together ?) in some of the 'commonalities' shown in their profiles.
Almost without exception when I go there to look for hints as to why someone expresses themselves as they do, it is those I find in opposition to myself, (the farthest right) that 'usually' are the ones that have no profile ... it seems to me that they are hiding.
I am sure that 'some' (such as yourself) have nothing to hide. :-)
I did run across a guy once that wore a welding rod hat shaped like a type of pyramid, he seemed to think that it at least made 'him' intelligent ... probably where the 'tin foil' hat idea came from. I have also heard of putting on your 'thinking cap' ... and in 'this' neck of the woods (the West) many will never take off their hat ('cowboys') ... and 'some' of them are even intelligent ... so I am not sure about that ... I guess it depends upon if you are close enough to your hat to consider it sentient or not. There must be something to the phrase based upon the apparent need to NOT be seen without it on by some.
My profile is empty only because I felt no need in people knowing what college I attended, how much money I make, where I work, or what music I like as being pertinent to who I am, what I write, or who I connect with. People are going to have to take me on my word, through responses, and/or articles (If I ever get around to writing one) In the meantime, I will just enjoy reading all of you, as everyone here with differing views lends to something interesting to think about.
moonbat.