Conspiracy: What will it take for the mainstream media to cover the progressive movement?
The crack researchers at the Center for American Freedom tell me that totaling the reported revenue of only a portion of the groups participating in the Democracy Initiative gives you a figure of around $1.69 billion. Somewhat ironic, isn’t it, that an association of organizations with combined revenue of more than a billion dollars is launching a campaign to get “big money out of politics.” Like all such campaigns, of course, the Democracy Initiative is less about getting money out of politics than it is about getting the wrong sort of money out of politics—in this case, the sort of money dispensed by industries and ideologues opposed to the progressive agenda.
The Democracy Initiative will “target” Chevron, “which gave $2.5 million to a Super PAC backing House Republican candidates in 2012.” The Democracy Initiative will target Google “for its continued membership with the generally pro-Republican U.S. Chamber of Commerce.” The Democracy Initiative will target the American Legislative Exchange Council, an association of businesses and state-legislators that promotes conservative laws and has been under ferocious assault from liberals seeking to stigmatize its donors and thereby cause its collapse. “We’re going to put the pressure on ALEC even more,” Phil Radford of Greenpeace told Mother Jones. ALEC should consider itself warned.
And not only ALEC: The Democracy Initiative seems to be a fairly straightforward attempt to change the rules of the game so that greens and unions can push their agenda through the Senate. The logic here is that the Democrats have at least a chance of retaking the House in 2014, in which case Sen. Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.) would be the only obstacle to in-your-face progressivism. Why else the emphasis on filibuster reform?









Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Maybe the MSM not being the propaganda wing of the movement?
Dr. Frank Enstine on January 11, 2013 at 2:18 PM
That, sir, is called a paradox — a self-contradictory and false proposition …
ShainS on January 11, 2013 at 2:22 PM
I’m assuming that’s a rhetorical question.
RadClown on January 11, 2013 at 2:22 PM
The majority of the media are bought and paid for, or they are afraid, or they are rabid socialist ideologues.
If Obama beheaded kittens on the White House lawn laughing maniacally all the while they would not cover it or they would act to cover it up.
You think I exaggerate? They actively work to blackout any real reporting of Benghazi and Fast and Furious. Our corrupt regime has killed people.
So asking the headline question is rather silly.
dogsoldier on January 11, 2013 at 2:25 PM
The only real solution, is for ultra rich conservatives to start buying large media outlets, and fight fire with fire.
Rebar on January 11, 2013 at 2:27 PM
Hello. They covered big bird, binders, and bayonets.
El_Terrible on January 11, 2013 at 2:29 PM
Cover them…they have been cheerleading for a couple of decades.
trs on January 11, 2013 at 2:30 PM
I’m sure the media will get right on it after they’re done with their exhaustive research into Obamas past, Fast & Furious, and getting to the bottom of what really happened in Benghazi.
Timin203 on January 11, 2013 at 2:34 PM
Yeah, except when super rich liberals control media, its okay, but if conservatives do / did it, they are considered untrustworthy news sources (fox news) and will be ignored by everyone except people who already agree with that viewpoint.
Sorry, folks, but there’s no obvious fix to this. I certainly can’t think of anything. If the media refuses to be unbiased, and the american people refuse to acknowledge the media is biased, we seem to be at an impasse.
Timin203 on January 11, 2013 at 2:36 PM
Is there actually a cogent question in the article’s headline?
The media has been the Democrats’ and left’s Spin Team and Boy Commando since Kennedy and ‘Camelot’!!!
Jack Deth on January 11, 2013 at 2:38 PM
Putting their hands on their daughters’ shoulders and swearing an oath would work, of course.
kunegetikos on January 11, 2013 at 2:42 PM
Fox News is singled out because it is the one lone network. If there is more conservative ownership in the media, then the criticism will be less one sided. And I don’t even want Fox being the voice of conservatives anyway, I’d prefer there be a number of media alternatives like there are in the blogosphere.
Daemonocracy on January 11, 2013 at 2:43 PM
What are those? Some sort of made up conservative conspiratorial fables? If they were real I’m sure we would have heard and read about them in the media.
Dr. Frank Enstine on January 11, 2013 at 2:45 PM
We need to take over and replace the media. One or two outlets can be isolated (see FOX) but you get enough and they play off each other.
Fight now or be destroyed.
GardenGnome on January 11, 2013 at 2:46 PM
Left wing blogs are considered credible sources, right wing blogs are considered extremist propoganda.
The MSM we all know and love are the gate keepers to who is and who is not a legit source. I don’t see how that changes, but unless / until it does, any media source not part of that cabal will be considered fringe / untrustworthy / etc, and they’ll run story after story about where the funding comes from, that they’re a mouthpiece for the super rich / tea party / whoever is the subject of the 5 minutes of hate that particular week.
Timin203 on January 11, 2013 at 2:47 PM
I’m not entirely certain what they are, I just heard some fringe extremist tea party nutjob types talking about them. I’m simply waiting for CNN & abcnbccbs to explain to me exactly what those topics mean so I’m prepared to rebut the extremists next time I hear those racist buzz words.
Timin203 on January 11, 2013 at 2:49 PM
Two problems with that.
1. GOP/Republican/Conservative big money players are already involved in financing most media through hedge funds.
It’s long, it’s complicated and it’s serpentine, but trust me a lot of ex-GOP politicos and major GOP donors are already ta-ta’s deep in entertainment financing.
2. The kind of players we would want to get involved do not have the finances or connections.
Beck is the best example. He doesn’t take on direct financial partners because they’ll eventually try and influence his product, but without them, he’s going to remain locked out of moving back to cable.
If Beck was partnered with a hedge fund arm, he could have ended up with Current via a backdoor deal. But without that broker-agent, he’ll remain on the outside.
It’s all about keeping the web free for venture, and getting financing to innovative people on the right. Without that, nothing changes.
budfox on January 11, 2013 at 3:15 PM
Progressives would LOVE for people to cover our various organizing and political movements. When people cover you there’s a greater chance they’ll head to a website and try and decide where they stand. Too few Americans ever encounter genuine progressive ideas, they get the watered down liberal crap Piers Morgan spews.
libfreeordie on January 11, 2013 at 3:26 PM
Leftist slant schleps more schlock.
The web is an ideal tool for centralized government and the end of privacy.
Any other ideas?…
kunegetikos on January 11, 2013 at 3:34 PM
What will it take to free us of this malignant, subversive, anti-Western ideology, progressivism?
petefrt on January 11, 2013 at 4:18 PM