Sake White

This is going to be a pretty straight up post, with a linear format, that won’t go into anything too general at all.

First of all, Cassandra’s post at VC concerning the media’s attempt to re-write the history of Vietnam and wash out all the little inconveniences such as the personal stories of heroism and sacrifice of Americans, sets the stage and foundation. It is rather long and linear as well, so I would suggest reading it afterwards. It is not all that critical to what I wish to write about. Which is how to best counter-act the influence of the media. What are their weak spots? Where are they vulnerable and where do they believe they are vulnerable?

Bill raises such questions, at least as a start.

Perhaps we should ask ourselves why we are told it is wrong to censor or attempt suppress political speech, but on several occasions Democratic Senators have done just that and the media have remained strangely silent?

Rather, we should ask the media that question, loudly and continuously.

Better not hold our collective breath waiting for an honest answer, though…

Posted by: BillT at August 26, 2007 02:29 PM

Here is my response to him.

Rather, we should ask the media that question, loudly and continuously.

The media doesn’t care Bill. I think it would be more productive to ask the advertisers that about the media that they advertise in.

In fact, disinformation campaigns should be targeted against the Mass Sewer Mind while propaganda campaigns designed to produce guilt and conscientious actions be targeted against advertisers. The MSM doesn’t have any guilt or sense of responsibility that could be fired by you asking them whatever. They just don’t care, and if they ever did care, they would just stomp on you by running some character assassination pieces. The media, like with all occupations and inflexible organizations, are vulnerable at the logistics. The tail end. Place where the armor is weakest.-Ymar

You see my point, I hope. The media may be thought of as the occupation forces and the blogosphere as the guerrila resistance fighters. Even such sites as Instapundit and Michelle Malkin and LGF are peanuts compared to the Associated Press and Reuters. Therefore what you do against an occupation force, such as attacking their logistics rather than going mano on mano, is what you should do against the media. So what are the media’s logistics? The logistics of an army are food, transportation of munitions, maintenance parts, replacements for destroyed equipment, and direct cash salaries (not applicable in our electronic transfer methods, but still applicable to other nation’s militaries). The logistics of the media are their advertisers, their credibility, and their sources (or ability to acquire sources, leaks, whistleblowers, etc).

After I made such comments, Book got a response to her post here. This is a good example of the subject.

I’m the Assistant Vice President of Public Relations for Orkin, Inc. I was interested to read the negative response genreated from our advertising during the August 21 episode of “God’s Jewish Warriors,” and I’m very sorry you were offended. First – you’re right – we usually buy advertising in dayparts, not by particular shows, so we didn’t buy advertising during this specific show. Second, I have not seen the show mentioned, so I can’t comment on its contents; however, I will take your complaint to the Chief Marketing Officer, and we will consider adding this show to our “do not buy” list of offensive shows where we do not allow our ads to run. No need for an e-mail campaign – you’ve been heard.

Comment by Martha Craft | August 27, 2007

Notice the bold.

My response,

 

I wish to personally thank Martha for demonstrating that the private sector is more ethical and concerned with individuals and the realities of our day than the media.

Comment by ymarsakar | August 27, 2007

Please read Book’s post for what show she was objecting to and for her response to Martha Craft.

I will add something else, of course. Original so to speak. Private companies and advertisers have their reputations to think of, because they live in the real world of market factors. In the real world, you simply cannot create profit and sustainable business expansion simply by producing the odd word or two. Even for the businesses that attempt to lie, they are caught eventually. Relying upon a pardon by Clinton is also a long shot. This is not the rules by which the US media operates under, however. The more they lie, slander, and bring down their reputation, the more damage they do and the more they believe they are doing well.

It is simply not in the strategic interests of advertisers and businesses to associate themselves with such self-destructive people. Therefore it is in the interests of the blogosphere and individual consumers to make it known to those that would benefit from such. It doesn’t require a campaign of hate emails or anything else unpleasant. It is simply a changing of alliances. Like Al Anbar did by turning on Al Qaeda, their former allies, and siding with the Coalition, their former enemies.

The MSM media and their leaders do not care what individual people believe or do. And that in turn makes them poor choices for companies seeking to acquire more customers.