MyDD :: Yearly Kos: Creating a Progressive Media

Yearly Kos: Creating a Progressive Media

by Jonathan Singer, Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 01:34:42 AM EST

As I sit here on the floor of Las Vegas's McCarran airport awaiting my flight back to Portland (all airports should have free Wi-Fi like McCarran and PDX), I hope you'll indulge me as I debrief momentarily from the last few days at the Yearly Kos convention.

The event, by almost any measure, was a big success. Gina Cooper and the crew who put together the convention did a spectacular job of securing a venue, signing up majoy players in Democratic politics, setting up a wireless network and generally running things in an effective and efficient manner. Coverage of the weekend from the establishment media has been surprisingly upbeat. And, perhaps most importantly, bloggers, commenters and readers were able to meet and interact in ways not previously possible. Talk already abounds of next year's convention.

As Michael Scherer and several others have noted, there were concerted efforts by several politicians to reach out to and secure the support of the netroots. Reports of Mark Warner's $50,000 party atop the Stratosphere casino are not exaggerations.

But, as of this writing at least, the most interesting and important thing I heard during the duration of Yearly Kos was that progressives of means were contemplating the purchase of media outlets -- including television networks -- to help counteract the effect of the vast conservative media, from talk radio to Fox News. If these discussions come to fruition and a wholly progressive network of television and radio stations are able to reach the bulk of American voters, we will be able to greatly hasten the day when we are able to continue building on the forward-thinking policies of the New Deal era and the 1960s. Gauging by the seriousness with which some of the convention's attendees discussed this effort, I am cautiously optimistic that change could come sooner rather than later.

More thoughts on the convention to come. Now, to board my flight...

Tags: Yearly Kos, Media (all tags)

Permalink :: 20 Comments :: Post a Comment

How much did Warner toss? (none / 0)

You say $50K, Micah Sifray says $70K and Arianna Huffington says $75K on the party alone, $100K for the weekend.

by Bob Brigham on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 01:40:28 AM EST

Re: How much did Warner toss? (none / 0)

We had over 1100 people to host, and got the best deal we could. The Stratosphere threw in all of the extras. The Governor also was there the next day, giving a speech and meeting with bloggers. A big success.

by Jerome Armstrong on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 03:41:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How much did Warner toss? (none / 0)

If Warner is serious about working with us then proof will come in making some serious adjustments in his take on Iran and Venezuela. Right now he is on the Republican path of aggressive posturing, the same one Democrats wrongly took with Iraq. Iran is not a threat and Venezuela is an opportunity if handled correctly.

See this DailyKos article "Mark Warner on Iran and Venezuela". Warner has some serious rethinking to do to get into synch with progressive thought and not falling for the right-wing traps.

Jeff Wegerson - PrairieStateBlue

by wegerje on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 08:31:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Warner (none / 0)

The $50K figure I use comes from the Salon piece. But you're correct in noting that there are a lot of different numbers floating around right now.

Blogging here @ MyDD.com. Twittering @jonathanhsinger.

by Jonathan Singer on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 01:51:55 AM EST

Re: Warner (none / 0)

Sorry, assumed it was Salon's piece from yesterday and didn't click through until after I had commented. While we will know the number soon enough, Sifry says, "Apparently, his PAC needs to spend the money before the end of the cycle, one of his staffers told me, which was hardly a convincing reason for the conspicuous display."

So if you have a bunch of PAC money that you need to blow, can anyone offer me a reason why it would make sense to go over the top on a party instead of spending it, say, on helping our Party win an election?

by Bob Brigham on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 02:02:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

mark who? (none / 0)

Quick memo to Jerome Armstrong -- if you're going to drop that kind of coin, don't do it in a round venue. Half the folks, self included, were on the other side of the 'sphere when we spoke so never even knew he was there.

ANyway, I'm hoping to be the first to get a pin that says "drank Warner, voted Feingold."

by desmoulins on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 02:06:25 AM EST

Re: mark who? (none / 0)

Anybody who tries to buy support doesn't deserve it.

With Democrats Lieberman goes for the jugular. With Republicans he goes for the lips.

by Sitkah on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 02:25:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Oh, ferchrissake! (3.00 / 0)

I'm not exactly a big Warner fan, but fercryinoutloud, if someone's gonna throw a party for you, I recommend taking a minute and enjoying it! (Sorry as hell that I missed it, but we can't all be at YKos.)

Sure, it was an attempt by the Warner people to get netizens to take a more friendly look at his candidacy. But let's stop wearing the hair shirt a second, OK?

It may be that some people's support can be bought by some champagne and shrimp hors d'oeuvres. But I doubt that too many of them were present the other night; we blogtopia residents are a pretty smart bunch. Most of us can eat Warner's chicken satay appetizers, enjoy the view from 100 stories up, and still say, "y'know, this guy still needs an intelligible stand on Iraq, Iran, nuclear proliferation, and a bunch of other issues."

This was a courtesy on Warner's part. He showed up at our party, and brought goodies. Nothin' wrong with that; that's what you're supposed to do when you go to someone's party. I'm glad he dropped by, and I'm glad he added some sparkle to the party. I'd still rather see Gore, Feingold, or Edwards as the 2008 nominee, but props to Warner regardless.

by RT on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 12:24:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yearly Kos: Creating a Progressive Media (3.00 / 1)

"the most interesting and important thing I heard during the duration of Yearly Kos was that progressives of means were contemplating the purchase of media outlets -- including television networks -- to help counteract the effect of the vast conservative media, from talk radio to Fox News."

It makes a lot more sense for liberals to buy media outlets rather than enriching cons by spending hundreds of millions buying ad time in the media they own.

With Democrats Lieberman goes for the jugular. With Republicans he goes for the lips.

by Sitkah on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 02:20:12 AM EST

Re: Yearly Kos: Creating a Progressive Media (3.00 / 0)

I wrote this on a Kos diary, but seeing how this comment thread is turning into another "OMG Mark Warner's Yearly Kos Party was just too cool for people like us", I'm repeating it here [and for the record, I went ... and had a good time]:

On Warner's bash on Friday night: I'm from Virginia and Mark Warner did amazing stuff for the state during his tenure. A couple of folks have basically written stuff along the lines of "Warner is trying to buy off the netroots with an expensive event". I say good for him. Don't look a gift horse in the mouth, and it's a POSITIVE thing that a strong presidential contender who's got a good record wants to court us --- that's a GOOD thing --- that means us (netroots) have REAL influence. And besides, for all the folks that went there and wrote critical diaries, here's my question: If you had such a problem with the event, why did you stay and eat/drink?

by David Grossman on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 02:36:46 AM EST

Re: Yearly Kos: Creating a Progressive Media (none / 0)

Buying support with giveaways is as old American politics. There's a great Green Acres about how Hooterville's congressman buys votes with hot dogs and other goodies. Oliver Wendell Douglas decides to run against him and bring honesty to government; but of course his integrity and values are no match for truckloads of freeebies given to his so called friends and neighbors.

With Democrats Lieberman goes for the jugular. With Republicans he goes for the lips.

by Sitkah on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 03:13:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yearly Kos: Creating a Progressive Media (none / 0)

I repeat my comment above here:

See this DailyKos article "Mark Warner on Iran and Venezuela". Warner has some serious rethinking to do to get into synch with progressive thought and not falling for the right-wing traps.

Jeff Wegerson - PrairieStateBlue

by wegerje on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 08:33:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yearly Kos: Creating a Progressive Media (none / 0)

We don't HAVE to depend on "progressives of means" to build a progressive media. Read this (pdf).

Carolyn Kay
MakeThemAccountable.com

by Caro on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 06:49:44 AM EST

We doan need no stinkin' liberals of means! (none / 0)

I'd rather buy shares in a liberal media outlet than put more money into bad ad campaigns on conservative ones.

With Democrats Lieberman goes for the jugular. With Republicans he goes for the lips.

by Sitkah on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 11:21:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

The Anti-Fox (3.00 / 1)

My friend was just telling me about an article he read, which argued that NBC is in a unique position (being sort of independent of other corporate conflicts) to become the anti-fox, openinly calling them out on their bullshit.

This is not something that normally has to be done in the news media, although it may have been more prominent once -- I don't know; I'm young and I'm bad at history. Either way, it needs to be done, and at least a couple analysts think there's a market for it.

Progress is Personal | PCCC

by msnook on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 09:32:42 AM EST

an anti-fox would be nice. (none / 0)

but i'd settle for a network that would just do real, hard-hitting news.

preferable that AND an advocacy network...

-C.

by neutron on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 07:28:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yearly Kos: Creating a Progressive Media (none / 0)

That's such bull@#$% . Whoever is contemplating purchase of networks is living in the past. You have a computer, I have a computer, and soon, everyone has a computer. Progressives will be living on the computer, and they won't be watching networks. They'll be watching blogs, and blogs will be networks unto themselves. All that money for purchasing computers, and making sure everyone has access to each other, means those who want to be seen and heard can be seen and heard, on the Internet. Not the Internet2, as that is a closed internet for universities, government agencies, and large corporate members (for creativity, innovation, and research). Rather, on our Internet, the one they call, "commodity Internet". The one the network broadcasters, big media, record companies, major film studios, want to use as a distribution medium.

Progressives need to wake up, and take the fight to the future, not the past. Spend the money where it makes sense. On our Internet, for our Internet, by our Internet.

by tompoe on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 12:21:15 PM EST

Creating a Progressive Media (none / 0)

I agree with you partly tompoe. But, if a progressive group with money can get a good deal on existing mass media outlets (e.g., a broadcast or cable network), and actually turn it into a viable business, that'd be great.

For one thing, there's still A LOT of people (including a lot of people we'd like to reach) who still get their news mostly from the TV and that's going to remain the case for awhile.

Another is that if you owned NBC (or a cable network), you'd also own their web resources, production capabilities, TV stations, market clout, etc.

Though its not political, Al Gore's Current TV is an example (assuming their business model actually succeeds financially, which seems possible). They bought an existing cable network and are developing both cable and Internet distribution systems and content that can be delivered on both.

Though I don't know how Air America is doing financially, they're another example. Radio can be broadcast on radio stations, but it can also be webcast/podcast. The old media platforms are fading in their influence, but they're still very significant and, in a lot of ways, still dominant. And, if you've got potent content, having TV, radio and web-based distribution outlets provides more reach and can generate more value (and political impact) from that content.

I think you're right though, that any purchase of a TV network would have to take into account that its a shrinking business. But if you could get it at a good price and jump right in and start broadcasting real progressive content, it could be a great help in reaching people who share most of our values but are too influenced by the MSM and the right wing media that keep pushing it further to the right (or further into inanity).

I like the idea of having a progressive TV network to counterbalance Fox. Of course, it would depend who runs it, how they run it, and how they program it.

I'd like to know who the folks are who're thinking about this, and what are their plans.

by mitchipd on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 11:28:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yearly Kos: Creating a Progressive Media (none / 0)

buddy of mine josh was at ykos and admired the mydd caucus.

he also had some interesting things to say about progresive media. we gotta get ourselves media trained, and we gotta get ourselves some pretty, articulate people on the networks hammering out good messages. as he said: the right has more sex symbols than we do. and that's just frightening.

which is part of the reason i think franken is a great choice for minnesota in 08.

by GetSamuel on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 10:41:00 PM EST

Re: Yearly Kos: Creating a Progressive Media (none / 0)

rtg1 rtg2 rtg3 rtg4 rtg5 rtg6 rtg7 rtg8 rtg9 rtg10 rtg11 rtg12 rtg13 rtg14 rtg15 rtg16 rtg17 rtg18 rtg19 rtg20 rtg21 rtg22 rtg23 rtg24 rtg25 rtg26 rtg27 rtg28 rtg29 rtg30 rtg31 rtg32 rtg33 rtg34 rtg35 rtg36 rtg37 rtg38 rtg39 rtg40 rtg41 rtg42 rtg43 rtg44 rtg45 rtg46 rtg47 rtg48 rtg49 rtg50 rtg51 rtg52 rtg53 rtg54 rtg55 rtg56 rtg57 rtg58 rtg59 rtg60 rtg61 rtg62 rtg63 rtg64 rtg65 rtg66 rtg67 rtg68 rtg69 rtg70 rtg71 rtg72 rtg73 rtg74 rtg75 rtg76 rtg77 rtg78 rtg79 rtg80 rtg81 rtg82 rtg83 rtg84 rtg85 rtg86 rtg87 rtg88 rtg89 rtg90 rtg91 rtg92 rtg93 rtg94 rtg95

by ginotte on Fri Oct 13, 2006 at 06:57:09 AM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.