Democratic Strategy: from defense to offense and Media 'response teams'

[Q]

- Bushie Republicans understand that perception is everything. They know that to control the media is to control the language and frame the debate. To them...not being caught in a lie is the same as telling the truth.

- A few examples of 'perception management':

Bush* didn't win the 2000 election. He was installed by the media and the Supreme Court. But most Americans now 'accept' (the inevitability) that he's 'president'.

Bush* knew Iraq had nothing to do with the 'war on terrorism'. He and his business associates had planned on attacking Iraq before the 2000 election. The facts show that the Bush* administration are war criminals for unnecessarily slaughtering thousands of innocents. But most Americans now perceive that it was the 'right thing to do'.

Bush* has a direct relationship with Ken Lay / Enron and those who attacked the United States on 9-11. He used Ken Lay's corporate jet to fly around the US during the 2000 campaign. Bush* and his family have business relationships with the bin Laden and Saudi royal families going back decades. But most Americans don't know about it.

Bush* hid the presidential papers of Reagan and his Poppy in order to cover up a trail of blood and greed since the 80s. Cheney's Halliburton did business with Iraq until 1998. Cheney hid national energy policy documents because they further demonstrate the connection between all the above. But most Americans don't know about it.

-----

- Republicans routinely use disinformation to confuse the public and make the truth appear as a 'conspiracy theory'. Rather than believe a conspiracy theory, most Americans would rather believe a lie than be called 'conspiracy nuts'.

dis·in·for·ma·tion

Deliberately misleading information announced publicly or leaked by a government or especially by an intelligence agency in order to influence public opinion or the government in another nation. Dissemination of such misleading information.


- While it's true that the Republican party literally owns the media...it doesn't mean Democrats can't use that media to help expose the truth. But in order to do this the Democratic party must move from defense to offense. They must counter each and every lie with the corresponding truth.

- Democrats don't need their 'own' media. They just need to learn how to 'use' the existing media by emulating the Republicans. Like the Republicans...we must put together a media 'hit team'. No...I'm not talking about Begala or Carville appearing on 'crossfire' like programs that are created as vehicles for the right. This hit team will be sent to every venue in which the other side has a voice to counter their points one by one.

- The Democratic party must change their strategy. Instead of playing defense and weakly responding to the onslaught of lies and false allegations by well-paid RWing talking head pundits...we must put together our own team to confront them head on. RWing talking heads are paid millions by the likes of media barons Scaife and Murdoch to disseminate Republican talking points and messages. We can do the same...using financing from those on the left like Soros, Redford and Streisand.

- But even with the financing of a left-wing media hit team...we'll still need help from the Democratic party. They must be willing to say what they mean and mean what they say. The future of the Democratic party depends on it.

[Terwilliger]

1. that would be

2000

[Q]

2. Thanks...

...I just hope it doesn't apply to 2004.

- How about pooling our resources and countering the RWing media hit teams? It seems our only recourse since Reagan eliminated the 'Fairness Doctrine'.

- Have you noticed that the American Media rarely has both sides represented at the same time on their 'news' programs?

[DeepModem Mom]

5. Have been wondering about a lawsuit...

charging that biased political coverage by news providers is, in the form of free public relations and advertising, an unreported, in-kind, illegal contribution to the Bush/Republican campaign by the news providers' corporate ownership. (I'm thinking Paula Zahn, Judy Woodruff, Candy Crowley, Tim Russert, Frank Luntz, etc.) Would hope at least to get attention, as suits against fast-food companies about unhealthy food got attention and response. But I'm not a lawyer, and don't know if such a suit is possible --

[Q]

6. A lawsuit could be tied up in court for years or decades...

...and meanwhile the Bushie RWingers spread 'disinformation' and get out THEIR message without any kind of organized opposition.

- The Bushies have been able to convince many Americans that we're in Iraq fighting the 'war on terrorism'. Yet...there is absolutely NO evidence to support their claims. How is it that they're able to keep 'implying' that there's a connection? Because they have a team of well-paid talking heads that spread that particular message.

- It's about 'perception management'.

[Jackpine Radical]

16. Sure, the lawsuit would be tied up without resolution for years.

That's years of potential free publicity for the issue as the media report (and maybe express their reactionary outrage at) each development in the case.

[Terwilliger]

9. have I noticed?

sure...that's why I basically ignore mainstream media

I liked the idea of sending a troupe of protestors to every major media event (Laci Peterson trial, Kobe, etc.) and protest Bush at all those places.

[Q]

3. You can see the 'defensive' state of the party...

...represented right here on Democratic Underground. Thread after thread about what the RWing media and their pundits are saying about us.

- That's defensive behavior and we need to put an end to it. We have to go on the offense and expose the MANY lies and disinformation being spread by Bush* operatives and talking heads.

[GOPisEvil]

4. I agree totally.

The best defense is a good offense. If you control the ball, the other team can't score. The Republicans have had this figured out for years.

Edit - as long as we're on offense, there's no need for us to be "offensive" though. We just need to HAMMER the truth, not whine the truth...

[Q]

8. And you can't control the ball if you never have it in your hands...

- Many Americans don't fully understand what changed with the elimination of the Fairness Doctrine. It allowed BOTH SIDES to have a voice in a public forum at the same time.

- What we have now is the corporate media getting the right's point of view and THEN asking the left what they think about it. This automatically puts the left on the defense.

[Beer Snob-50]

7. How about the best start

to this would be with Letters to the Editors. Not radical, Bush is the evil-antichrist letters but just simply stating the case letters to the editors. Letters that people may actually read and not be put on the defensive themselves. Because lets face it, if we write like we do here, we are not going to win converts but put many who are on the fence on the defensive because it will seem as if we are just being negative.

[Q]

10. You're assuming the 'editors' don't know the truth.

...but of course they know. But they're not allowed to tell the truth at the risk of losing their hefty paychecks. Scaife and Murdoch set the tone and the parameters of what THEIR media can report.

- It's obvious that we can't depend on the media doing the right thing. It's not about that anymore. It's about getting out the right's message and blocking the message of the left. We have to 'insert' our message by copying the right's playbook.

[Beer Snob-50]

12. My little area of teh world

(Western Massachusetts) has a local paper that does print both sides of a debate (granted, the RW letters are written by dittoheads who take what Rush (or his contempories) and immediatly put them to paper). They also will have Molly Ivins and Cal Thomas on the same page.

[pearl]

11. I'm thinking of a "stopdrlaura" style campaign

Pick a corp. media target to relentlessly focus on.
I'm thinking NBC, CNBC, MSNBC.

A slogan that runs through my mind,

If your going to be in the WAR business (GE),
Then get the f**k out of the news business.

That Joe Scarborough should be the first to go.

[Q]

13. In order to play...you must be invited to the game...

...and that's where the Left is falling down. We simply don't have a 'pool' of left-wing talking heads to call upon to challenge the constant lies and exaggerations of the right.

- The problem is the new format used by most of the networks. They will have rwing politicians like Cheney or Lott or Bennett on and allow them to lie their asses off...and no one there to offer a counterpoint or dispute their lies.

[zeemike]

14. I agree with you

And especially when you say that the Demos must take the offence.
But I don’t know about media hit teams, just the name of it is a turnoff.
But they must make the news. And that means doing something at least as compelling as Kobe or Schott. Right now the media has a lot of salacious stuff to talk about and they do not have to cover the real serious issues.
And as long as the Demos are not attacking one another there is no story from there side that they feel compelled to cover. Notice how the Confederate flag got the coverage.
Now I don’t know how to create news when no one wants to hear it, but I know that it does have to be dramatic, like a protest in front of CNN, to get their attention.

[SoCalDem]

15. I have advocated "protest the media" since Dec 2000

It has to be simple though..

20 or 30 people showing up daily.. all wearing black.. signs simple too.. like

STOP THE LYING
Tell us the
TRUTH..

Plan to picket CNN?? Call Fox and tell THEM about the CNN protest, and vice versa..

[Karenina]

23. YES!!! YES, SoCalDem!!!

It must become impossible for the fifth column fourth estate to go anywhere or do anything without a cadre of American truthtellers calling them out for their ENDLESS lies and DISTORTIONS.

[Q]

26. Protests are a 'good thing'...

...but the way the corporate media has set up their news formats makes it too easy for them to distort the message. The only way it could work is to have protests AND have a team from the left show up at the networks to explain the reasons behind the dissent. Otherwise...the corporate media can spin it without an opposing point of view.

[Q]

17. Let's not get caught up in semantics...

...what I mean by 'hit teams' is a 'pool' of left wing pundits we can call upon to show up at any given time and use documented truth to counter the right's lies and deceit.

- The Bushie Republicans have it down to an artform. Whenever they're backed into a corner with an obvious lie or a scandal...they send out 'teams' to muddy the water with outright lies and exaggerations...and 'disinformation'. The public becomes so confused that they don't know WHAT the real truth is.

- In the past...the Fairness Doctrine gave a platform for both sides at the same time. But the format has changed since most of the networks are owned by Right Wing Ideologues. They invite RWing talking heads on their programs withuot any opposing point of view...and then ask the left AFTER THE FACT to respond.

[zeemike]

20. Yes I know

What you meant, but while we can say those things with no sinister thinking, a clever RW pundit would seize on the praise to discredit all of what was said. .
Hit squads probably is the best words but why not do what the Repugs do and call them truth squads?

[Q]

22. They can't 'discredit' the obvious truth...

...and that's why our side must be prepared with facts and documentation.

- The Democratic party has been on the defensive for a very long time....well actually since the end of the fairness doctrine. Why? Because we're allowing Republicans to frame each and every debate.

- The issue of late term abortions is a good example. The left actually had a better, more logical argument...but very few bodies to show up at the networks and get that message out at the same time the right was pushing their offensive and framing the debate as 'baby killing' and misrepresenting the facts.

[zeemike]

18. Well hell

I just came up with a plan of action that would get the media attention.
What if originations like Move On and others got together and launched a mass protest in Washington is support of the house bill on BBV? Could the media NOT cover that?

[Q]

19. The media will cover it 'their way'...

...which means they'll deflect attention away from the protests by having RWing pundits call the protestors 'unAmerican' or worse.

- It's a way to make the news...but we need to have voices at the top of the food chain helping to frame the debate.

- Once again...the problem is that networks are allowing the Right to spread their disinformation without presenting an opposing point of view at the same time.

[zeemike]

21. They are going to do that

No matter what you do. But every time you bust th news no matter what way the try to spin it at least a few more hear the message.

[Q]

24. They can't 'spin' it if the other side is right there to counter...

...their spin. When Republicans insist that Bush* is fighting the 'war on terrorism' in Iraq...our side must be there to show that there's no connection. How? By quoting intelligence reports and the Bushies themselves...who have been forced to admit that under-reported fact.

[Beer Snob-50]

25. or..

unfortuntaly having teh voice of teh democratic party be the fringe left who will make us sound revolutionary.