Why don't alternative news/conspiracy sites join forces to create something that can compete with the largest mainstream news organizations?
17 2011-10-08 by MRuppert
Imagine if all of the smaller sites joined forces and created something like Reuters or AP but with no bullshit, censorship, etc. Instead of competing, we could all work on a single project. It would require tons of mirrors and backups controlled by various people who are willing to invest something so it would be impossible for it to be taken down like Activist Post was. It would have no "face" like Infowars/prisonplanet and would be open to all opinions and articles so long as they are factually based. Currently I think the majority of the alternative news is dominated by just a few sites like the alex jones franchises, natural news, etc and then the more political left ones like alternet and rawstory, although they usually avoid the conspiracy stuff and Israel.
I think it would be great to have a one-stop source which people could syndicate to their own sites and whatnot.
Can anyone else imagine how awesome an AP for alternative news would be?
It would have to be base on a non-profit or profit sharing model much more open than Before It's News, Examiner.com, and other sites that are kind of based on that model. Authors could place their own ads, sitewide ad profits would be shared according to contributions, etc. BIN operates on a model where if they promote you, your articles get views and then you can win some prizes but no real profit sharing. Examiner pays you literally pennies.
By the way it isn't as hard to make a site profitable as people think, especially if you have some time to devote to it and you can create good content.
25 comments
5 kyleisagod 2011-10-08
It actually works better this way. IMO. Take a few examples, here.
The OWS protests. It's one giant glob of people. The MSM is actively looking for a head to the snake. Without a head they only have dirty tricks, and pathetic attempts at infiltration.
Take "conspiracy" sites. Just there is a problem - that word, "conspiracy", has such a dirty connotation that anyone (including me) doesn't want to touch with a pole so long it's affected by the curvature of the earth.
Now, think what would happen if all the conspiracy sites joined forces. This assumes all of the managers of these sites can join forces. Let's go right ahead and assume a bunch of people looking to make money separately all decide to join forces for the better good and split the winnings - which means basically all of them are losing money and control over their business. Let's just assume they all do that for sake of argument.
Now, there's one giant face to the entire movement. What happens when that one, human, person steps out of line and gaffes just the smallest bit? Why, the entire movement, now solidified in one location, one name, is now dirtied. It's like when Alex Jones makes a fool out of himself by going off topic, or when someone randomly stands up in a press conference and starts yelling about Bilderberg or the New World Order. It makes you, your entire mission, your entire organization, your entire cause, and anyone connected in some small way to it, look like the biggest bunch of fools on the fucking planet.
Want to know why these things are better separately? Because then they don't succumb to the ineffectiveness of a large beauacracy. Then they don't succumb to the problems of one random douchebag spouting stupid shit like "BILDERBERGERZ N DEH NOO WURL RDDRDD...DER TEKKIN UR DURBS".
1 LarrySandersShow 2011-10-08
Didn't he say there would be no face? That's the whole point. There's no face to Reuters or AP...
1 kyleisagod 2011-10-08
True, but the stories they are reporting border and overlap with the mainsteam. The idea, at least from what I'm gathering is the OP's point, is fringe, "conspiracy" stories that, regardless of their truth, won't be seen as standard fare.
1 MRuppert 2011-10-08
"Now, there's one giant face to the entire movement. What happens when that one, human, person steps out of line and gaffes just the smallest bit?"
You must have misread my entire post. The entire point is that there is no "one giant face to the entire movement" like there is now with Alex Jones and the others who are actually able to get on mainstream outlets (suspiciously).
The entire point is that there would be multiple leaders, tons of writers, etc. so many that if one person did something stupid it wouldn't matter at all.
3 ikilledyourcat 2011-10-08
yea its called r/conspiracy - keep up the good work!
2 LarrySandersShow 2011-10-08
People are greedy and selfish, on the whole. People want their own personal site and the sole notoriety I think. It would be awesome, I would happily donate if people can get this going.
2 schmrtz 2011-10-08
censorship would be a problem...
Or, we have that type of site...it is called reddit ;)
1 MRuppert 2011-10-08
How would censorship be a problem? The entire point is that it would be non-centralized leadership. I don't see how censorship would be a problem when it isn't one or two people at the top making the decisions.
It would be multiple people at the top who are investing their time and money, it wouldn't be easy for someone to censor issues because the rest of the people who have a stake in the organization would quickly take notice and remove the offending party.
1 schmrtz 2011-10-08
we have same type of system right now. It does not work....
If we have multiple people on top...it is by definition a pyramid scheme
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyramid_scheme
Pyramid scheme does not work...
1 9000sins 2011-10-08
It wouldn't make them any more credible in the eyes of most people. Politicians and msm would still dismiss them as crazies, and your grandma will still be watching local news channels. I see this as a very polarizing move, which isn't a bad thing necessarily, but it would destroy quite a bit of interpersonal relationships with friends and family. We just need to take the mainstream back.
1 MRuppert 2011-10-08
"We just need to take the mainstream back."
You can't "take the mainstream back" when we never had the mainstream to begin with, unless "we" means multinational corporations in which case "we" have had the mainstream the whole time.
In all seriousness though, we can't take back the mainstream since it is owned 100% by MNCs but instead we have to become the mainstream.
1 brandnewset 2011-10-08
Most people's belief systems can't handle the truth. If everyone knew what was going on... there would be hell to pay.
1 [deleted] 2011-10-08
All it takes is many people sharing links via email, social network, mobile. Then you could possibly setup a non profit to go out and actually do real journalism in all areas just like the MSM. Something like 60 minutes style would be fantastic.
1 MRuppert 2011-10-08
I agree but getting the people together is step 1.
1 devinedj 2011-10-08
Nice try, Rupert
1 MRuppert 2011-10-08
It's Ruppert, which is my last name. Pretty funny, though.
1 dacris 2011-10-08
That's not the right way to view things. The alternative news community cannot function like the mainstream news community. We are divided and decentralized. That's what free news looks like. You're looking at the free press. The free press is decentralized and always split into many different opinions. The reason why the mainstream media is so centralized is precisely because it is there to manufacture consensus. Therefore it projects the image of consensus.
There is never complete consensus in a democracy. True democracy is when people fight with each other over different views, opinions, and beliefs.
The decentralized free press cannot be centralized.
0 dieselphiend 2011-10-08
I tend to like most of what RT News has to say...
7 LarrySandersShow 2011-10-08
It's run by the Russian government. http://rt.com/usa/news/rt-government-broadcasting-radio/
They spend the whole article talking about other government-run news agencies but regardless RT is state-run.
I like it alright but it is not independent by any means.
0 dieselphiend 2011-10-08
I never said it was. I see lots of questionable things coming from them, but imo it's the best international news source available...
3 Blink_ 2011-10-08
Don't forget Al-Jazeera
2 bittermanscolon 2011-10-08
AL-J is bullshit now, as soon as it was accepted by western media and used to support their stories etc, you have to know they've been corrupted from the inside too.
1 LarrySandersShow 2011-10-08
Fair enough. It's definitely the best state-run news organization!
0 [deleted] 2011-10-08
www.AlternativeNews.com
It's a start
1 MRuppert 2011-10-08
That is just linking to other sites. A lot of the links are to mainstream sites and it is controlled by Natural News and Mike Adams. Not quite independent, open, or anything remotely resembling what I'm advocating. /r/conspiracy is roughly 5,000x better than that.
1 LarrySandersShow 2011-10-08
Fair enough. It's definitely the best state-run news organization!
3 Blink_ 2011-10-08
Don't forget Al-Jazeera