This is an interesting perspective. (I come to this web site for interesting perspectives!)

It's a bind for the Dems, isn't it? They might fear funding competing media because the new media might fall in love with the progressive left. Then the new media could begin bashing them from the left, at the same time that the MSM continues to harass them from the right.

They might fear funding competing media because the new media might fall in love with the progressive left. Then the new media could begin bashing them from the left, at the same time that the MSM continues to harass them from the right.

I suspect that's exactly what's holding them back, although I also think it's a little more complicated. The Iron Law of Institutions tells us that people within institutions act only to protect their own power within the institution, rather than for the wellbeing of the institution overall. Thus, many Democratic insiders know (or sense) that funding new media would be good for the party overall, but would not be good for their power within the party. And if the price of the party gaining more power is them personally losing power, they will fight it. Certainly they'll never proactively try to make it happen.

The progressive left already has extensive media (which labors under inadequate funding), but it tropes towards the Big Corporate media anyway. I think what it wants is mainstream validation -- Barbara Ehrenreich replacing the execrable David Brooks, Dean Baker instead of Tom Friedman, etc. . . and it's not going to get that. The Big Corporate media relies on the gubmint for power struggles against its competitors and has overlapping interests with the same elite. CEOs and their ilk look to the narrowest self-interest first and foremost, even when it's obvious they're heading off the rails. Above all, they loathe people who called it right. Once in a blue moon, a carefully and cautiously contrarian columnist will concede a few points (how's that for alliteration?) , but that's all there will be from them for the progressive left.

We, loosely speaking, would be much better off ignoring them, taking our eyeballs over to the good media we have already and seeing about coughing up a few shekels for our far superior opiners and reporters.

Well, there is the Net, that's where I get my news and opinion.

the bigshots who run the democratic party are like the rich parents of solvent if underachieving adults-- of no real use to us on a day to day basis, and a bit out of touch, but if we need a lawyer or a president or something, whether or not we like it we're going to have to deal with them.

But as you, yourself, Jonathan Schwarz pointed out to me long ago(well, not just to me...)we don't need the marquee democrats to get an independent media going(and of course they're not going to help with that anyway.).

you were the one who mentioned "The Real News" in Aug 2005, suggesting it was a very doable project, an international English language TV news network funded exclusively by donations, as opposed to corporate ads and such. They were called IWT News back then(I liked the old name better, but what do I know...)

And, just recently, non other than digby of Digby mentioned you.(Favorably.) I think you should pester, er, encourage him regarding mentioning "The Real News" and encouraging his readers to give 'em buckets of dough.

(Presently I'm encouraging (both of)my readers to give Cursor some dough, since they're having a fund drive presently, and digby has never answered any of my emails, possibly auto-depositing them in the bulk folder because I use crazy-ass keywords or something(?))

ah! dovetail, dovetail! i've been looking for a current list of independent-but-thorough-and-broad media sources! for plain news, on many subjects. can we make a list in this thread? cuz i'm looking for a few good editors and publishers. and i way don't have the energy to chase every story multiple times.

TNS has been a worthy venture.

They could fund competing media...but would anyone watch it? In Canada we have a publically funded network that is widely watched. Its quality is far superior to what you have on your cable news.

...but, your PBS network is similar to our CBC and almost no one watches that. Your network news is better than cable at the least, and it has been bleeding viewership. CNN has moved in a rightwards direction to counter Fox news.

If you had a genuinely progressive TV news source, I'm not sure anyone would watch it. Progressives in the States seem to prefer either the internet or the daily show, which may be the best you can hope for in terms of an informative media.

And of course there's http://democracynow.org

You can get all the shows from http://www.archive.org/details/democracy_now_vid or the last three days' shows via bittorrent on http://ewheel.democracynow.org

Having the government fund media is a very bad idea. Whoever gets this funding will have to say things the government wants to hear, and what the government wants to hear is that governmental violence and coercion are the solutions to all problems. This viewpoint is already freely available from CNN/Fox/NYT and the government funded schools.