Home | About | Donate

Big Media Need to Fight for the Right to Protest


#1

Big Media Need to Fight for the Right to Protest

Janine Jackson

West Virginia state police arrested Dan Heyman, a veteran reporter with Public News Service, for repeatedly asking Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price whether being a target of domestic violence would be considered a “pre-existing condition,” allowing health insurance to be denied, under the new Republican healthcare bill (FAIR Action Alert,


#2

1st; never underestimate the power of the state and the US is the most powerful state. I'm watching closely the outcomes of these civil rights tragedies to see how bad the repression of dissent will get. So far, with the convictions adding up, it doesn't look good. With Trump's thin skin we could see more repression since the civil rights riots and anti-war demonstrations of the 60's and 70's. People that have to work just might consider if it's worth it to get arrested, lose your job, and perhaps be blacklisted from your profession, and yes it's happened plenty of times in the past. Now for those that have little to lose more power to you all. The laughing at Sessions confirmation hearing by Desiree Fairooz must have been a scream, funny, and a hoot!! Too bad, she could get a year and a stiff fine because she couldn't contain herself at Sessions somber confirmation. The government needs to lighten up. Keep at it folks it's the only thing keeping some of us sane in these trying times.


#3

The stupidity of her conviction is shocking. Haven't people in the US heard of jury nullification? It's the entire reason we have juries.


#4

Many judges will jail jurors who vote nullification, for contempt of court.


#5

It would be nice were big media, or some part of big media, to fight for the right to protest or for some such thing that might support representative or democratic systems, equality, liberty, or something of the sort.

There is a reason that it will not happen.

To anyone who wants deep background over reasons, I recommend Chomsky and Herman's 1989 Manufacturing Consent, still the best discussion of operating principles in this that I have seen. But there's a pretty simple and straightforward explanation for much of the difference between the big commercial 20th century media holdovers of 2017 and those of 1989.

The traditional business model that Chomsky and Herman examined largely failed in the first years of the 21st century when PHP-driven blogging and social media allowed running feedback between people like Glenn Greenwald and a readership, and had been largely on its way since at least 1994, when point-and-click browsing took the Net from the university to the near-universal and laid the social and technical groundwork for a small team like Wikileaks to eventually scoop enormous organizations almost as part of its regular workday.

The big operations were, for a while, to go out of business, remember? And yet not many did. Why not?

Apparently, someone besides the public is willing to pay for news. For now, the best clue as to who that might be may have to do with the news that they pay for.


#6

Good points and it's about time that Leftist Liberal Progressives learned to fight Big Media effectively. They are vulnerable. The only product they have, as I have said many times in this and other sites, is the attention they can attract to sell to advetisors. Dump on them and if they begin to feel that the public is turning against them, they will become much more willing to say more of the stuff we would like to hear.

I keep proposing a major PR move, a counter propaganda barrage aimed using the internet and all these handy dandy communication devices they have given to us, and aim it at the two segments of the establishment most vulnerable to public opprobrium: the banks and the media. This could be an opportunity to foment anger against the media for their criminal complicity in the high cost of elections leading directly to the inordinate influence of big money in election outcomes. And a lot of nonprogressives are angry about this too?

What we of the disloyal opposition have going for us is that, rich and well armed as the Establishment is, they are a lot stupider than those of us who think about changing it realize. They have persuaded everyone that resistance is futile. It isn't and their "business model" has led them to provide us with all the tools we need to stick it to them good.


#7

Who is big media? Are you talking about corporate media owned by a few for the few? Profits are their main motive not the interest of we the people. Profits come from their friends and fellow board of directors in other industries, all cross board of directors in all industries working in the interest of each other. There all one in the same. That is needed to be stated over and over again.
Donald Trump is right that the corporate media is an enemy of the people but for different reasons and I do hate stating that Djt is right about anything.


#8

Blocking a highway, nonviolently or not, is breaking the law and is not protected speech under the First Amendment. If you block a highway you ought to be arrested.


#9

Many judges are idiots who have no business being on the bench. As a juror all you have to do is vote for the innocence of the defendant even if he is guilty. You do not have to say you are making a nullification vote.


#10

This is why the French have a strong middle class and some of the best most accessible health care on earth:

Illegal and right are two different things.