Instead of complaining about the liberal media, let's do this.

This, should scare you.

I ventured this morning into a web journey spurred by ESPN's inane logic that broadcaster Robert Lee, an Asian, should not broadcast the University of Virginia football game (clearly as a result of the recent violence in Charlottesville though they claim otherwise). The political correctness was galling and offensive. Imagine the reaction broadcaster Robert Lee must be having to his switch to another game, simply because his name resembles that of a historical figure from 150 years ago who is currently not in vogue on the unhinged left.

For those of you who missed it:

But that was merely the start of my web journey. I wanted to know why ESPN has become so political in recent years. ESPN is, as is ABC, owned by the Walt Disney Company. That's a $40 billion conglomerate. ABC has clearly not been overly friendly to the president. But neither has Disney, for a number of reasons.

That got me thinking.  With Fox seemingly slipping slightly leftward, what's a conservative going to have to do for news and media in the future? The problem I spoke about back in 2008 is the old saw about the media being the message.  Conservatives have precious little influence on the media narrative, and what the right does control is often establishment Republican types at the helm.

So what to do?  There are options. We could continue complaining about the media but where has that gotten us so far?  A more robust course would be to start seeing journalism, government, teaching and entertainment as viable career options as conservatives and slowly infiltrate the offending institutions the way the liberals have already so effectively done.  That's good, except that the hubris we are seeing today is the culmination of decades of tireless socialist drive toward that end that includes the inculcation of the wealthy and establishment Republicans into their cadre of villainous traitors to America.  It's not clear America has the time left any more to wait out that solution.

Other options?  Conservatives could co-opt the typical solution employed by the Left - protests, marches and boycotts. The problem with that is, as a conservative when you look at an ANTIFA march, what are you thinking to yourself?  "Idiots". "Snowflakes". "Zombies".  What do you suppose the Left thinks when there's a Tea Party march? "Rubes". "Uneducated hicks". "Racists". "Idiots".  Protests make great television maybe but not convincing arguments.

All of which brings me to my suggestion.  What is it that conservatism regards as the best economic system in the world? Capitalism.  And what does capitalism espouse? Private ownership. What does every major media player have?  SHAREHOLDERS.  If you own the company, you can dictate the direction it goes. Ownership takes the medium and therefore owns the message. Jeff Bezos had an agenda so he bought the Washington Post, and changed it.

Now someone sitting in Iowa or West Virginia can't buy out all the shares of the Walt Disney Company. But millions of conservative voters can, and should consider a coordinated effort to do just that. Well not exactly that. Instead of Disney, the target should be Comcast.  It's the largest media conglomerate in the world. It owns everything needed - major mainstream media (NBC, Telemundo, CNBC, A&E etc.) cable subscribers, digital cable subscribers, internet and even phone customers. It's also consistently ranked as the worst company in the country. It's  a starkly obvious opportunity - a left-leaning megalith that people who use, don't even like. Get rid of the progressive liberals and repair the  company's image in one fell swoop.  Plus, you get to make dividends in the process.

Of course, besides the money, there's another hiccup. Comcast is publicly traded but is still a family-owned business.  The Roberts family owns one third of voting shares.  That's a hurdle but it's not a problem that cannot be solved. I say it's worth the shot despite the fact that the how to do it part requires a lot more discussion and organization.

This protest brought to you by Comcast

We all knew it: The anti-Trump protests are astroturf, bought and paid for by George Soros, who owns, among many other companies, Comcast.   The challenging thing is that those who favor the protests, don't care.

Via the Washington Post.

Little evidence exists to back the claim that significant numbers of protesters are paid, or, for that matter, that any significant number of workers seeking a union are “salts.” However, the allegations that even one participant is paid immediately calls into question the legitimacy of a cause. Behind these accusation is the idea that social movements should be entirely spontaneous, volunteer-driven, and untarnished by the exchange of money. Anything else would betray a lack of moral purity and reveal ulterior motives. And although successful protest movements rarely if ever succeed without an investment of resources, we create simplified mythologies that perpetuate these ideas of monetarily immaculate conception.

Citing Politifact as a source for 'little evidence' (as the link in the above paragraph does)  is itself laughable. 'Goebbels says Hitler is a good guy'. Great, I guess I was wrong about Hitler then. That issue aside, the mere admission that it does exist, validates that those various publications claiming that it does, are not insane, but have valid concerns.  As the left always, always claims when a whiff of conservative misdeeds exists, the mere existence of the claim merits serious consideration (like with the unicorn-y Trump-Russia connection).  There will be no double standard here. So WaPo, you are now guilty by your defense of the astroturfers by your discounting of factual evidence because it is politically inconvenient.  At least you had the decency to like to Breitbart and National Review in your distasteful defense of duplicitous political behavior that liberals clearly condone and deny exists.