[.]
Executive Director
Free Press

March 23, 2007

Dear [.],
 
[.], Your Free Press Outreach Coordinator, called me last month to inform me that your group would not consider my idea to telecast in Memphis, Tennessee, and elsewhere the two hour version of the 2007 National Media Reform Conference you now offer on DVD to contributors.
 
I wish you would reconsider this decision. I am concerned that your staff may have had a negative reaction to my aggressive personal style. I did attend uninvited your hospitality suite party, and I importuned several people I knew were overworked and overstressed during the Conference. I thought I had a good meeting of the minds with [.], your Washington, D.C., Communications Director, but I have never heard back from him.
 
I received enough positive feedback from your entourage to stay on in Memphis several days after the Conference to get some actual figures, in order to prepare a serious proposal for your organization. I found available air time on PAX TV 50 Saturday or Sunday from 2:00 – 4:00 PM for $3200 total. This UHF station reaches 665,000 households, and that slot has a lead in audience of some 30,000 viewers. Advertisements in the alternative weekly, The Memphis Flyer, would run $225 each for (4) 1/16 page insertions. Radio spots on NPR WKNO 91.1, community station WEVL 89.9, and Air America AM 680 would cost from $10 - 25 each. A small display ad in the "TV Times" section of the major newspaper, The Memphis Commercial Appeal, would be under $1000, and could include an expanded descriptive paragraph listing the program in the TV schedule for the day of the broadcast.
 
So Free Press’ total outlay might run to approximately $6000. Given the marquee star names the show features: Bill Moyers, Jane Fonda, Danny Glover, Geena Davis, Jesse Jackson, and others, a viewership of 50,000 would be a reasonable expectation. Listing the Free Press’ 800 # and website address should bring in significantly more donations than those dollars going out, besides enormously expanding the reach of the media reform ideas these presenters promote. Rebroadcasts in major centers like Washington, D.C., Los Angeles, New York, and Chicago would probably net similar positive results.
 
Since the commercial media are unlikely to give much coverage to issues like net neutrality and media property consolidation, despite their overwhelming significance, continuing the public discourse primarily on your website and through direct mail appeals for funds seems to me like a needlessly narrow outreach approach.
 
Why not let the general populace in on the conversation? Those who do not already listen to Democracy Now or have never heard of free press.net could provide a powerful additional base of support, and might add political clout to your inside the Beltway lobbying efforts. Given the level of entrée the big media conglomerates have with politicians, due to their large campaign contributions and their power to make public figures look bad, it would seem to me self-evident that your civic minded actions need all the help they can get from ordinary citizens. At this time, these folks tend to get their news from TV more than the Web.
 
I was disappointed to have the door so firmly shut in my face. I am sorry if I offended folks in your organization. It would be a shame if my perhaps valuable message could not be heard because of the static I introduced as a messenger. Hence this personal appeal to you to revisit the possibility of establishing a television presence for Free Press to accompany its on-line availability.
 
Yours,
David Lionel