“Freedom of the press is a flaming sword! Use it justly . . . hold it high . . . guard it well.”
Well stated, Vanderman! ... and don't forget that content is still king.
It is time. The existing press facilitated the election of someone who was and is unknown to the majority of our electorate. If we wish to remain reasonably free, this is unacceptable. It can be done and many of us are willing. The academy will be next.
while I would quibble with some of the founding principles that you suggest, as well as their order of importance, I think you lay out a very interesting concept. The foundation of such a proposal may already be forming in, for e.g. 1) Breitbart.com, 2) PJTV.
Good ideas. We must be relentless in promulgating the substance of free market/ conservative principles in all new media forms, without being dowdy in style. Be hip without being silly. Big Hollywood is another nice addition. Look forward to reading more.
Hallelujah!! Finally the crux of the problem is identified and a real solution is offered!!!!!!!!Thanks!!!!!!!!!!
RE: Facilitating Subversion
Based on my experience as college marksmanship program director at my local gun club, I'd like to make a related suggestion. Simply put, a revival of interest in the shooting sports is one adjunct to the reconquista of the schools and the media. The battle over guns is at the white hot center of what the statists and their allies in the state run media are attempting to affect. Why? Two primary reasons. One, an armed populace has options that a disarmed one does not. Two the moral dimensions of the sport are not lost to the leftists - namely that individuals are responsible for their actions. We trust our fellow citizens and want them empowered to protect their lives and those of their neighbors. The statists trust the power of the government and not the people. So in summary, if possible, make it a point to teach others to shoot. Have a good safe time doing it. You'll be doing yourself a favor and your country will benefit. You will demonstrate to the new shooters that a) they have the physical, practical and moral capability to defend themselves and b) that the state run media is lying to them in significant ways.
Just as the Left has become culturally dominant via a "long march through the institutions", media, academia, the arts, so the classically liberal must follow. It won't be easy and it will take much time but there is no other way.
Fox is no model, Gerhard, Fox is a compromise. Hamilton and Jefferson found compromise between competing truths. That is the model. The compromise between Right and Left is always Left. Truths are neither fair nor balanced.
The Left cannot work without the conservative cheerfully working as a tool for his enemies. It is helpless by itself, other than to immolate. W and Herbert, McCain and Romney; even Gingrich was essential to It back in the day that he was worth something.
Rove is at Fox now. Who there will cough up that hairball, or even be prepared to see it is one now?
Garet Garrett, 1938--
There are those who still think they are holding the pass against a revolution that may be coming up the road. But they are gazing in the wrong direction. The revolution is behind them, gone by in the night of depression.
The New Deal entered the old form and devoured its meaning from within. Opposite and violently hostile ideas were represented by the same words. This was the American people's first experience with dialectic according to Marx and Lenin. The revolutionaries were inside, the defenders outside.
You do not defend a world that is already lost. When was it lost? That you cannot say precisely. We only know it was surrendered peacefully, without a struggle, almost unawares. There it is, and there it will remain until, if ever, it shall be reconquered. Certainly government will never surrender it without a struggle.
Indeed, the "Medium is the Massage". McLuhan's prescience so long ago was a gift. I am glad you are taking up this cause formally, though the quality of your product, and that of a few others, clearly signals we have been awhile already in the throes of a birthing process. You've been on this path almost your whole life, I suspect. Now it is time to ride the crest of the wave you yourself have helped create. That mother of all invention, necessity, has made you do what you do, develop your skills into growth of a new life to fill a growing niche. We can show them what "real" change looks like.
Well done. A call to arms for the culture wars. I often worry if the battle isn't already lost, but we must carry on. Your plan is a hopeful one.
I've recently been re-exposed to the Boy Scout Oath which expresses your five priciples admirably.
"On my HONOR, I will do my best
to do my DUTY, to GOD and my COUNTRY
(then comes an extended exposition of TRUTH)
and to obey the Scout Law;
To help other people at all times;
To keep myself physically strong,
mentally awake, and morally straight."
It is no wonder the Boy Scouts are under attack.
"... we must have media that, like the Internet itself, “sees censorship as system damage and routes around it.”"
Brilliant insight. I mean that sincerely. Can't wait to see the next piece.
I am wondering if some of the techniques of the Founders are applicable here. Do we need a Declaration of Independence from Censorship? An Information Bill of Rights?
"Fox is no model, Gerhard, Fox is a compromise"
I note in passing that most successful business and politics is based on compromise. A purity test in no path to power in a democracy.
Too much perfection is a mistake.
In addition to all the above, I think we should hack into the AP stories and re-word them to be fair and balanced. It would actually take AP a very long time to figure out that their copy has been tampered with.
Now that's a good idea. Or condense them to what is hidden below the lede.
I like it.
Like it a lot.
The Democrats and the teachers' unions that support them oppose home education and charter schools at every opportunity. No educational system outside of their control can be tolerated. If home schools and charter schools grow in number, people will wake up, realize how badly they are being screwed and vote the Democrats out.
Good in time is always better than perfect too late.
Patton said something akin to that, I believe.
What a world this is become.
I'm puzzled by Fox; it is a Murdoch outfit yet its Sky TV sister is in the thrall of the liberals in the UK (not as badly as the BBC admittedly); but my point is Murdoch can create and if necessary destroy given local economics. Its immediate ambivalence once Obama won the election bothered me badly. Beck worries me, too: it's not what he says, which mainly I agree with. But his hysterical presentation makes me wanna zap him when my wife walks into the room - a bad acid test. He enthuses like a teenager who has just found out how his dick works. Is his style as unpalatable to the American audience as it is to the British? I note the reserve of his fellow anchors when he is mentioned or is about to take the airwaves and wonder whether he embarrasses them too?
Looking forward to the next chapter Gerard, Interesting. The Long March reversed? Over scorched earth? Impracticable I suppose. Or a new Long March with different components? Possible, but the time is short, given the demographics:
I'm all American and that's exactly my feelings towards Beck. I also don't disagree with him, but can't stand to watch or listen to him. His style strikes me as a frustrated fundamentalist protestant preacher.
Patton said "A good plan today is better than a perfect plan tomorrow".
Also, I enjoy Beck - he's eccentric and a typical American Original. You-guys who are embarrased by him are prissy old maids. He has a perspective related to this post, but his own unique view, naturally. (Why is eccentricity so despised in America today?)
British law requires broadcast and cable news to be of "unbiased presentation," which of course means BBC-style liberal. That's why Sky News bears no resemblance to FNC.
Though Murdoch is also smart, and knows that American-style conservatism wouldn't sell too well right now, given how off-the-scale even the Tories are these days.
But basically, opinions of any sort (except of the government-is-good, global-warming-will-imminently-kill-us-all sort built into the "hard news" itself) are banned on British radio and television.
If you ever want to experience true pain, go listen to the live streams of a London talk radio station like Talksport or LBC sometime. Where we discuss hard news and the issues of the day, they spend two hours at a time taking calls on why one breed of dog is better for apartment living than another.
Frank P, that YouTube address you gave is missing 2 characters.
As someone who spent 15 years as a reporter at several mid-sized newspapers, I can attest to the ubiquitous groupthink ObamaReich mentality.
It is powerful. It works mainly through the conscious AND subconscious omission of any story that would make the liberal point of view (i.e. preferred Democrats) look bad.
I don't believe it can be overcome simply with an alternative media due to the fact that the vast vast majority of common everyday news (top-of-the-hour radio newscasts, Yahoo, Google, local TV, Hollywood movies, cultural magazines such as Vogue or National Geographic) are packed to the gils with do-good liberals who were raised to believe they are more enlightened than the cultural conservatives.
I hate to sound so cheesy, but I truly believe that wealthy conservative entities (of which there are very few compared to liberal entities) must aggressively start buying up as many mainstream news outlets as possible ... and start printing the facts.
Storm Chaser, I don't think that idea is at all cheesy.
In fact it would seem that venture capitalists have the most to lose if capitalism itself is subverted and the wealthy are demonized to the point where the public openly cheers the theft of their assets... more loudly than they already are, that is.
It's been a mystery to me for some time why capitalists have failed to grasp this idea. Perhaps it takes the threat of a true Chavez to spur them to action, but the effect capitalist wealth could have on restoring Liberty would be considerable if it were applied conscientiously right now. Same holds true for our academic institutions, which are perennially short on cash.
Meanwhile, cancel your newspaper subscription if you've got one and write to NBC, ABC and CBS advertisers telling them you've stopped buying anything that appears on those networks. Something's gotta give.
Yeah, I know this is late, but I hope you get a chance to see it.
I always enjoy your work here. I would like to add two things, if I may:
1)The current version of the MSM (taken as a whole, and treated by this post for brevity's sake as if it were all TV) will persist exactly as long as those who hate it still watch it, appear on it, use it to disseminate information, discuss it, and act as though it can or should be improved. In other words, if the non-lefties can't just let it go, it will survive far longer than it ought.
Those who hearken to the phony days of yore (when journalism was supposedly a profession--see "Callender, James") need to stop giving the MSM credence. Build a true profession from the ashes of the MSM, and let the MSMjustdie. It's the honorable thing to do.
2)Sadly, pointing to FOX as a success is problematic in that the old-time "broadcast" media still totally crush the new "cable" media. Especially when it comes to news. The alphabet networks measure views in the millions, while FOX measures views in the hundred-thousands. This is a lot of inertia to overcome, and item #1, above, shows why the process of overcoming it is still in it's gestation phase, not infancy or any more mature comparison. Too many "conservatives" who work in MSM media persist in trying to see if it can be fixed. Just let it die, please. Work on a replacement, use that replacement to defeat it, and let its pathetic husk rot in peace.