Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: Would Americans Be Willing To Pay $1 A Day For Our Own National TV Network To Ensure Only Authentic News Was Reported Around The Clock?

Posted 6 years ago on Jan. 3, 2012, 2:58 p.m. EST by sovaye (259)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

How much would it cost? If every American gave $1 per day to pay for a TV Network, could we pull it off. Would Americans be willing to do this to ensure they were receiving the truth . We would have to Incorporate, maybe as a nation (devoid of politicians of course). We could call it "The People's News". We would use some of the funds to pay reporters that could prove they have no affiliations to politics, elite, etc. Much ongoing due diligence to make sure there are no infiltrations.

It wouldn't be without its problems, but it couldn't be any worse than we have now. Not by a long shot.

How willing are we to get to the truth and keep our news transparent? What is starting to come out in alternative news is the real stuff, but laced with disinfo as well. The fact of the matter is that the real news is so far removed from the propaganda garbage we are being fed by the msm as to be two parallel universes.

"The People's Network" paid for and by the people. We need to take responsibility for our own reality.

Well...can we do this?



Read the Rules
[-] 1 points by Builder (4202) 6 years ago

I think the real issue is, most tv addicts need 57 channels even if there's nothing on.

They are addicted to channel surfing, rather than watching anything solid.

And the curriculum at school has indocrinated the population to have the attention span of a goldfish.

So, good luck with that one.

[-] 1 points by sovaye (259) 6 years ago

I think you may be right...but I hope you're wrong.

There is the possibility that once a media network gets into the hands of the people, where they can actually vote on content, and feel responsible in a real way for what they are watching, I think people would rise to the occasion.

Yes, I've read all about that indoctrination. Sad.

Part of the reason people tune in and out so quickly theses days is that the have no say. The People's Network could really fill that void. I'm pretty sure the "interactive" polls and comments on tv right now are quite fake. That could be alleviated with publicly paid, un-infiltrated news.

[-] 1 points by Builder (4202) 6 years ago

I'm supportive of this concept. I'm just not at all supportive of televised news.

If it can be done with the internet only, and, like you say, voted up and down, then that would be great, in my opinion.

MSM is just so not where I think this movement needs to go. Just sayin..

[-] 2 points by sovaye (259) 6 years ago

No problem...you're allowed to say!

[-] 1 points by Builder (4202) 6 years ago

Thanks, and full marks for keeping this movement alive so long.

Solidarity from the Sunshine Coast of Australia.

We won't forget what is happening, and why it is important for all of us living breathing thinking humans.

[-] 1 points by kingscrossection (1203) 6 years ago

$365 a year seems like a lot doesn't it? You could go down as far as 10 cents and that seems like too much for me for every American in the country or even half.

[-] 1 points by Demian (497) from San Francisco, CA 6 years ago

I'd pay two! But it would be hard to implement and many on the right would say that PBS is what you are talking about even though everytime you watch a program its usually funded by some corporation.

[-] 1 points by PublicCurrency (1387) 6 years ago

Who will decide what is covered and what is not?

[-] 1 points by sovaye (259) 6 years ago

There could be an ongoing public poll on the the network itself. Open and transparent.

[-] 1 points by ARod1993 (2420) 6 years ago

See my reply to your earlier post as far as PBS was concerned if you're interested in evolving such a network out of existing structures (which as far as I'm concerned will be a lot easier and start the network off with a lot more credibility than anything completely new)

[-] 1 points by sovaye (259) 6 years ago

Yes, I saw it, and thank you. They are realistic suggestions. I shall start there.

[-] 1 points by ARod1993 (2420) 6 years ago

You're welcome, and thanks for listening.

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) 6 years ago

We have them. But much like the other forums, they don't get much attention or recognition because they aren't Exciting and Sensational. Just informative, and we know how boring it can be to learn stuff.

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 6 years ago

You have my support and commitment to pay my share. There are some citizen NGO's who might be appropriate vehicles, for this.

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 6 years ago

This idea deserves a lot of consideration. A reliable, healthy news source could cure a lot of ills.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33496) from Coon Rapids, MN 6 years ago

No commercials allowed, unless it is in the interest of advertizing upcoming public interest events or stories. So absolutely no commercial interests allowed.

It would probably be easier to get going, than it would be to get the FCC doing proper enforcement of yellow journalism.

[-] 1 points by sovaye (259) 6 years ago

Absolutely Agree!! No infiltrations! Do we have anyone in media out there in OWS with a penchant for the TRUTH?

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33496) from Coon Rapids, MN 6 years ago

It would likely have to be broad cast TV rather than cable or satellite just to keep expenses reasonable, and to keep outside interference down.

[-] 1 points by sovaye (259) 6 years ago

Ok....this is not my area (technical, haha). Are you a media person? Would broadcast TV reach all citizens provided they had a tv or internet?

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33496) from Coon Rapids, MN 6 years ago

I'm not a techie either. I just think it would be less expensive then trying to operate off of a privately owned system like satellite or cable.

I could be very wrong. But every one would be able access as long as they had an antenna. The expense would be setting up the towers or accessing existing towers.

Like you said: Any Techies out there?


[-] 1 points by ARod1993 (2420) 6 years ago

We actually already have something similar to this; it's called PBS (short for Public Broadcasting Service) and it operates for the most part free of corporate sponsorship. It's a highly decentralized organization in which individual member stations (which in turn are run by local nonprofits, communities, or universities) will supply a lot of their own content, with a few of the biggest stations (WGBH Boston, WNET New York, and WETA in DC) contributing a lot of the more interesting stuff including the NewsHour and Frontline. There are no ads and they run large parts of their operations off of small private donors. They haven't been perfect, but they've been light-years better than most commercial TV stations.

[-] 1 points by sovaye (259) 6 years ago

I know, but they are still only allowed to go so far. Interesting stuff, yes, but light-years ahead is still not good enough. We need up to the minute, 24/7 news, not just weekly highlights or specific exposes. But I'm sure they would love to be on or "People's Network", the only restriction would be truth.

[-] 1 points by ARod1993 (2420) 6 years ago

If you could somehow get the update frequency of CNN or various Internet outlets and marry it to the journalistic quality and depth provided by people like the NewsHour team and Bill Moyers, then that would be truly amazing. I brought up PBS because it would seem to be the logical place to start with any plan to build a completely independent news network (because it already is an independent network with a fairly strong base in the communities in which it operates and an independent program pipeline).

What I would advise you to do if you're really interested in this issue is start on Change.org with an online petition addressed to the head of PBS to staff a completely independent wire service and correspondent network of its own and to work with affiliated TV stations to obtain additional 24-7 news channels so that stories can be broadcast as they come in from the wire service.

On top of that, I would look into fundraising platforms like Causes; identify PBS as your nonprofit of choice, and see how many people you could get to donate a few dollars here and there to fund the start-up costs and continued staffing of the wire service and network offices. That way, your request (which I'd figure would be quite expensive to implement) would come with an at least partial funding source, and I think that would go a long way toward getting it implemented.

[-] 1 points by gmxusa (274) 6 years ago

How about getting a few advertisers to offset the costs? A news only channel shouldn't be too costly to run.

[-] 1 points by sovaye (259) 6 years ago

Its tempting, I know. But it isn't just a channel. It would need to be a network because the elites own all the current networks and would never give us a channel to report on the abuses and crimes they are committing. The only way we could be sure of no infiltration, and also to keep total trust of the paying citizens is to not accept advertisers.

[-] 1 points by NewEngIandPatriot (230) 6 years ago

We need to turn off the TV, boycott the evil system. Then we have more control over the final outcomes, if not influenced by fear.

This is a channel for us, we are helping each other in an online community.

Until the masses are "unlocked" or open minded at least, they will continue to follow the pied piper based on belief, ego, and manufactured fear.

I do what I can, SOPA regulations are going to shut down these communication avenues for those awakening..

Then you must turn off the TV, go back to principles of small community, work together and rebuild from the inside - out , ground - up.

[-] 0 points by TIOUAISE (2526) 6 years ago


Keep on thinking, "sovaye", I think you're on to something BIG here!

If we are serious about birthing a New America over the next decade, I think that might well be be one of the cornerstones.


[-] 0 points by PileOfSmegAKAZenDog (-30) 6 years ago

It could be done on the net and the only problem is, so many good people are truly warped and deranged that the truth is merely an abstract concept based on how warm and fuzzy it feels.

You'll read examples of many bi-party rhetoric spewing lunatics on this very forum. The sadness accrues when you realize many were actually educated by a system which nurtured their warped realities.


[-] 0 points by NightShade (163) 6 years ago

How about promoting 3rd party candidates, you know independents, I am so sick of hearing about Republican and Democrat agenda crap.


[-] 0 points by timir (183) from Brooklyn, NY 6 years ago

revolution means national tv stations occupation. sovaye right

[-] 0 points by LongDaysnight (354) 6 years ago

Many of us already do pay for alternative news.

[-] 1 points by sovaye (259) 6 years ago

Yes, and its great to get multiple sources. However, most of the alternative news sources receive advertising dollars which is instant contamination, and they can't promise they aren't receiving disinfo. Disinfo would be the biggest problem in a "People's Network" from a reporting standpoint, but there would be a perpetual effort by a team working on keeping this to a minimum.

[-] 0 points by TIOUAISE (2526) 6 years ago

I applaud the idea and would like to see it called WTPN - We The People Network.

But government would have to be kept at arm's length!

Our MSM has lost ALL credibility - so much so that Hillary Clinton admitted that she was a fan of Al-Jazeera and found it immeasurably superior to American news channels! Check out Al-Jazeera on the Web. Most of their reporters are former BBC - VERY professional.

[-] 1 points by truth2012 (43) 6 years ago

Well, Hitlery Clinton would have a special corner on the new People's Network especially for her and her crimes against humanity. Truth in this matter, I would definitely pay to see! It seems that if the "people" are to take government back where it should be, "with the people", it could not be done unless there was a media network specifically for the purpose of reaching the masses. This HAS to be done, or we couldn't do it. That simple.

[-] 1 points by sovaye (259) 6 years ago

WTPN has a nice ring to it! We really need to make this work. It would be the answer to so many problems. I'm brainstorming now!


[-] 0 points by SteveKJR (-497) 6 years ago

Why should we have to do this? The news reporting business used to be accurate - now all they want to do is "push the emotion button of the consumer" and try to make the news instead of reporting it.

People need to look at alternatives, do research on the subject of interest and make their own educated decision instead of an "emotional decision" brought to them by the news media, which lead to less rational thinking.

[-] 1 points by sovaye (259) 6 years ago

Relying on them is like asking the fox to watch the hen house. It will never happen. If we want it, we have to do it. Most people are busy trying to take care of families, working, etc. Who in the real world has an hour a day to sift and decifer several alternate news sites? A "People's Network" would be a tremendously valuable thing we could provide for OURSELVES. And for what...the price of a coffee a day?!?!

[-] 1 points by SteveKJR (-497) 6 years ago

NPR is supposed to be a "peoples network" but it isn't. People have to do their own research, and decide where they stand on issues.

They also need to "educate" themselves about what they are debating so that they have a complete understanding of the "topic of debate"

[-] -1 points by SmithGoesWashington (72) 6 years ago

In the UK (Britain) this tax is compulsory for all the nation. Hence, the government has a BBC radio TV with many stations and productions. It is one of the most fascist broadcasting stations in the world that no freedom lover ever can penetrate in. There was a time that there were no broadcasting but by radio amateurs. They used to talk with each other and play music for anybody who liked to listen. Then commercial radio companies emerged by copying them. Gradually people used only commercial broadcasters and government started to regulate them for the good of governments. ...... There was a time that there was an Internet and people could freely talk with each other, then, ....., then, ........ Friend take care of the Internet now.

[-] 1 points by sovaye (259) 6 years ago

I'm not sure how we would begin to collect the monies for the "People's Network", but it could never be through the tax system. It would need to be completely separate from government. Any ideas out there from financial people with a penchant for truth?

[-] -1 points by America921 (161) 6 years ago

I would not pay for this just like I don't want to pay for PBS. Because it is a waste of money and time.

[-] 1 points by gmxusa (274) 6 years ago

The documentary below shows how the media distorts content for their own agenda, comparing how the same news is delivered by different stations.


[-] 0 points by America921 (161) 6 years ago

I know all about this, which is why I do not watch the news. I really get the news from the Chicago Tribune because they have some wonderful writers, and all my political news I get from the Economist, which is a British magazine and pretty unbiased with once again wonderful writers. I highly recommend you get it.

[-] 1 points by sovaye (259) 6 years ago

Waste in what way? Don't you want transparency and to know true history and current events, not the way they are rewritten by the gov and elite?

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 6 years ago

only if the reporters that lie or imply or opinionate are given the death penalty for betrayal of trust of the people. they only report.

[-] 2 points by sovaye (259) 6 years ago

LOL! Well you may be right, then so be it! Haha...

[-] 0 points by America921 (161) 6 years ago

You will never get the true story about what happens in the government because the government censors it and there is nothing we can do about it. PBS is a waste of money because it is also biased and far from transparent. Plus I don't think the constitution said anything about allowing the Federal government to have it's own public broadcasting nor do I think it is necessary for the continuation of day to day business in the Union.

God Bless