The Digital Revolution: Rules of Engagement
By J.J. Johnson - Published: 03.05.01
This has been a long time coming. But I suppose I had to get mad enough to finally get it off my chest. It's time for the millions of us who have (or have had problems) with how that so-called mainstream media treats them to stop following the common practices and start doing something about it.
It is my hope that this message reaches not only Real Americans, but many who may sit in executive board rooms everyday looking for answers. Regardless of your political affiliation, this modern-day First Amendment warfare gives mercy to no one, and each of us are either part of the solution, or part of the problem. In the past, the weapons of this battle were only reserved for a few. Now, they are available to everyone. Only one thing left to do: Join the Revolution.
If you are an average reader making a modest income, perhaps breaking a sweat each day or slaving at some dead-end cubicle, please excuse me while I address those who fly first class, if they even fly commercial at all. They need to hear a message from us "low-life media" types down here first.
There are those in that class of people who have to sit in board rooms everyday and make decisions that affect the lives of millions of others, and more importantly - the bottom line. Much of their headaches revolve around their "public image. Many corporations find themselves at the business end of big media's gun. I mean having their image and/or practices attacked for whatever reason. Here are a few examples: tobacco, firearms, family farming, logging, mining, alternative health, alternative education, off shore investments, off shore oil and gas exploration, southern enterprises, fishing, drug legalization, etc. There are many more than those listed here. Some are just legal businesses who didn't pay off the right people or who simply made someone else upset at a dinner party.
As a result, many of these people find themselves under attack from various organizations (and subsequently - the media) with all but no way out. A common practice for some is to hire "public relations" firms to deal with the mess and pay so-called experts $500 per hour just to teach them how to say "no comment." Some have tried fighting back just to see even more degradation of their image. Some "think" that by saying nothing or hiding in a cave for awhile, it'll all go away, and they resolve to do whatever it takes to "appease" the media deity in the future. It never works.
But here are the worst ones: Those that know full well the media are out to get them, or are clearly on their bad side, but somehow get convinced that advertising on these same media are best for the corporate interest as a whole.
I know what causes this sick behavior, but suffice it to say it has something to do with lawyers and sick sales-and-marketing firms (who also charge hundreds of dollars per hour.) Has it ever dawned on any of them to try a different medium? Different news organizations that might at least give them a fair shake when it comes to their side of the story? Yes, I hope there are some of those board room folks who are repulsed yet possibly intrigued by the idea. But it will fall on deaf ears because most companies (especially the conservative ones) always look at the bottom line. If it can't reach the number of people needed, it's simply not worth it. "So, I'll take my chances with that local or national tabloid since after all, it's numbers we're looking for."
These are the same people that will get besieged by months worth of hostile editorials and news hit pieces on their company or industry, and then are "honored" when they receive a phone call from that same media wanting the other side of the story. This honor turns to sadness, anger and frustration after they see the finished product later, realizing their words were only taken out of context yet again, and used as "quote fillers" to justify more lambasting by the media, and continuing harm to their public image.
The large media outlets were not created by the industries mentioned above. They were created and are maintained by persons who labor each day with personal beliefs contrary to these industries. Perhaps those industries should work on creating, or at least supporting media that support them, or will at least give them "fair and balanced" coverage. Most media outlets don't start off huge. They are built from being supported from outside sources until the audience is large enough to where that media organization becomes self-supportive.
Please don't think that I am whining or passing around a tin cup. These rules apply regardless of whether Sierra Times.com exists or not. There will be other media passed by for the same reasons. I'm not even referring to strictly Internet media either. Some major print publications get passed over even when they have larger audiences or better products or services simply because these corporations want to be with the "in crowd."
If "sowing the seeds of your own destruction" comes to mind, good.
Part of the solution is much easier than it seems - simply supporting alternative voices in the world. Sound absurd? The left does it everyday, usually right under our noses. Here's proof: No one would have ever heard of the Million Mom March if it were not for the media. Yet the Second Amendment Sisters have to all but draw guns to get media attention these days, even though their membership is larger. More? How about the National Organization for Women whose membership roles are less than most internet publication subscriber lists, yet they are given air time by these media outlets - supported in part by conservative ad dollars.
Ever heard of that big news giant in Washington D.C. called the Washington Post? Guess what? The Washington Times gets more readers daily. And you probably think the national media industry is in part driven by newspapers with the highest circulation based in New York City. If that's what you think, you're wrong. How many local papers do you see quoting the Wall Street Journal, instead of the New York Times?
I'll do you one better - for those who think the media is actually doing fair, balanced, and accurate reporting, with a recent example. - The USA TODAY.
You would think that after taking money for recent full page ads about the illegalities of the Internal Revenue Service, someone from their news department having all the documented information dropped in their laps (and getting paid for it) might just want to follow-up and do their own investigative report; perhaps justifying placing those full-page ads in their daily publication? Perhaps some other media would jump on the opportunity to break the story of one of the longest scandals in U.S. history - even bigger than Watergate and Monica?
Listen, as you can hear the pin drop in newsrooms around the country.
No, they won't. And it's not some big conspiracy, it is a big consensus - The consensus that America is just too stupid to handle the truth, so they will do it for us, and if they DARED take it upon themselves to state the obvious, there would be a firestorm of condemnation, followed by campaigns to remove advertising dollars, quality news contacts, etc, by the "smear campaign" that would be all but guaranteed.
Yes, there are other voices out there. But as long as The New York Times, and the Associated Presses of the world have their say, they will NEVER be heard, read or seen in their circles. And some besieged corporate giants will keep paying for it.
I can supply a partial list of names that have been blacklisted (that's right - barred) from the major media. From personal experience, there was a time last year when a major media outlet wanted this author on a talking head program to discuss a topic that has the attention of millions of Americans - police brutality and reverse racism. But it never happened. I did some inquiries to find out why. Here's what I learned:
All it took was to find out that I was the one coming on the air. For some reason, a media "panic" ensued followed by the person I questioned stating: "Off the record Mr. Johnson, when word got around that you were going to be on the air, influential people called in, furious, and threatened to boycott advertisers of the program and network you were going to be on. We're sorry, but our hands are tied."
See, it wasn't that I wasn't qualified to speak on the matter; it was said that Sierra Times had done a pretty good job of staying on top of police shootings around the nation. Someone, somewhere did NOT want me on the air. I have since learned that there are others out there who are just as "blacklisted." So, what were they afraid of? Why would (for another example) the Atlanta Journal & Constitution go out of their way to ask me how to spell the URL for our news site, and then mysteriously omit the URL from their news story - knowing that it was the editorials from that site that brought me to Atlanta?
Yes, there is a reason. I suspect it has something to do with the rule that no news organization that's not in "the club" will ever see the light of day in their medium. The reason: fear. It would seem strange that billion dollar operations fear folks with a 4 digit budget, but they do. So as long as they can be ignored, they can sleep easier at night. So just imagine if that 4-digit operation had a mere 6 or 7 digits to work with? When an industry or political organization was attacked, there could be a response, or even a counter action of equal or greater proportion, thus saving a lot of corporate headaches in the future.
Of course, then there's the line: "Well, we don't want to be linked to such media in fear of being labeled." Those who think that way only succeed in letting the left dictate the "rules of engagement." Here are some things you can't be linked to by supporting alternative publications, and that to the best of my knowledge, no alternative publication is known for:
Saying what a great idea NAFTA was.
Reporting (with a straight face) that a center fuel tank caused one of the worst air disasters in U.S History
Telling you steak is bad for you but random sex is okay.
Selling every kind of decadence to children via the media, and then preaching for more gun control after one reduces their class size, based on what they learned from that media.
Convincing people that citizens escaping U.S. bombing runs in Yugoslavia is "ethnic cleansing" by the enemy.
Editorializing the benefits of a new Vietnam in Columbia.
That 80 men, women and children decided to burn themselves to death in Mt Carmel, Texas.
That President Kennedy was killed by a lone gunman with a .22 rifle from the sixth floor of a building, while the motorcade was moving.
Telling the world that Al Gore and George W. Bush were the two best Americans we had to offer.
Reporting that an NCCAP boycott actually worked in South Carolina.
Reporting that those who support the Constitution are anti-government.
And telling the public that government is ruled by "democracy," and not bribery, focus groups, and polling data.
No, we didn't tell you any of these things. And I doubt we ever will. And whenever even the wealthiest don't go along with the program, or don't pay the right people off, they may find a media locomotive coming in there direction. As said, this is the same media that outright fears a few Real American folks on a computer with a modem, working with mere pocket change. One report from Sierra Times using only a cell phone and a digital camera forced the media to reduce the reported total head count of the Million Mom March rally that had been grossly inflated prior to the publication of Nancy Johnson's on-location report. Imagine what one could do with the resources of say - what many corporations spend on their annual Christmas parties?
This message is not only to the first class flyers, etc., who sit in the board rooms, but to many of that so-called conservative media who insist on using quotes from such publications as the New York Times, Washington Post, etc - just to prove their points. The sitting President and Vice president made a statement about the New York Times during the campaign that could be applied just as easily to those who love to quote the New York Times regularly.
This needs to stop. Corporate executives and conservative organizations need to stop letting their public image be determined by media that would just as soon celebrate their demise, anyway. They also have no obligation to support such media whatsoever. If that's what they are being told by the "Madison Avenue Suits" and "Wall Street Junkies," their money can and should be spent better elsewhere. And finally, to prove my integrity, here's what motivated me to write this:
I was getting calls from a certain organization pleading with me not to run a story which would actually benefit them - in my opinion. You see, they don't want to draw attention to themselves although they are doing nothing illegal or unethical. They just happen to be on the other side of the political fence. No, they'd rather do nothing, or pay thousands of dollars just to be told how to say "no comment," look good doing it, and how best to advertise on (read: pay off) some big news outfit in hopes that the media will find some bigger fish to fry.
The tools are at your disposal. These days, wars in America are fought with information - as of now. It is happening today. The key to victory for our side is to shun the eastern establishment media, and use your financial ability (and a little guts) to invest in a new breed of journalism. It may not yield financial dividends on paper, but it could help save the basic human and constitutional rights of millions of your "customers" down the road.
And that's something you can take credit for, and reap the praises later.
That's right, Real America - the war is not over, and the Nation is still Divided.
Welcome to the Revolution.
http://www.sierratimes.com/archive/jj/2001/mar/edjj030501.htm
