Revolution in the Progressive Movement: TV is our Enemy
Last Thursday I spoke at the Progressive Politics and Technology Roundtable in Washington DC, hosted by the wonderful Farai Chideya, founder of Pop & Politics.com, and organized by the visionary Ann Yoders of the Bronx Cash Register Consulting Company. I took advantage of the occasion to offer a "modest proposal" for a Revolution in the Progressive Movement.
Another Liberal Blog (a.k. a. vawolf at MyDD) was intrigued enough to transcribe my comments, and lamented the shortage of time that prevented me from delivering my full speech. So here it is in full...
Revolution in the Progressive Movement: TV is our Enemy
November 18, 2004
Bob Fertik
http://democrats.com/revolution
Many of us here are recovering from what happened two weeks ago. But we have no time to lose; we must move from mourning to action.
So let me offer this proposal here tonight:
It's time for a revolution in the progressive movement - a revolution in technology, strategy, and vision.
Here it is in a nutshell:
First we need to take mostly everything we do as a movement and move it on to the Internet. Fundraising, member communication, local organizing - the whole 9 yards. I know most of you here tonight are with me on this.
But let me go one step further: we need to work together to build a massive e-mail list of 100 million Americans who support us on the issues.
In Florida, 52% voted for Bush. But that was dwarfed by the 71% who voted to raise the minimum wage.
Let's extrapolate nationally. 115 million votes were cast for President. At 71%, that means 82 million Americans would vote to increase the minimum wage.
What could the progressive movement achieve if we had two-thirds of their e-mail addresses?
Let's go even further. Since Election Day, Bush has claimed a fraudulent "mandate" to privatize Social Security and eliminate the progressive income tax. 50 million Americans lack health insurance, and Bush's neglect will make things worse.
I believe 150 million Americans would oppose Bush's policies, if they understood the end results.
What could the progressive movement achieve if we had just two-thirds of their e-mail addresses - 100 million?
100 million e-mail addresses is an ambitious goal. But it is a goal we can achieve, if we make up our minds to do it - and invest some serious dollars.
Moveon has 2.5 million e-mail addresses. How much did they spend collecting each name? Zero.
John Kerry and the DNC built a comparably large list. How much did they spend? Peanuts - the cost of a few 30 second TV ads.
Think about it: this year, progressives and Democrats raised hundreds of millions of dollars. I repeat: hundreds of millions.
A small chunk of that was well spent - a small amount on the Internet, a larger amount paying organizers to go door-to-door registering voters, educating them on the issues, and getting them out to vote.
But the bulk of that money was utterly and completely wasted on TV.
It's time to get real: TV is our enemy.
Every dollar we spend on TV goes into the pockets of General Electric, Disney, Viacom, Time-Warner, and FOX - or rightwing chains like Sinclair.
They gladly take our hard-earned money and laugh all the way to Congress, where they bribe our Representatives to expand their corporate monopolies and silence our progressive views.
They've been playing us for suckers for 40 years. Is it any wonder we keep losing the political game?
I've been involved in the progressive movement since 1977, the year the amazing Fannie Lou Hamer of the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party died. Fannie Lou's most famous quote was: "I'm sick and tired of being sick and tired."
Are you sick and tired too?
Let's make a decision here today.
As progressives, let's decide not to spend one more penny on TV or direct mail. From now on, let's put every penny into a Manhattan Project effort to build an e-mail list of 100 million Americans who agree with us on the issues.
Here's the bottom line: E-mail lists are power.
When we can press "send" and reach tens of millions of voters on an issue we all care about, we will have clout.
When we can generate millions of letters and phone calls to Congress, we will win legislative fights.
When we can mobilize thousands of voters in all 435 Congressional Districts, we will hold our Representatives accountable.
And when we can recruit progressive candidates and start their campaigns with lists of half of their constituents who support progressive issues, our candidates will win.
As Joe Trippi wrote in his great book: The Revolution Will Not be Televised.
The future of progressive politics is e-mail, not TV.
If we work together, I know we can build a list of 100 million Americans who support us on the issues.
Who will help start this revolution?
FAQ:
1. Is this about spam? Absolutely not - I'm talking about opt-in e-mail, not spam. I propose using paid Internet advertising to find people who agree with us on the issues and are willing to sign up for our e-mail lists. Blogads (which we're all familiar with) are one good way to do this, and there are other ad networks like that. The Kerry campaign was very successful running Flash ads on sites like the NY Times - I'm sure many of you saw them, including the clever one with the stack of bills. But they were only interested in using those ads to raise money - not building their e-mail list. This kind of Internet advertising costs money, but it is a drop in the bucket compared to the hundreds of millions that were wasted on TV.
2. How many voters use the Internet? I have never seen a study with that exact data (if you have, post it below). The Pew Internet & American Life Project comes the closest in its research. Here is an interesting analysis of the Demographics of Internet Users. Nearly 2/3 of Americans use the Internet. The least usage is among Americans over 65, which is no surprise. But 60% of Americans 50-64 use the Net, so as that cohort crosses 65, the over-65 numbers will increase dramatically. I believe Internet usage is significantly higher among the 2/3 of eligible adults who vote than the 1/3 who don't, but I haven't seen hard numbers on that either.
3. What about less affluent Americans, who tend to be Democrats? Looking at ethnicity, Hispanic use is 59%, close to the 67% for whites. Black use is only 43%, so continuing efforts must be made to close the "digital divide." I believe the cost of computing is becoming an ever-decreasing issue, since computers are now as cheap as TV's - which are found in virtually every American home. For Internet access, $10/month is a lot cheaper than cable TV or a cellphone, and free wireless networks are spreading. (Speaking of cellphones, I would amend my proposal to include SMS messaging as well as e-mail - I think RockTheVote did a great job pioneering political communications via SMS.)
4. Can progressive groups of various kinds (candidates, party committees, PACs, c4's, c3's, 527's, for-profits, etc) collaborate on building a massive list? Absolutely. Clearly the database would need a "home" - a massive server with the ultimate degrees of security and privacy. The "home" would act as a vendor to participating groups, charging them fees for services (database management and e-mail delivery). But a well-run "home" would save the groups money, because they wouldn't need as much expensive in-house capability. There are a number of companies that already provide this kind of service - including Democrats.com - so all that's needed is a decision by the larger listowners to move in this direction, and a solicitation of competitive bids. Of course, persuading the listowners to devote their resources to e-mail listbuilding is the heart of the challenge, and it's a fundamental question of money, strategy, and vision - that's why I'm calling it a Revolution.
5. What about the TV consultants who are getting rich under the status quo - won't they fight this to the death? Absoutely! But you can't have a Revolution without shedding a little blood. There are a few dozen of them, and millions of us. This fall, they were entirely discredited by their unimaginitive ads. If they want to pick a fight, I have 3 little words: Bring It On. If they are smart and want to survive as consulting firms, they will have to adapt by switching their expertise from broadcast advertising to Internet advertising.
6. Why focus on e-mail, as opposed to all of the other Internet activities? Here's the simple answer: all the other activities are thriving. I include blogging, forums, zines, newsletters, petitions, mobilizations, music, video, Flash, etc. Activists who are inspired (or driven) into these activities need support, but they have learned to put a Paypal button on their site - just like street artists who put a hat on the ground. If we had a huge e-mail list, we could tell our audience about the best of these efforts, and those Paypal accounts would swell.
7. The progressive movement is so disorganized - who could bring the whole movement together? Here are several ways we could do this:
- Elect Howard Dean the next chair of the DNC, and ask him to make this his mission
- Get me hired by George Soros, Peter Lewis, Steven Bing, and/or Herb & Marion Sandler, who together contributed nearly $70 million to beat Bush. With folks like these backing this effort, I'm sure we could be very "persuasive" with the leaders of the groups they funded.
- Vote with our credit cards. All of the Democratic and progressive groups depend on our contributions. We could organize a "rent strike" - put our contributions in escrow until the groups agree to join the Revolution.
- Organize. Put up a web site and make a fuss - something we've all learned to do brilliantly for peanuts!
- Bob Fertik's blog
Printer-friendly version- Login or register to post comments
- Send to friend
Join us & contribute
Proud members of the Democratic Party
Copyright 2006 Democrats.com. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy
Thanks for the trackback!
"vawolf" and Another Liberal Blog are one and the same -- me! I thought your speech was terrific and I hope it takes hold within the progressive movement and the Democratic party. Keep up the good work.
Luis
Another Liberal Blog
http://interestingtimes.typepad.com/
REVOLUTION
I heard Hillary say on Larry King live the other night Bill would consider working for the Dumbya Squad we now have in Washington.
If any Democrats end up working for this S.O.B.Administration, I'm out of here!!! I'll start my own political party and it won't be pretty!!!
On another note if anyone here thinks this election was on the up and up I don't want any part of them anyway!!!
GAME OVER!!!
Email?
email? Do you think people would actually read it? If you think "undecided" voters are going to read SPAM about some presidential candidate you are crazy.
Email is the future
To the detractor who thinks people won't read email...
This depends upon how the list is generated. The idea being discussed here suggests that we'll spend money to acqurire and generate lists that will legitimately identify progessives. If the money is spent up front to attract these folks, and not simply to buy bulk lists that don't accurately segment the sample along psychographic lines, then the recipient of the email will be very open to the message being presented.
If all that we do is buy up a bunch of poorly qualified lists, then I would agree that the average recipient would have a less than positive response.
But if we focus our efforts finely, we can develop a list that at the click of a button will contact exactly who we want to speak to, and will provide them with a way to interact with progressive policy leaders, for little/no cost. That's power.
Compare it to the millions that tv broadcasters, cable outlets, radio stations and newspapers will charge us per impressions. It's a no brainer.
The future of political activism is on the web, and email plays a substantial role.
no spam
foxfilm, thanks for clarifying that point. i am NOT talking about spam - i propose using paid internet advertising to find people who agree with us on the issues and are willing to sign up for our e-mail lists.
Blogads (which we're all familiar with) are one good way to do this, and there are other ad networks like that.
the Kerry campaign was very successful running Flash ads on sites like the NY Times - i'm sure many of you saw them, including the one with the stack of bills. but they were only interested in using those ads to raise money - not building their e-mail list.
I'm that detractor...
...and one might think that, as a Nation subscriber, I'd be willing to get mail from lots of progressive causes.
However, I do *not* give them the right to consolidate my information into anyone else's database. And, because I used a variant address for that subscription, I refuse to contribute to any organization's appeal that uses that list, no matter how good the cause.
When you take that from snail-mail to email, the stakes get raised. Most people simply do not want anyone making their email address accessible to anyone else, no matter how aligned their causes.
so how do I give you my e-mail address?
I want to see what you/we'll write-- but I can't find your address to sign-up at anywhere!
I've alerted the authentic journalists at Narco News to your proposal and made a quick comment of my own. I want a small-d democratic e-mail list moderated by people randomly drawn from the list itself, as a universal communicating tool for all "People Who Give a Damn." Good luck, sign me up, and I can be contacted directly at my web design co's contact page.
Percentage of voters who use the Internet
Bob,
GW's Institute for Policy, Democracy and the Internet estimated in this study that 50% of voters in '04 would look for election info on the Net. That confirms the Pew study. I should have more feedback later that will hopefully inspire you even more.
Luis (a.k.a. vawolf)
Another Liberal Blog
A Christian From The Left
I originally wrote this in response to Leonard Pitts column in which he challenged Christians from the left to speak out.
I’m a born again Christian, but the Religious Right does not speak for me: in fact I’m puzzled by their behavior regarding national politics. I grew up in and for years I’ve served in Southern Baptist churches. For most of those years, my church respected my political beliefs, and never made me feel like an outsider if I disagreed with other members. The church taught us to pray for our political leaders, but they never tried to influence us to vote for particular candidates. We enjoyed the freedom of making up our own minds, and not losing friends over political issues.
One thing about the 2004 campaign frightens me. We’re told that moral values played the most important role in the way people voted this year, but the way I see it the campaign has warped morality into a term that’s slippery as an eel, meaning whatever the user wants it to mean.
To some citizens, moral values recognizes abortion as murder, but it’s o.k. to shock and awe and kill thousands of Iraqi children and their parents and send our young men and women to die and be maimed into a war unsupported by half the country.
It’s alright to lie about issues as long as it gets the job done, because if you tell a lie often enough people believe it and that makes it true. That explains why so many people in this country still believe Iraq has weapons of mass destruction and Saddam Hussein caused 9/11, even though the President himself finally said that is not true. Where are those weapons, and if they were there, why haven’t the Iraqis used them?
There’s nothing wrong with preempting a war on a much smaller, third world country that has not harmed us, and level their cities with super weapons, but when France follows our example, they’re hypocrites.
Jimmy Carter was a good, decent, honorable man who confessed unashamedly to being a born again Christian, but my husband ran his campaign in our county and church people wanted no part of him, especially as our country’s Commander-in-Chief. Bill Clinton, another Southern Baptist, invited his Little Rock pastor to visit him in the White House, no doubt feeling the need for his spiritual counsel, and fellow Baptists raised the roof. Had he had access to that counsel during a trying time in his life he might not have made that famous mistake. What is with us Christians? We seem to be obsessed with killing off our own.
Former President Harry Truman always said, “The buck stops here.” What has happened to that value? Shifting the blame to somebody else and refusing to admit mistakes has replaced it in this administration.
Those of us who disagree with George Bush are called “Bush haters” and they accuse us of being unpatriotic. I don’t hate the President, but I am extremely disturbed with the direction he’s taking our great country.
My friend, a small business owner, pays $600 a month for insurance covering his wife and little ones, but can’t afford to insure himself. I pray that God will bless him with good health and protect him from injury. An acquaintance lost his home when he lost his job and now travels the country on short term contracts, moving his family from one motel to another, hoping he can afford to pay the rent and feed his family, wondering if he’ll be able to find another job when this one plays out. No insurance plans for him, nor his family. There are approximately eight million children in this country with no insurance.
I also resent the secrecy surrounding decisions made by this administration, the loss of so many freedoms, the accusations against those who oppose the war as being traitors and unsupportive of our troops. It’s my flag, too, and the fact that I don’t wrap myself in it and display it on everything I wear doesn’t mean I don’t love my country and the flag that represents us all.
No: God is not a Republican, nor is He a Democrat. How foolish of us to even try to mould Him into our image. That’s His job, to mould us into His image. I doubt if he appreciates any effort to use Him for political reasons. So, I’ve spoken my piece. Here’s hoping it will encourage others to do the same.
web-list /TV
I agree wholeheartedly with your idea to compile such an e-list.
Yes, TV is now our enemy. However, as I have begun to push for on other Democrat sites and in groups and so on, I think we cannot just abandon it. It is the new "Goebels"-like source of Bushevik propaganda. We need to BUY it --- and much of pop radio too. That's what the radical right has done, slowly but surely, since their bitching (thru Spiro) in the 60s/70s about the "liberal media."
Get Al Gore's channel going, sure. But also get George Soros, Peter Lewis, Steven Bing and Herb and Marion Sandler and other such saints, and BUY up some big one (or two), say ABC which spun hard for Bush, yet is in a weak financial situation. And get some major radio chains away from Clear Channel. Do our own info-prop work. The time is past for unfortunately-now-lame attempts to "get our message across" --- this is being actively blocked. The Dem. Party is already talking like that again --- as if they hadn't noticed the new stolen playing field. I was on Kerry's Press monitoring and reaction crew. The slanting, distortion, etc. pro Bush was despicable --- and directly ordered "from above" as many media employees openly admitted. Dems have to stop living from one campaign, one candidate, to the next. We need to build a new base. I'm all for your proposal as the best fresh start. Let's add:
1. a media buy up, though too, and
2. Howard Dean as party Chair.
3. A new re-born, progressive "Dixicrat", Freedom Democratic Party of the south. A LOUD one.
4. A new strong Western Wing of the Democratic Party ("Cowboycrats"?). The reactionary South has convinced many Westerners that they are an extension of the backlash South. No they are not, they need a new media visibility as an area of their own; steal them from the South, so to speak.
5. Other takeovers. Such as a Progressive Born-Again Christian group. See the other entry above. Their are many of them, many Christians who are also Liberal (I'm one). The Christians used to justify their takeover of pop music forms for Christian lyrics with a phrase "why does the Devil have all the good music?" Why does the Devil now have all the political sway in this area of our faith, why does the Devil have all the fun church services. Get some progressive, evangelical-like preachers and put them on (our) TV channels too.
Dem-TV
Mark,
I largely agree with your points. The question of Dem-TV is really about economics. Air America Radio is scaling up nicely with finncing in the range of $10-$20 million, but that only buys crummy stations with weak signals. To get into a TV network would require hundreds of millions, and a top-notch management team. (Read AAR founder Sheldon Drobny's new book for the horror stories about AAR's management.) The project I'm proposing could probably be done for under $10 million and would require practically no management.
One thing that can help in th
One thing that can help in the hell that is TVland would be for some really organized efforts that support wedge programs that already exist. Dems have traditionally expected the news programs to be objective (laugh) and for channels like PBS to provide us with a clear and honest voice. The pugs responded by targetting boards and panels, going beyond simple advertizing, in order to change the underlying characteristic of news in this country.
I agree that the Internet can become a great tool for us, but I also believe this culture will not peel itself away from the national God=TV. We have to continue fighting a trench war over the format and content of shows we can reach. Oberman's Countdown and Donahue got better ratings than the conservative crap they try and shovel in their place....that should tell us something. There is room for our view...and today there is even appeal because it is the ALTERNATIVE View. We need to define ourselves and the underdog voice, fighting for the common man, sanity, and truth. We need to turn out in large numbers in organized events, watchdogging the neocon media, and supporting any attempt to provide provide progressive voices.
I really believe that the next 4 years will be won or lost based on our efforts to penetrate back into Television. The reason is, imho, that the Internet is essentially unlimited in size, any 14 year old kid can put up a web page. It's power is diluted by it's very size. Large Neocon efforts to match us on the web will effectively balance it's impact...for each democrats.com they will put up another freeperville. And we can chase each other, but still only reach the fraction of households that activelly search the web for political information.
On the other hand, TV has a fairly set/limited number of channels. Moreso, certain channels come with a pretty defined, large set of viewers. Each win in TVland is a measurable win, each lose also measurable. And the penetration much deeper. The problem is we have yet to figure out how to effectively overcome or address CW and groupthink in reporting. We need a War Room dedicated to immediate response to disinformation. We need to provide a level of support to reporters and editors in the middle that they have the confidence to speak truth, rather than bias.
I agree that we need to look outside the box, to the Internet and any other media we can to get the message out. We need to fundraise in all kinds of new ways. But we cannot abandon the battle for the TV. It is simply too big to give up. It is, for better or worse, the strategic center of this apathetic and misinformed culture.
LIBERAL: If the word bothers you, then you don't know what it means.
Web lists / TV
Bob,
Oh, I'm quite aware of the financial problems --- ones far beyond you or I. I'm putting these ideas out (in various forums and direct to Dem. HQ) in order in my small way to try to get the Big Dems to start thinking in this way. Something the Busheviks did long ago. I am ALL for your idea as one great foundational pillar of a new Liberal Message Offensive. In fact, I sent my ideas above, with the addition of a point suggesting hiring YOU to do your idea (and a URL reference to this site) to Gore, Howard Dean and the Democratic Party.
Email lists and more
I agree with your idea of compiling such an email list. When I saw your comment about credit cards I thought about the Working Assets card I used to have. May get one again. But what about a Blackboxvoting.org credit card or a dailykos cc? Air America? Pacifica? I forget if Working Assets gave one the opportunity to specify a particular organization or area of struggle that one wanted to specifically target. This could be similar to what United Way does with their annual fundraisers. Which brings me to why not use their method to set aside $10 out of every paycheck to go to a progressive org?
Also saw the idea on another blog recently of building progressive media. Votergate.tv and internet radio come to mind. Or CD's one could download and listen to during drivetime. NPR is so lame anymore who cares but I listen to it anyway when I want to hear at least something intelligent on the way home.
To sum up -- tv and direct mail bad. Internet technologies, email, blogs, inet radio, broadband downloads of progressive content good.
Credit cards
thowley,
progressive credit cards were popular a few years back - NOW had one, Feminist Majority, Working Assets, probably others did too. i think they were not very profitable for the groups so I don't see much about them any more.
progressive radio is growing, thanks to AirAmericaRadio.com and and DemocracyRadio.org, which have gotten onto broadcast airwaves.
radio that is primarily internet-based (RadioLeft.com, DemocraticTalkRadio.com, Meria.net) are doing great work, but not really growing because not many people really want to hear streaming radio over the internet.
the key to success is to make it really easy to reach a large audience. that's why e-mail is so good - the recipient only has to open their e-mail, which they're doing anyway.
Time Will Tell!
The Blue Dog Democrats that are tied to the "NEOCON MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX" are the dominant force in the democratic party! This loyal opposition to the republican party wants to woo into their fold, likeminded neocons, at the expense of the progressive LEFT!
WE gave them a majority in congress because they talked like Dennis Kucinich and when they had the power in congress to really oppose the WAR and IMPEACH and protect our rights under the constitution they like non progressive liberals that they are, chose to do nothing and let the most unpopular president in american history walk all over their spineless body!
The presidential front runners In the democratic party chose again to talk the talk of their progressive base. The question is will they at this time walk the walk of what progessives stand for or will they again do to progressives what they shamefully did to the only candidate in the race that did not sell out to the special interests!
At this point in time we can only hope that they mean what they say! but I am not holding my breath! I mean how many times do we have to be betrayed before we wake up to reality!
Perhaps this is the beginning of the end! or perhaps it is a new beginning ? Time will tell!
Killing the TV--Be Careful What You Wish For
As producers of alternative television news and satire (www.libertynewstv.com), we couldn't agree more with the suggestion that TV IS THE ENEMY. However, turning ALL of our resources to the Internet could be extremely dangerous to what's left of our democracy. Television is DEEPLY entrenched in the lifestyle of most Americans--especially children. Do we really want the Fox Channel to be the only game in town when our kids plug in?
A few quick facts about TV viewing from Nielson studies:
70 percent of daycare centers use television every day to keep kids entertained.
Kids watch an average of 1,680 minutes of TV a week. They have 3.5 minutes of meaningful conversation with parents per day.
To a large degree, free thinkers stopped watching television a long time ago. I rarely meet a progressive at a conference or activist rally who doesn't start the conversation with "oh I don't watch TV."
We decided a couple of years ago that young people and disaffected, eligibly "non-voting voters" are our best hope for a progressive revolution in the U.S.
Are they plugged in to the Internet and social networking? Absolutely. But it's more complicated than that. Althoug Internet use is starting to overtake TV in terms of hours in front of the screen, Television has to a large degree simply migrated to the Web. Kids are essentially just watching the same old right-wing TV on a different monitor.
For example, here's a summary I grabbed off the Web:
"Americans Consuming More Video Content
The (Multiplatform Video Report released by Solutions Research Group) study found that an average American consumer aged 12 and older with Internet access now spends 6.1 hours daily with video-based entertainment, up from 4.6 in 1996. Of this 6.1 hours, 63.9% (nearly 4 hours per day) currently comes from traditional Television, including live, DVR and video-on-demand viewing. Video games, web and PC video,DVDs and video on mobile devices account for the balance."
Whether its delivered by iphone or high-definition TV, the video message is what matters, not the "medium" (apologies to Marshall McLuhan).
The solution? Progressives need to support, encourage, and take charge of content creation, and make sure our entertainment addicted young people get something nutritious in their endless hunger for video, music and images.
LNTV