When Breast cancer activist and former executive director of Breast Cancer Action, Barbara Brenner, had difficulty getting answers from Avon on how the funds from the breast cancer 3-day walks were being used, she decided to get a seat at their stockholder's meeting. In the BCA July/August 2002 newsletter, Barbara said, "Since the best way to reach stockholders is to become one, several Follow the Money members purchased single shares of Avon stock in time to be elgible to attend the annual Avon shareholder meeting in early May." By May they not only had their own stock shares but had support from two asset management companies and two mutual funds, which together held enough shares to get the attention of the board. (see Breast Cancer Activists Follow the Money to Avon Shareholder Meeting: http://archive.bcaction.org/uploads/PDF/72.pdf). Barbara's group was heard, responded to, and changes were made.

I was just thinking about Barbara after reading her obit in the LA Times this morning and wondering if a movement by shareholders could raise Monsanto's consciousness. Then I saw your blog post on Monsanto and decided I should pass this thought along.

jmcquade -- Do you know the details of the fairness doctrine? I know Thom has said the media closed down discourse from fear of the fairness doctrine, but the fairness doctrine should not have caused the fear it did.

Good post Thom!

Thom,

So GLad to hear your comments about the media...I'm in the begginning stages of organizing a boycott of major corp media to starve raings. I wrote the following last september:

Where’s the Outrage? Carefully scripted, controlled, then eliminated.Posted on September 17, 2012by kontempl8

by Sophia Schooley schooleyssc@aol.com

Every time I hear someone musing; “Where’s the outrage?” I can’t help but muse back; “Where do you think? As many know, almost all commercial media is owned by a handful of global corporations. If the media does not cover a movement or protest at all or distorts the facts by focussing on the fringe elements of violence, as large and decentralized as our nation is very few will know the truth. Protests, no matter how many, how organized or peaceful can effect little change in government without the voice that national media gives when educating the public. True, most get their news online, but still from the corporate controlled news industry. Independent media was not even represented by Pew in their study with regard to who gets news where. (See http://www.people-press.org/files/legacy-pdf/2012%20News%20Consumption%20Report.pdf)

It seems to me that unless every social justice and environmental activist, every non-profit concerned with human rights, climate change, honest rule of law etc. unites to focus on one issue above all else; taking back the FCC and all media, we as a nation and perhaps a planet are in serious trouble. Together, we can restore the Fairness Doctrine and rules prohibiting media monopolies; perhaps go further to force the FCC to make all media free, open, and public and not-for-profit. The first amendment guarantees free speech. Is speech free if you have to pay to have your voice heard by comparatively few? Is speech free if you get payed millions while being granted tightly controlled access to a bully pulpit granting you an audience of millions? With the revolving doors between Capital Hill and huge lobbyist money, there will never be incentive to amend the constitution to take money out of politics without huge public pressure and debate nurtured in national media. An uneducated public will never bring enough pressure. With corporations in control of the media , there will never be an educated public since most people only know what their local news affiliate tells them, or what headlines jump out at them from the barrage of corporate media headlines displayed by ISPs and Aps. News in the public interest is drowned out all but completely. The sad truth is, most Americans are too preoccupied with survival to seek out the truth.

If the British had control of present day media and our legal system, what might modern coverage of Paul Revere be like? Would we be gawking slack-jawed at helicopter coverage of vapid play-by-play? “This just breaking…there seems to be something going on in Boston. There’s a man on horse-back galloping around and shouting. Oh! He’s armed! He’s been fired on by police! He seems to have been taken out…” The next thing we know, we’d be over-run by the British in much the same way we are being over-run by the richest .01% who now control almost every facet of the media and government. Forbes in March of 2012 reported; “Those people have incomes of over $27 million, or roughly 540 times the national average income. Altogether, the top 1 percent control 43 percent of the wealth in the nation; the next 4 percent control an additional 29 percent”.

Today, Dr. King would never have been allowed a microphone or even a bullhorn. While deploying the “peoples mic” in Zuccotti Park, he may have been a victim of NYPD’s “stop-and-frisk” and possibly arrested. If the media covered Martin Luther King as well as they cover the Occupiers, they would be fumbling with their carefully crafted corporate scripts, ignoring the crowds being beaten as they crossed the bridge in Selma. We never would have seen the beatings or heard the exuberance and cheering as Dr. King shouted “I have a DREAM…” No one would ever have known of Dr. King’s dream, let alone the dreams of countless thousands. The corporate right-wing that has seized control of the MSM would crushed any hope of civil rights for African Americans, women, and minorities. We might even have descended back into an era of slavery. Indeed we may yet…this time, some poor will be owned by rich, the rest left to live in the squalor of decaying infrastructure, poverty and pollution.

Media has the power to shape history. What kind of history will we look back on? In regards to an article by Miranda Leitsinger of NBC regarding “whatever happened” to the Occupy Movement, she refers to the Occupiers as having been “shuttered”. Really? They came out in droves to occupy Sandy and help those afflicted, yet I don’t recall hearing a word about it in corporate media. Is this because those employed within that system have been so dumbed down by their colleagues that they literally believe that what they are reporting is all there is, or is it pressure from corporate owners who manage their puppet producers…both? Of course there’s the money. So does Ms. Leitsinger think this is what it means to be “shuttered”? Zuccotti Park was bulldozed, belongings, computers, books etc. discarded and trashed and people jailed. The few media who had the courage to try to cover it honestly were in some cases roughed up or beaten and in most, forbidden to do so. The Occupiers are still trying to do what decaying libraries and schools can not. They are trying to provide for each other what those controlling the larger society will not. They are even being kept from doing the very thing the corporate media constantly chastises them for not doing. They are trying to help themselves and each other. With books, make-shift health clinics staffed by volunteer professionals, kitchens where the hungry- and indeed anyone could get a meal, teaching circles, tents and occupied foreclosed homes they persist. Wouldn’t it be nice to see Rachel Maddow or Ed Schultz interviewing Occupiers trying to help someone stay in their foreclosed home? The Occupiers continue to be portrayed by corporate media as nonexistent or violent, lazy, and disorganized, when in reality they are asking quite clearly for 2 things to start with; indict wall street crooks who committed fraud leading to the collapse of the economy and millions losing their homes and jobs, and reverse the “citizens united” ruling with a constitutional amendment declaring money as property- not speech and corporations as legal entities, not persons. Over and over again this drum beat sounds, but the press, being controlled by the corrupt corporations the Occupiers are protesting in the first place, will not do their job. So Media, are you content to let the richest 5% control 72% of all the wealth in this country? Don’t kid yourselves. When the curtain falls, you will be as disenfranchised as the poorest among us. You have the power to shape dialogue and with it, history. Is it worth selling out? Educate us for a change instead of filling the space between our ears with divisive ear candy and half truths or outright lies at worst, and pleasant, well researched but comparatively insignificant anecdotes at best. The Occupiers are in the streets for all of us, including you. Lets go Occupiers. Lets Occupy the FCC! Lets take back the media and give it back to the people. What say you, Anonymous, can you help us take back the airwaves? In the mean time I recommend democracynow.org and http://rt.com/shows/breaking-set-summary/ Also,http://www.truthdig.com (Chris Hedges is awesome!), free speech.org and linktv.org. Boycott the MSM, especially the “news”.

To the "Powers that Be," and anyone else who would like to Dominate the current paradigm I warn you...You will not succeed without our blessings. You arrogantly claim to have jurisdiction over this planet; yet, you have no such authority. This is a blatant lie! Your power is and always will be trumped by the Power of the People, and, by the true Powers that Be. Your schemes will fail! Your expendatures are a waste of time and money.

Just like any other rich and spoiled brat, you will have to learn that lesson the hard way. So be it. At least they provide some poor smucks with a job and a decent living.

There are already so many changes. And they have create many buildings anymore in there. The development is so fast. wedding tiaras uk

They always create out such a new idea for share. So people will not bored and they can be interested. wedding tiaras uk

Ang ganitong uri ng marketing makabuo ng isang napakagandang imahe ng kumpanya at ng maraming maliit na mga kumpanya pinamamahalaang upang ipakita ang mga impression ng isang malaking kumpanya upang ayusin ang propesyonal mensaheng naghihintay tono. wedding tiaras

Quote Palindromedary:DAnneMarc:

"Online Persona Management"...wow! what Big Brother doublespeak, eh? Thanks for that info about Ntrepid...I had not heard of them...or at least, I don't remember reading about them.

Palindromedary ~ In that case you might be interested in this three part youtube video series entitled:

Anonymous Is US Phantom Enemy Created by Ntrepid Corp. Pt.II - III

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mWe0Z6H5LHQ

I only just watched the second in the series. Apparently "Anonymous" isn't who he isn't saying he is. Yeah, I know that sounds ridiculous; but, think about it a minute, what a better enemy for the government to have than one without a name or a face--just a mask. A wild card sockpuppet if you will. Someone the Government and military can point to and assign any person and any allegation to in order to justify murdering them. No due process, no proof that person did anything. Just, "you did it", bang, you're gone. Talk about getting away with murder

(UPDATE) Ok! Now I've seen all three videos on this subject. I highly recommend everyone check this out. It is either a very creative hoax, or one of the biggest problems this country has ever faced and will affect us all eventually.

Beware wolves that bare the clothing of sheep:

Quote The Bible: The Book of Revelations:Revelation 2:9 I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan.

Revelation 3:9 Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee.

Quote chuckle8:DAM -- the real Obama said he wanted to get rid of the AUMF which seems counter to who you consider the real Obama.

Fair enough ,my friend. However, our dear President Obama, who I assume is "the real Obama," has said a lot of great things. He said he would close Gitmo, investigate the Bush administration for war crimes, to pressure Congress to adopt Single-Payer health care, and he swore he would protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America to name but a few of his lofty promises. How many lies does it take to become a liar? I suggest you go back and reread my post #21 about the recent hearing by the Senate Armed Services Committee. Watch the posted video link to The Democracy Now website. Then ask yourself if these Pentagon officials and right-wing Senators who are putting all this effort into "expanding" the meaning of the AUMF appear for a moment to be concerned about any attempts to get rid of that legislation. Ask if they are putting any thought into their predetermined actions or their potential consequences as well? Don't allow the smoke being blown up your a$$ to cloud your vision!

The IP Commission Report and why the heck do I even care?
Since these same bastards who have exported our jobs for profits are losing profits because of stolen IP property by other countries are now crying foul, unfair, "we have to do something about this!", I say to hell with them.

http://cryptome.org/2013/05/ip-spies-netwide.pdf

Quote Wikileaks:
WikiLeaks leaks the transcript of $2 million documentary "We Steal Secrets: The Story of Wikileaks" by Oscar-winning director Alex Gibney, ahead of its world-wide release tomorrow night (May 24 2013). The annotated transcript reveals errors and sleight of hand by the director Alex Gibney. The premiere of "We Steal Secrets" is opportunistically timed. Bradley Manning’s 12-week trial commences on Monday 3rd of June. Manning may face life in prison and could potentially face the death penalty. Charges include espionage and aiding the enemy.

The film portrays Manning’s alleged acts as failure of character rather than a triumph of conscience. The portrayal of Manning’s alleged relationship to WikiLeaks and to Assange is grossly irresponsible and suggests – erroneously and when evidence is to the contrary – that Assange may be guilty of conspiring with Bradley Manning to commit espionage or similar offences. The film buys into the current US government position that journalists and publishers can be prosecuted as co-conspirators alongside their alleged sources. This is a dangerous proposition for all journalists and media organizations — not just WikiLeaks. In the context of the US government’s attempts to prosecute journalists who communicate with confidential sources, Gibney’s film could have been an important and timely project. The film barely touches on the US investigation against WikiLeaks, never mentions the words "grand jury", and trivialises the larger issues, perhaps because the film-maker could not secure an interview with Julian Assange.

Neither Julian Assange nor anyone associated with WikiLeaks over the past two-and-a-half years agreed to participate in the film. Stock footage of Assange has been used instead and has been heavily edited, in places seriously distorting what was said. WikiLeaks has however co-operated with other feature documentaries, including a film by respected Academy Award-nominated, US film-maker Laura Poitras, which will be out later this year and another film, co-produced with Ken Loach’s 16 Films, which will be released shortly.

"We Steal Secrets: The Story of Wikileaks" - The annotated transcript