NYTimes -- Outflanked Democrats Wonder How to Catch Up in Media Wars

Worried that their party has been outgunned in the political propaganda wars by conservative radio and television personalities, influential Democrats are scouring the nation for a liberal answer to Rush Limbaugh and the many others on the deep bench of Republican friends.

For his part, Mr. Podesta is discussing with the Internet entrepreneur Steven T. Kirsch and others the creation of a liberal version of the Heritage Foundation, the conservative research group that, along with others of its kind, is credited with helping start the modern conservative movement.

The foundation is part of a circuit of influential conservative groups that are credited with helping to hone a singular message, bolstered each Wednesday at back-to-back meetings held by Grover Norquist, the head of Americans for Tax Reform, and the conservative activist Paul Weyrich. Those meetings are monitored and at times attended by some conservative commentators, columnists and Internet writers.

Democrats have long claimed that the circuit has corralled conservative thinkers, and more important, conservative media, into a disciplined message of the week that gets repeated attention from Web sites like the Drudge Report, Mr. Limbaugh's radio show, Fox News's prime-time talk shows and the editorial pages of The Washington Times and The Wall Street Journal.

Conservatives have Mr. Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michael Reagan and Neal Boortz, who collectively draw an audience of at least 30 million people per week with a strictly conservative message.

They are led, of course, by Mr. Limbaugh, with an estimated audience of up to 20 million people a week, and Mr. Hannity, with nearly 10 million. Democrats, most recently Al Gore, have also complained that the Fox News Channel, overseen by the former Republican strategist Roger E. Ailes, slants its coverage against Democrats, a charge Mr. Ailes denies. Its average nightly audience of about 1.3 million people is the largest in cable news.

The Consortium News was Editorializing about this:

Gore & the Need for a 'Counter-Media'
Editorial
December 19, 2002

So what can be done now?

Our view for years has been that Americans concerned about the growing right-wing dominance of the national news media must invest in a “counter-media” that will not treat the Bush family like royalty and will give American voters important information on other topics.

Like his father, George W. Bush has gotten the kid-gloves treatment. In part, that’s because the Bushes are protected by two powerful elements within the news media: the red-meat conservatives and the blue-blood establishment. This double layer of protection makes the Bushes almost unique in American politics, shielded both by aggressive right-wing activists and by the Georgetown social set.

The “counter-media” must challenge that, by taking a hard look at Bush’s mistakes while giving the American people the context for understanding the risks of his domestic and foreign policies. The “counter-media” also must counteract the kinds of media fabrications and distortions that were directed against Gore in Campaign 2000, effectively deciding the election.

In recent weeks, there has been some stirring of interest about creating syndicated content for radio stations that realize the market for conservative talk radio is saturated and that there is an untapped liberal market. The “counter-media” also could take the form of a television outlet on satellite or cable – giving the American people a station they could tune in to hear directly what Gore and other embattled liberals are saying, not just what comes through the media filter.

For a list of some journalists who could become a core of talent for the “counter-media,” look at the “Media in Exile” list maintained at the Web site, mediawhoresonline.com.

In short, today's crisis in American politics calls for nothing less than a Marshall Plan for building a strong “counter-media.” There must be both adequate resources and great energy invested in this enterprise.

Though this new media infrastructure would not come cheap, the cost of doing nothing – both to the future of democracy and to the future of the planet – would certainly be far greater.

Much more is in the editorial than this digest can present. I know that for relatively unbiased national news now in major media I am often having to go to Canada's CBC. BBC is a conservative business British source which is more informative and unbiased than US networks. Our own PBS usually has moderates outnumbered by conservative commentators and analysts. Without the internet and the beginnings of a liberal blogging or support community liberals would be information starved.