How to Fundamentally Change the Way News is Reported in America… And Make Half a Billion Dollars Doing it!
By Movieguide® Contributor
Allow me to begin by confessing that I am not using my real name in the writing of this article.
I’m not, because I cannot.
I have worked successfully within the entertainment industry for several decades and have won dozens of national and in international awards for my work, but if I were to use my real name, I would be ruthlessly persecuted and denied work by those who are so insecure in their convictions, they simply cannot tolerate an opinion or ideology, different from theirs.
Interesting, isn’t it? The Left in America today, persecutes, and in some cases even prosecutes, those who express an opinion different from theirs.
Could it be that they are afraid their professed variants on the classically failed ideologies of Communism, Socialism, and Fascism cannot withstand intellectual scrutiny … even their own? In my opinion, that is exactly what it means.
But now, on to my solution on how to reverse decades of the News Media’s role in the decaying of the American society.
We live in a world of instantaneous information. The problem arises when there’s no authoritative and/or trustworthy institution charged with the task of verifying that information!
With the birth of America came a fundamental change in the age-old relationship between those who govern… and those who are governed.
For the first time in world history, a new nation was conceived whereby the people of that nation retained their power of independence by severely limiting the authority of those people and institutions elected to govern.
That is the basis of a true Democracy, but in my opinion, there are five key elements needed for a democracy (or in our situation, a Democratic Republic) to thrive and function effectively.
The first is a responsive Political Infrastructure.
Dr. Kelly S. Meier of the Kinect Education Group, professes that a “democratic government is one that is controlled by the people. Citizen involvement is necessary to ensure fair governmental practices and equal rights. Philosophical disputes are tolerated, and reconciliation requires compromise”.
She goes on to say, “A true democracy must respect conflicting opinions, encourage debate and honor the opinions of its citizens. For example, a fair election process that encourages discussion about issues and allows all people to weigh in, is essential in a democratic government. Of equal importance is an election outcome that is truly determined by the votes of the people.”
2.) Citizen Involvement.
Again, according to Dr. Meier, “a democracy works when citizens are educated and engaged in public and civic organizations … (to which I would add “issues” as well).
She continues, “A democracy does not mandate involvement but instead empowers citizens to participate. Voting in elections is a critical right and privilege that represents democratic participation.”
3.) Protection of Rights
Dr, Meier, a distinguished author and educator of 30 years, believes, “A democracy is founded on principles that ensure rights for each citizen. Individuals are guaranteed freedoms associated with religion, cultural identity, expression, and an independent belief structure. Democratic citizens are encouraged to assemble and become a part of groups and associations that reinforce their values and ideals. A democracy allows varied opinions to be voiced and recognized. All of these rights are protected and include the responsibility of all to respect one another.
4.) The Establishment of a Legal Authority
Again, I agree with Dr. Meier when she says, “Citizens are protected from discrimination based upon race, ability, ethnicity, gender and religion. Punishment is outlined by the law and cannot include inhumane treatment such as torture or unsubstantiated allegations. Even high-ranking officials are subject to the laws of the land.”
Now, take a moment to reread these first four functions considered essential for a vibrant, healthy, responsive, and functioning Democracy, and then ask yourself, “Is this how you would describe America today?”
I think not, and the reason for this can be found in my 5th, and in my opinion, the quintessential element that allows the previous four components to exist and perform effectively.
5.) An aggressive, independent, and balanced News Media.
Since Mankind began walking upright, one single certainty has prevailed. Our individual “perceptions” of reality are what we come to accept as “truth”, and it is those “accepted truths” which directly influence our beliefs, opinions, and actions.
But, if our “perceptions” are unduly influenced by a biased and politically motivated agenda, then the “truths” we derived from those “perceptions” have less to do with “truth” and more to do with a “politically motivated propaganda” under the disguise of “news and information”. (Can you say, “Fake News”?)
In complete honesty, I don’t think there was ever a time in the field of news reporting that you could say the industry was totally balanced and completely unbiased. It goes against the human psyche.
However. I do believe there was a time, that News was considered an honorable profession, and one in which individuals did strive to do their best in bringing accurate, informative, and balanced reporting to their audiences.
In my opinion, all that changed during the reporting on the Ohio primary of 2008, between Hillary Clinton and Barack Hussein Obama.
On a Friday night, the mainstream media was strongly and solidly behind Hillary Clinton, (as they had been from the beginning) continuing to cover up her political and financial scandals, as well as her policy inadequacies and failures.
But something amazing happened over that weekend.
Come Monday morning, every one of the mainstream media outlets were now backing Barack Hussein Obama, leaving Hillary in the dust!
It was an amazing transformation to witness. It was as if, someone “threw a switch,” and suddenly, Obama was “in” and Clinton was “out”, and ever since then, even the pretense of balanced news reporting has been cast aside.
Leading up to the presidential election of 2016, the news media didn’t even pretend to be balanced in their reporting on the candidates or their issues. They were all in for Hillary Clinton, and outwardly laughing at the absurdity of anybody remotely believing that Donald J. Trump could ever be elected President of the United States.
Then, once the man “who could never be President” was elected president in an Electoral landslide (306 to 227) the news media was so outraged that members of it publicly proclaimed that they would do everything in their power to stop this man.
The result is truly a tragedy, not only for the people of the United States, but for the entire freedom loving world. That’s because media, especially a free, opened, balanced and aggressive news media, is the only entity powerful enough to keep a government, (any government), in check!
Back in 2008, the mainstream media enthusiastically and systematically abandoned their role as “protectors” of the rights of the people and assumed the role of “propagandists” promoting Mr. Obama’s left-wing agendas; and that has continued right up through today.
Now, what to do about it?
I have lost count at the number of times that I’ve heard people say Conservative Billionaires should get together and buy a network and promote conservative news to counterbalance the left-wing agendas who promote their “Propaganda”, under the disguise of “News”.
As great, as simple, and as hopeful as that may sound, in the light of day, the concept would be a Multibillion dollar financial and ideological failure. And having failed, the resulting fallout would only further ensconce and encourage the remaining Leftist run news organizations to increase their efforts.
It’s time I clarify something. I don’t want a conservative news media. I don’t want a liberal news media. I don’t want a leftist news media. I don’t want a government-controlled news media.
What I want, and what our democracy needs, is an aggressive, balanced, independent, and free news media dedicated to protecting the rights of the people from the ever-expanding tyranny of government.
And that may be easier to obtain than you think!
Radio and television broadcast entities in the United States fall under the jurisdiction of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).
Long ago, the United States Congress determined that the airwaves, i.e. the radio and television broadcast frequencies over which programming is transmitted, are owned, not by the networks, but by the American people!
The whole purpose of the establishment of the FCC was to set up a government entity empowered with the responsibility to monitor, manage, and regulate “The People’s Airways”.
I am not a lawyer, nor am I an expert on the intricacies of the Federal Communications Commission.
However, I have spent a great deal of time reading as much as possible, regarding the rules, regulations, mandates, and guidelines that the FCC. imposes on America’s broadcast entities.
Their regulations fall primarily in two categories. The first is programming, and because the FCC accepts the fact that the airwaves are owned by the American people, they are very liberal (small “L”) in their interpretation of “Programming Content”.
Obviously, there are general guidelines when it comes to areas such as violence, nudity, offensive language, etc. But, when it comes to programming content, the FCC’s policy is, “… if the public isn’t complaining about it, we shouldn’t regulate it.”
However, and this is a big HOWEVER, the FCC is very specific when it comes to the guidelines of what is news, and how it should be reported.
For example, the following paragraph has been taken directly out of FCC guidelines for news reporting.
“The FCC is prohibited by law from engaging in censorship or infringing on First Amendment rights of the press. It is, however, illegal for broadcasters to intentionally distort the news, and the FCC may act on complaints if there is documented evidence of such behavior from persons with direct personal knowledge.”
I am paraphrasing now, but here are some additional FCC guidelines governing news gathering and reporting which include the following additional restrictions:
A broadcasting news entity cannot endorse an individual candidate.
News reporting cannot intentionally slant the reporting of news in the favor one candidate over another.
A news entity cannot intentionally withhold a story from the public, which may be considered detrimental to one candidate or another.
A broadcast entity cannot intentionally report on a story they know to be false.
Broadcast news entities MUST report those stories whose impact will influence the general population at large, no matter their political fallout.
The irony is, News Staffs throughout the country know of these regulations, but they’ve chosen not to follow them, and that is their vulnerability!
Why is all this important?
Because every radio and television broadcast entity in the country is granted a license by the Federal Communications Commission, requiring that broadcast entity to follow the guidelines FCC has issued in both their “programming” and “news” arenas.
Furthermore, those granted broadcast licenses are required to be renewed periodically. In the case of television stations, their licenses, i.e., their “permission” to use “The People’s Airways” must be renewed every eight years.
Again, why is all this important?
Because FCC guidelines allow the public to challenge the reissuing of a station’s broadcast license on a variety of grounds, including “the distortion of news reporting”.
Networks derive the bulk of their income from their programming divisions. Again, generally speaking, in minute to minute, dollar to dollar comparisons, the network’s cost analysis of maintaining national and international news bureaus, render those divisions at best, revenue neutral, and at worst, a drain on the network’s overall profitability.
A cataclysmic nightmare for a Network’s Board of Directors, and the shareholders they represent, would be to face the very real possibility, if not probability of NOT having their broadcasting license renewed at one or more of their Flag Ship stations in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, etc., due to the failure of their News Bureaus to comply with clearly documented FCC regulations governing their news gathering and reporting.
Remember this paragraph taken directly from the Federal Communications’ website, “It is, however, illegal for broadcasters to intentionally distort the news, and the FCC may act on complaints if there is documented evidence of such behavior from persons with direct personal knowledge”.
Enter the Media Research Center, located in Washington DC, headed by its Executive Director, Brent Bozell.
MRC is a remarkable organization which has spent the last several decades categorizing media bias in all forms and on all networks. Their reports are not based on speculation but backed by actual documentation!
On any given day, they can provide you reams of documented information on the day, date and circumstance of hundreds, if not thousands, of stories which have either been distorted, misreported and/or “Spiked” meaning, never reported. Stories on people, and events directly and/or indirectly affecting the daily lives, activities, and freedoms of the American people.
In other words, those specific stories that FCC guidelines, rules and regulations require broadcast Media outlets to not only report, but to report accurately, and honestly. In failing to do so, each of those broadcast entities has placed their FCC broadcasting license in jeopardy and subject to being challenged.
And, that’s the News network’s “Achilles Heel”, the public’s ability to challenge, with cause, the renewal of their FCC broadcast license.
And, here is the beauty of the plan. The renewal process only needs to be challenged, not won, in order to make substantive changes in the way broadcast news is reported.
When a viable challenge is made against the broadcaster’s license renewal, and, in the FCC’s own words, “… if there is documented evidence of such behavior from persons with direct personal knowledge,…” the FCC will hold an official hearing to determine the viability and legitimacy of that challenge.
At that hearing, the only thing the Challenger or Challengers need to prove is the viability of their claim and the evidence substantiating their accusations.
With the help of organizations such as the Media Research Center and others, it will be relatively easy for the challengers to gather evidence of hundreds, if not, thousands of specific instances where the News broadcaster being challenged, has failed to meet to meet the FCC news guidelines to which they’re obligated.
Once the challenge has been presented and substantiated, the next step for the FCC is to decide as to whether the challenge to the broadcaster’s license is a viable one worthy of further investigation.
Once that happens, the Challengers have already won! That’s because, to effectuate major changes in the way news is gathered and disseminated nationwide, all the challengers need to accomplish is to present substantive evidence of the network’s news distortion to the extent that the FCC determines the submitted abuses warrant further investigation.
Allow me to explain how I would recommend this be accomplished.
First. Working with the news analyst organizations, I would determine which of the three major networks have the majority of FCC violations in America largest media market, New York City.
Second, I would establish a new corporation, with a management team displaying an expertise in the ability to own and operate a news and entertainment organization. This could be accomplished by putting together a board of directors for this new corporation, several of which would have a background in broadcasting, news, and finance. (This is necessary because “the Challenger” is actually requesting that the broadcast license be transferred from the current holder to them. Consequently, they must be able to prove they have the capability to take over the license and operate it in the public’s best interest.)
Third, once the FCC has determined internally that the facts stated within the challenge are substantive and worthy of further investigation, then the network being challenged will be notified of that action by the FCC! In essence, the network challenged will be officially notified by a federal agency, that there may be grounds for the removal of their broadcast license, and the network will need to show cause why that should not happen.
Take a moment and think about that.
You’re the head of a multibillion-dollar broadcasting network, who’s Flagship station in New York City, where the bulk of your news is gathered and reported, is being challenged on the basis of biased News reporting.
Now take into consideration, internally, the network itself already knows its reporting is biased, and they know they have not complied with all the appropriate FCC regulations regulating the researching and dissemination of factual news. Consequently, they know better than anyone that their license could be seriously in jeopardy! (Many of their own on-air, and behind the scenes management teams have already publicly bragged about their biases.)
There is no way that a network could allow an action to proceed, the result of which if lost, would end their right and ability to broadcast in the nation’s largest city.
The first thing they’ll do is try every possible legal maneuverability to have the challenge disqualified. But, because the facts are not only true, but numerous, and the examples are documented, that will be extremely difficult to do.
Once the network’s appeals are exhausted, there is only one course of action left to them and that is to attempt to settle with the challenger(s), in hopes they will remove their objection to the FCC’s renewing of the network’s Flagship’s broadcast license
At this point the challengers are in the driver’s seat.
Consequently, the Plaintiffs, (Challengers) should now demand a minimum of four key issues as part of their “settlement agreement” to withdraw their challenge.
1.) The Plaintiff’s participation and supervision of the immediate removal and replacement of the network’s Vice President of News, and News Director, for their failure to follow FCC guidelines designed to protect the public from willfully allowing bias reporting and politized propaganda under the disguise of “news”.
2.) The Plaintiff’s participation and supervision of the immediate removal and replacement of on-air reporters and news talent that have repeatedly demonstrated documented blatant bias in their selection of and their reporting on those stories, people, and events which impact the public at large.
3.) The Plaintiff’s participation and supervision of the immediate replacement of terminated individuals, not with Conservative reporters, but rather media journalists dedicated to seeking and reporting the truth no matter whom it hurts, or where it leads.
4.) In final consideration for the Plaintiffs to withdraw their license challenge, a settlement payment of five hundred million dollars. (The network would consider a half a billion dollar settlement to protect the stock value and financial structure of their many billions of dollars empire, a bargain.)
If you think your forgoing is a “made up fantasy” of mine, you are wrong.
When it comes to the renewal of their broadcast licenses, radio and television stations throughout America are regularly challenged on numerous grounds, such as financial failures, organized corruption and their failure to procure and/or maintain the most technologically advanced broadcasting equipment. However, the most common license renewal challenge is the station’s “failure to adequately serve the needs of its local community”. That generally means, a lack of locally produced community programming, focusing on the issues but of importance to that city.
Without becoming too specific, I can tell you, several years back a prominent television station in the Los Angeles market was challenged for its alleged a “lack of community-based programming”.
I can also tell you they followed the exact practices as outlined above. The FCC ruled that their complaint “…deserved further investigation”. In the interim of that investigation, another network wanted to purchase that station as part of their expansion plans, but because of the validated challenge to their broadcasting license, the potential transfer of that license was clouded.
The end result? The station whose license had been challenged ended up paying the challengers a $90 million dollar cash settlement to withdraw their complaint.
That’s because without a broadcast license, a broadcast station is nothing more than an empty building.
Furthermore, when one station is successfully challenged for failing to comply with the FCC guidelines for news reporting, it becomes a very LOUD wakeup call for all its neighboring stations to clean up their own act before they too challenged.
Attacking the “Achilles Heels” of these stations who unabashedly abused the public’s trust by continuing to distort the news is the fastest, most complete, and most affordable method of permanently changing the way news is being reported within America.
I rest my case.