I should have responded to the initial post, but I was like, "Gosh! That's a lot of reading to do!" Anyhow, I did the reading now so I'm ready.

I really want to stand by him and hope for excellence in indie media and something that would run counter to the lazy, awful mainstream media and the poisonous propaganda machine of Fox News, but I'm weary and tired and I've grown so, so cynical of a capitalist system that encourages companies and individuals to do anything for a buck. Could the Pacifica that Sam dreams about survive in a system where the exact opposite of it thrives? In a system powered by people who want it and the truth dead?

Maybe my cynicism and pessimism are just significantly higher than usual. I would do everything in my power to help just such an entity, but I'd feel the heavy weight of futility in my actions.

I'm in deep agreement with Sam's article. He expresses the legitimate criticism that is the grain of truth in Marc Cooper's vitriolic attacks on Pacifica stations. Sam conveys it in a way far more likely to be heard and taken to heart among the communities who could make the change happen.

Seven years ago, some seriously ill-intentioned people nearly succeeded in selling off what could be one of the left's most precious resources. Thanks to heroic efforts, and no thanks to Marc Cooper and several other people who should have known better, the stations remain available to us. But they're much less effective than they could be.

Gawd, man, stick with Sam Hennessey! Don't be dumb.

Many Hans Schneiders became Jack Snyders in WW I.

Fear is a good thing, not a bad thing, it keeps you out of trouble, and sometimes alive.

"Had Pacifica reporters gotten into the White House regularly, or even the State Department or Pentagon, could they not have increased scrutiny on false claims for the Iraq war before the invasion?"

No. Pacfica would have been marginalized via viscious name calling and smear tactics. The persistent would have been jailed and intimidated.

"Had Pacifica had someone effectively covering Homeland Security issues, could that not have highlighted the vulnerability of the levees in New Orleans before Katrina hit?"

Very Unlikely. What Pacifica should be doing is what Oprah attempted briefly, go down and track the refugees. 24/7 coverage what is happening to the displaced in New Orleans and the entire gulf region. Not the happy shiny stuff. The real "My baby's dying over here" stories. This is effective journalism.

"Imagine a Pacifica..." very unlike the current mess that is Pacifica.

A 5 station network does not a major media player make. Sam seems like a good egg, sure. But this whole effort is fighting the last war.

Where we are:
-------------
1. Mass Media is about central control, for profit and content management. Most media views itself as the primary delivery system for advertisement and other forms of message persuasion.

2. Mass Media has been coopted, entry barriers are ridiculuosly high, independence even at the corporate executive level can be easily throttled from many now well organized directions.

3. Our best hope for a public corporation that reported news was PBS. Given the ease with which PBS was taken over by external fiat, and how Bill Moyer was promply shown the exit, this model is clearly not viable.

4. Therefore a Pacifica is now a "new" quasi-public radio network that does what exactly beside waste our time, money and efforts in the long haul. Well it could possibly train new generations of "reporters" if we could provide a way to feed and clothe them so that they don't have to sell out to existing corporate media and its inherent control to find personel success. But then Narconews and other such internet only services are already doing this quite nicely- training and retaining new reporters.

5. So what how does a new "Pacifica" help the progressive community "win" the war we are already obviously losing? It doesn't, not really.

Where we need to be:
--------------------
The way to win is to use, support, and advocate disruptive technologies to invalidate the media monopolies. The faster and harder you push new tech the less value existing mass media has money wise and the more you hurt/change the corporate culture which is really the root of the problem.

So what are we talking about here. Blogging. Mass networks of local bloggers. Bandwidth distribution in terms of local municiple controlled wireless and wired internet infrastructure. The investment in and support for "Net Neutrality" and copyright/breoadcast laws that are not used to stifle culture and communication.

Startup tech venture funding. Conside the GNU radio project. How about raising money to invest in designing and manufcaturing these>/a> into car radios, radios and tvs, so that you can tune multi-directional radio and tv the way you surf the internet.

The only reason we are having this discussion ON YOUR BLOG is because of the side effects of the 90's tech revolution that was stopped in its tracks the minute Bush toook office. Technology is your lifeline. Easier to design a new profitable tech based news service that cannot be high jacked than to try jump the economic barriers to fix the old one.

patience,

Sorry about the trouble posting this. Movable type holds things from time to time -- usually when comments include lots of urls.

Thank you Jonanthan.

The way to win is to use, support, and advocate disruptive technologies to invalidate the media monopolies. The faster and harder you push new tech the less value existing mass media has money wise and the more you hurt/change the corporate culture which is really the root of the problem.

this is almost exactly right. this is why the RIAA/MPAA pissed their collective pants at the growth of napster and now BitTorrent sites like ThePirateBay. Their main advantage, though, happens to be that they are in sweden and largely out of the purview of the overwhelmingly pro-corporate american business laws.