Creating progressive traditional mass media

The recent launch of the staunchly pro-business, anti-reality Fox Business Channel serves as yet another reminder that conservatives have too strong a grip on the national media, hampering any chance that we may have of real progressive social change.  While FBN's first week was marked by technical glitches, low viewership numbers, and poor editorial choices, it's easy to imagine how the channel could soon skew business reporting even further to the right, thereby making it more difficult for progressive voices to sway investors and business owners to be socially responsible.

There are a variety of strategies for moving the tone of media discource back to the left, but today I want to focus on one which I think gets far too little attention: creating progressive traditional mass media.  Progressives certainly do have some traditional media, including a large number of alternative weekly newspapers throughout the country and a small armada of prominent national magazines.  We also have some mass media, by which I mean media whose viewership/readership numbers compare reasonably well with purportedly non-partisan/non-ideological, or obviously conservative national-distribution media of the same format.  Unfortunately, almost all of our mass media is in new media: the progressive blogosphere is one of the few mass media institutions whose audience reach competes reasonably well with purportedly non-partisan or conservative political media of comparable format.

The lack of progressive traditional mass media is a big problem for both the political effectiveness of our movement, for obvious reasons.  Taken as a whole, the traditional mass media still reaches far more people than progressive media, and therefore helps drive political discourse.  Politicians gravitate to that incredibly large source of potential votes, and tend to eschew progressive arguments in order to garner traditional mass media coverage.  In this kind of environment, it's incredibly difficult to establish progressive electoral and legislative narratives.  True, the traditional mass media are slowing losing audience share to newer, more progressive media, but this shift is far too slow.  With the average household still watching nearly seven hours of TV per day, it seems likely that traditional mass media will have an outsized influence on our political discourse for at least another decade, and possibly much longer.

There are four kinds of traditional media which progressives need to watch carefully, and in which progressives should try to establish a foothold.  In order of priority, I think they are: cable news, national newspapers, local newspapers, and talk radio.  With one exception, each of these mass media are currently under the influence of an outsized and outspokenly conservative mass media institution: Fox News Channel (cable), the Wall Street Journal and Washington Post (national newspapers), Clear Channel radio network (talk radio).  I added local newspapers to the list because there appears to be a concerted effort on the part of conservative businessmen, ranging from Rupert Murdoch to Dean Singleton, to snap up local newspapers and turn them into right-wing rags.  This effort is far from complete, but it appears to be the latest thrust in the conservative movement's longstanding effort to control traditional mass media.

More on what is being done to address this gap, and what more we need to do, over the flip...

The good news is that there are already a few efforts in flight to address the gap in traditional mass media.  Democracy Now! is perhaps the best known and oldest progressive TV talk show, and is distrbuted by a small network of independent radio stations (Pacifica Radio).  The 2004 elections spurred the creation of the Air America Radio network, and the Ed Schultz and Stephanie Miller radio shows (distributed by Jones Radio Network, which isn't expressly progressive like AAR.)  More recently, we've seen the creation of progressive TV channels Free Speech TV, Link TV, and The Real News.  As far as I know, there is no effort to create a nationally respected newspaper with an emphatically progressive op-ed page, although the News Guild (a division of Communication Workers of America) has expressed interest in newspaper ownership in the past, making a bid to purchase several Knight-Ridder newspapers when they went on the block in late 2005.  There was also a tantalizing post on Dailykos by Major Danby about creating a progressive USA Today many months ago, but I haven't seen much follow-up from Major Danby (possibly because, from the look of his diary archive, he spent the next few months fundraising for YearlyKos.)

I'll return to the problem of progressive newspaper establishment in a later post.  Let's focus more sharply on progressive radio and TV, for now.

The bad news is that these nascent efforts are not, for the most part, large enough or integrated enough to drive progressive narratives into the national political discourse.  Nor is the problem entirely due to small audience share.  Despite the fact that Link TV can be accessed from one in four US households, it doesn't appear to have the same impact on national political discourse as, say, DailyKos or Huffington Post, whose monthly visitorship numbers are 1.8 million and 3.5 million, respectively.

There are, I believe, three big steps we need to take in order to address this problem:


  • Expand the reach and power of progressive traditional mass media, by creating public campaigns to encourage broadcasters to distribute progressive shows like Democracy Now!.  I plan to do a bit more research on this issue, but as far as I can tell, there are many markets which lack a progressive radio or TV show, despite having a rich density of potential progressive audience members.  In some of these markets, I'm sure, conservative ownership of broadcast media makes it difficult to distribute these shows, but my guess is that there are a number of progressive-rich media markets where at least one or two non-conservative broadcast channels could become progressive media distributors.  That potential creates an opening for a liberal entrepreneur, who could make good money hammering out deals to bring progressive traditional mass media into new markets.

  • Insinuate items from the progressive traditional mass media into online conversation.  If we want to insinuate progressive traditional mass media into online conversation, perhaps the first and most important step is broad distribution on YouTube.  Despite its many idiosynchracies, YouTube is by far and away the most popular channel for distributing online video; YouTube videos regularly make their way into blog posts, Facebook profiles, and so on.  While Link TV, The Real News, and Air America all have YouTube channels, it's important to expand adoption of YouTube to include progressive TV shows like Democracy Now!, Ed Schultz, and Stephanie Miller.  Progressive traditional mass media institutions should establish presences on YouTube, if they haven't already, and team up with progressive activists to ensure that their shows are regularly excerpted and distributed on YouTube.  Progressive bloggers, in turn, should subscribe to these channels and embed videos whenever possible.

  • Encourage progressive traditional mass media (especially progressive TV) to cover more issues of interest to progressive new media, especially domestic issue coverage.  A quick search over the past few weeks reveals not one single YouTube video about the S-CHIP story from Link TV, The Real News, or Air America.  Now, I'm picking on a single issue, but it's fair to say that the lion's share of videos from LinkTV and The Real News have an international focus, while Air America's recent YouTube videos are more focused on domestic politics.  There's nothing wrong with international coverage, and we could all use a better understanding of the world around us.  But our experience in the progressive blogosphere clearly demonstrates that we simply can't impact domestic politics unless we cover it and comment on it.  While it's important for the progressive blogosphere to pay more attention to coverage from progressive traditional mass media, and to embed videos from these sources in blog posts, it's equally important for progressive traditional mass media to harmonize their coverage - in some small way - with the topics covered by the progressive blogosphere.

These are three rather tall orders, for a variety of reasons.  Achieving better market penetration for progressive traditional mass media will require a bit of alchemy, and will probably require overcoming some fairly entrenched, conservative interests.  Insinuating YouTube videos from progressive traditional mass media into the progressive blogosphere will be a bit like herding cats.  And moving the editorial policies of progressive traditional mass media will be incredibly difficult, or will require policy-by-grantmaking, which is both irritating and expensive.  Nevertheless, I believe it's possible to make real progress on all of these fronts.  We are now at a point where it will be possible, perhaps in the space of a year or two, to establish a beachhead for progressive viewpoints within the traditional mass media landscape.  I'll be addressing each of these three efforts in more detail in future blog posts, but in the meantime, I certainly welcome your thoughts and feedback.  Drop a line in the comments if you have other ideas about creating progressive traditional mass media with political impact.



Display:


Re: Creating progressive traditional mass media (none / 0)

I agree with you on this, and am working on a couple things myself to remedy this problem, but you've got a flaw there where you want to push programming like "Democracy Now". Democracy Now, is, quite simply a bore. Air America also suffers from this as well and it is why both of those outlets succeed only in speaking to the converted (the exception being Randi Rhodes, who stuck out among the original Air America people for being a radio person versus a comedian).

Fox News is not popular because it is right-wing. It is popular because it is entertaining. Liberals have succeeded with shows like The Daily Show because it is entertainment first, political later.

The progressive blogosphere has thrived because it rejected the dry model of liberal media up to that point. It is combative, aggressive, entertaining, engaging and funny.

Any and all progressive media efforts going forward need to remember that if they want to succeed. You need to bring 'em in for ice cream if you want to feed them veggies.


by owillis on Sat Oct 27, 2007 at 03:38:17 PM EST

Re: Creating progressive traditional mass media (none / 0)

Well, I don't know.  I think you might be being a bit harsh.  I've watched Democracy Now and, while it's a bit dry, it gives you the facts and I think it's engaging, in sort of an NPR Morning Edition kind of way.  Then again, maybe I'm just a Northeastern elitist snob?  And on the other other hand, couldn't Amy Goodman and Stephen Colbert coexist peacefully on the same channel, in different time slots?  Who really knows.  I'm not a TV programming person.  But I do think that if we create the channel and market it properly, the content can follow.

Incidentally, one of the things "Cable News Confidential" discussed, which struck me as very much right on, was that Fox was a niche channel dedicated to serving conservatives, and it was marketed as such (meaning, I suppose, they took out ads in National Review and Limbaugh.)  Whereas MSNBC was built in the "broadcast" mindset, trying to appeal to everyone, and Donahue's progressive overtones were muted in order to serve that mindset, which was a disaster.  Cohen argues that MSNBC should have marketed Donahue as a progressive show, and should have advertised it as such, taking out ads in places like The Nation and so on.  I'm not a TV person, but that sounds like a pretty convincing argument to me.  In short, in addition to saying that Fox is popular because it's entertaining, I'd say that it's entertaining to right-wingers and it's marketed to right-wingers.  So the marketing and the content have to be in sync.

I'm very curious to hear what you're working on along these lines.  Can you share any of it here?  Please do!


Strengthening the progressive movement through liberal entrepreneurship http://www.plantingliberally.org
by Shai Sachs on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 01:20:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Creating progressive traditional mass media (none / 0)

I don't think Democracy Now is necessarily a bore.  And Sam Seder is the best host Air America's got.  Daily Show--not really liberal.  But yes, we do need to bring a bit of an edge.  And we need to bring a bit of education.  The question remains: are the people demanding the crap or are the people just accepting the crap that's available.  I think it's both so, in my view, both issues need to be addressed.


by Paying Attention on Sat Oct 27, 2007 at 03:59:01 PM EST

Re: Creating progressive traditional mass media (none / 0)



Good Issue!

I don't see why a bunch of wealthy Hollywood types cannot pool together a big pile of money and use it to create at least one cable Television station, and one national "USAToday" style Newspaper service that is totally free and independent from the control of the big Media Monopolies (Ruppert Murdoch, GE, Viacom, etc).

Air-America had been doing well in terms of viewership ratings, until right after the 2006 Elections when Clear Channel began to systematically terminate the programming in major cities all around the Country (replacing with Spanish Music stations and Sports talk).

But we need to create our own broadcast stations so that things like Air America and never under the thumb of Monopolies like Clear Channel to begin with.

The problem is that we do not really have free-market capitalism in this Country. We have Monopolies, Corporate-Government-Collusion, and Heirarchical Corporatism and not true free-enterprise.

We live under an aristocrisy.





For a "surge" in Truth:  Say NO to NeoCons!!!
by DerekLarsson on Sat Oct 27, 2007 at 05:29:49 PM EST

Typo corrected. (none / 0)

Should read:
are under the thumb of Monopolies






For a "surge" in Truth:  Say NO to NeoCons!!!
by DerekLarsson on Sat Oct 27, 2007 at 05:31:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Typo corrected II (none / 0)

Sorry I can't seem to type today:
are NEVER under the thumb of Monopolies...





For a "surge" in Truth:  Say NO to NeoCons!!!
by DerekLarsson on Sat Oct 27, 2007 at 05:33:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Creating progressive traditional mass media (none / 0)

Why liberals don't have more radio and TV resources: USA Today reported (10/22) that Rupert Murdoch, who recently spent $5 billion to win control of the Wall Street Journal, told investors that the Fox Business Network, which signed on 10/15, likely will lose $70 million in its first year and cost as much as $200 million before it breaks even.

By the way, Gannett Newspapers invested $1 billion in starting up USA Today in the 1980s and '90s and wrote off more than $500 million in losses see this story.  It took 11 years to mark a profit.

Austin, Texas -- the most liberal city in Texas -- recently lost the state's only progressive talk station, with the Air America lineup plus Ed Schultz, when underpowered KOKE-AM was sold to a new owner who promptly switched it to Mexican music format. But there are at least two right-wing talk radio stations in Austin.


by jcullen on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 01:41:42 AM EST

Re: Creating progressive traditional mass media (none / 0)

Hmm.  Very interesting if somewhat depressing point.  While I don't know the broadcast industry terribly well, it occurs to me that the systematic removal of progressive radio from progressive markets in the wake of the 2006 elections should, theoretically at least, create a market opportunity, which a reasonably savvy entrepreneur can exploit.  Why doesn't some progressive entrepreneur step into the market, re-launch progressive talk, and reap the benefits?

Finally, I should note that with cable TV, at least, we're not beholden to the broadcast restrictions of the FCC.  The big challenge is encouraging a cable provider like Comcast to carry a progressive cable TV channel.  That has already happened in some markets, and it seems to me that a concerted campaign to spread adoption of channels like Link TV in places like Boston could be successful.

Newspapers are another story entirely, and I'll have to get back to you on that later.  Thanks for your research, though - it's incredibly useful!


Strengthening the progressive movement through liberal entrepreneurship http://www.plantingliberally.org
by Shai Sachs on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 01:26:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Creating progressive traditional mass media (none / 0)

Good post. The mainstream media creates "conventional wisdom" that sets the parameters about what are acceptable positions to hold. Changing the media narrative is essential if we are ever to change this country.

Democracy Now! is a great show for illuminating alternative perspectives. But it is pretty dry. More outlets might mean more money for them so they could add some of the razzle-dazzle that makes the mainstream media more interesting.

But also, DN should be supplemented by other more interesting stuff. I was first attracted to KPFA (the Pacfica flagship station in Berkeley) by the "Watergate Follies". As I remember, this was a daily explanation of and satire of the Watergate hearings that day. It was clever and funny.

More recently, I really enjoyed listening to Robbie Osmond's radio show on KPFA which includes lots of political music -- both traditional protest songs and satirical songs. Osmond occasionally inserts his own very informed and well-spoken commentary too.

Where I now live -- in Cleveland -- there is nothing equivalent to these. We really need good progressive drama, comedy, and music to supplement the straight reporting of the news. Shows like this could add some flavor to otherwise bland broadcasts. And heck, progressives are much more creative and interesting than the Radical-Right. This is our strength -- we should go with it. There are lots of political folksingers and comics who would love to be on the air and probably pretty large audiences if we could get them on.

Buying radio, TV, and cable outlets is extremely expensive and managing these is also difficult. I don't know how we can manage it, but I think it is essential that we try.


John McCain wants to make abortion illegal
by RandomNonviolence on Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 01:42:44 PM 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.