Talk:Free Press (organization)

message: Okay, good information here but it's not formatted properly. It reads like a FreePress.net website. I'll see what I can do to find more information on them from other sources and to rewrite the descriptions so they are more objective. Help would be appreciated! - KellyLogan 18:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The page was copied from the FreePress.net website, apparently by someone affiliated with them. That copy has been deleted and the old version restored. —Centrx→talk • 19:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Rewrite

message: Can anybody in the know have a look at the references of Barker, Michael - since User:Mike31 just added that, I'm a little suspicious about its relevance. Same goes for Media democracy‎ Amalthea (talk) 01:09, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Barker, Michael 

message: "The Net Neutrality Coup; The Campaign to Regulate the Internet was Funded By a Who's Who of Left-Liberal Foundations," by John Fund, Wall Street Journal, 21 December 2010. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 20:49, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Added in this edit.  – OhioStandard (talk) 18:28, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Free Press net neutrality coup 

message: Someone keeps adding info about supposed funding from George Soros and Barbra Streisand, but the source is weak -- the editor is citing UNNAMED SOURCES in a Washington Post article. The group does get some funding from Soros' Open Society Foundations but has never received $$ from Streisand. It appears the editor is using her name b/c she's a right-wing punching bag.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coriander12 (talk • contribs) 17:53, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inaccurate Info re: Funding 

message: About The Free Press
—Pawyilee (talk) 07:23, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: External ling

message: The organization has been accused many times of having a liberal bias; however, their work is consistently non-partisan, with many efforts involving individuals occupying a variety of political positions. One needs only study their media ownership work to see their connections to right and left wing politicians and advocacy groups. Net neutrality is also not a "liberal" issue, no matter how it is framed in the news. One should not forget that many American liberals support neoliberal policy approaches. I am modifying the edit made to the political leanings of the organization as the information is not accurate. If citations are required to demonstrate their work with conservative and liberal politicians, I will be happy to add them at a later date. --Jaobar (talk) 04:08, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: This is ridiculous. Free Press is a socialist group founded by three self-declared socialists and pursuing a socialist agenda. Advocacy groups are all partisan in the sense that they have ideological goals and preferences and this one is no exception. Denying that Free Press is left of center, strongly allied with the Democratic Party and funded to a significant extent by the Soros and Ford Foundations is delusional. Get serious. RichardBennett (talk) 23:59, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Richard - this citation does not appear to support the claim that the group is "leftwing." If you disagree, please identify a specific page number and text from the source that you believe directly supports this material. Neutralitytalk 01:50, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Countering Claims of a Liberal bias 

message: Neutrality is adamant that the political agenda of Free Press not be mentioned on this page. This is odd because this is lobbying group with a clear agenda. Here's some evidence:
"Eric Klinenberg’s Fighting for Air: The Battle to Control America’s Media (2007) is the first to chronicle both corporate media consolidation and its discontents, although it builds off of Robert McChesney’s work on both fronts (e.g., McChesney, 2007; McChesney, 2004; McChesney & Nichols, 2002; Nichols & McChesney, 2005). Engaging in an overview of media reform activism presents some uncertainties over who and what merits attention. By the “media reform movement” (or the “media democracy movement”),2 I mean those groups and individuals whose primary political goals target the regulations governing media institutions. Though promoting a vision of media localism, these organizations tend to be focused on national regulations, primarily those of the Federal Communications Commission, as well as Congressional funding for public broadcasting and the malfeasance of corporate media. National non-profit organizations, mainly Free Press (created by McChesney, along with progressive journalist John Nichols and activist Josh Silver), occupy a central position in the thinking, actions, and visibility of such activism...
"It is too simple to point out that a victory for media reform tomorrow would be insufficient to solve the world’s problems, or even the media’s. But the structure and articulated vision of a political coalition bespeaks its hopes and the possibilities it seeks to actualize. So it is on this ground — that is, taking the movement at its word — through which I analyze the struggle for national media reform. While a specific consideration of genre and cultural policy is outside the scope of this article, I argue below that the national media reform coalition is hampered by pursuing a strategy oriented around FCC liberalism and economistic arguments while ignoring media texts and rituals. I conclude by discussing other contemporary attempts at media-based activism that orient their struggles for democracy within a framework of expanding social justice. These efforts are arguably more reminiscent of media activism in other countries, where challenging media content is fundamental to battling authoritarian control of both the state and the market."
Given that McChesney and Nichols founded Free Press and McChesney is still on the board, this more than justifies my claim that Free Press is a leftwing organization. But for bonus points, here's more from McChesney:
"Of course, given the existing power structure of U.S. society and the seven-decades-long ceiling on civilian government purchases as a percentage of GDP, all of this may appear to be pie in the sky. And our message is that it is, unless the power structure of U.S. society can be altered. Only a reform movement so radical that it would appear revolutionary within the context of the existing U.S. economic and social order, fundamentally reducing the field of operation of the capitalist market, holds any chance of substantially improving the conditions of most people in society. Needless to say, for such a struggle to succeed people will have to have a sense of real things to struggle for that will materially affect their lives.
"These gains will only be made through an enormous class struggle from below. If won, they will not, we underscore, eliminate the evils of capitalism, or the dangers it poses for the world and its people. In the end, there is no real answer but to remove brick by brick the capitalist system itself, rebuilding the entire society on socialist principles. This is something that the great majority of the population will undoubtedly learn in the course of their struggles for a more equal, more humane, more collective, and more sustainable world. In the meantime, it is time to begin to organize a revolt against the ruling class–imposed ceiling on civilian government spending and social welfare in U.S. society." "A New New Deal under Obama?", John Bellamy Foster and Robert W. McChesney, Monthly Review: An Independent Socialist Magazine  
This quote was cited by FCC Chairman to support his claim that Free Press has a socialist agenda. RichardBennett (talk) 02:23, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Ajit Pai is not a reliable source for statements in Wikipedia's voice. I've recast the content to attribute the statement ("Pai, in turn, has been critical of Free Press, asserting that Free Press has a 'socialist' agenda."). This page, as it stands, describes Free Press's views and how the reliable sources have characterized it. It also includes the views of a prominent critic, Pai. This is exceedingly fair; I'm not sure what you want. We are certainly not going to characterize Mr. Pai as a champion of "free enterprise" or classify Free Press as "socialist" in Wikipedia's own voice, as you've sought to do in your recent edits. Neutralitytalk 00:18, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Free Press 

message: Per the Wikipedia article on Robert W. McChesney, he is "an American professor notable in the history and political economy of communications, and the role media play in democratic and capitalist societies."  As of 2022-12-03, the word "socialism" or "socialist" does not appear in that article.  Those words also do NOT appear in the reference given for that claim in this article on "Free Press (organization)":  
* Dan Berger, Defining Democracy: Coalition Politics and the Struggle for Media Reform, International Journal of Communication 3 (2009).
Accordingly, I'm changing "socialist writer Robert McChesney" to "media scholar Robert McChesney".  DavidMCEddy (talk) 22:05, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Robert McChesney, media scholar or socialist writer?