TL Davis: Fake News & How To Fight It

walter cronkite

One suggestion.

Thanks for considering it.

22 responses to “TL Davis: Fake News & How To Fight It

  1. Interesting, TL, a bit more info would likely be helpful in choices made by potential donors. How much is needed to complete this gig. What is/was the entire budget. How do you intend to distribute this, or get it out to the public.

    What do you expect to achieve with this vid?

    DW

    • Right now we need about 5-10,000 to finish up the interviews, then we can go from there. Entire budget is $200,000, but I am hoping to encourage some big donors once the interviews are complete, or co-production with other documentary producers. It will go through the typical film festival route to try and scare up some distribution deals. There are some grants available, too, then through Amazon, advertising, etc, but hopefully theater distribution, but that is way down the road.
      The idea is to appeal to Millennials who are waking up to how many lies they have been told by the media. Not the OWS types, but the average kids who never see things like this, but I think their parents will present it to them.

  2. We all knew it was a train wreck & their plan did not go off as planned. Now what ?
    Truth is always the best metric & not what people perceive as the truth as War Criminal Kissinger said. We’ll all know when & if Trump starts rolling out his policy changes or not.
    Transition of real change or mutation of same agenda will be known shortly I suspect. However, I’m not holding my breath for any real substantiative changes.

  3. People might question why Cronkite’s picture is there in this story.

    Here is why:
    http://www.garynorth.com/members/5217.cfm

    —————–

    One of the great mysteries of Reagan’s candidacy was why he put George Bush on the ticket. Bush had savaged Reagan in the campaign. He invented the phrase “voodoo economics” to dismiss supply-side income tax cuts. Reagan had sworn to the Right’s leaders that he would not appoint Bush to the ticket. This fact has gone down the media’s memory hole. Conservative political activists in the D.C. area felt betrayed when he accepted Bush at the July convention. I knew some of them. They were angry.

    I was not surprised in the least. His willingness in 1976 to accept liberal Richard Schweiker of Pennsylvania as his V.P. signaled that he was willing to compromise on this issue.

    There has long been a question: Why did he risk alienating his followers by breaking his word? The answer: he had no choice if he wanted to win.

    On July 28, 2007, I went public with this much of the story.
    https://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north552.html

    The following story I believe is true. It was told to me by W. Cleon Skousen (The Naked Communist, The Naked Capitalist). Immediately prior to Reagan’s smiling announcement of Bush as his VP running mate, Reagan had spent the weekend at a large estate in Leesburg, Virginia. At that meeting was one of Skousen’s relatives (not Mark or Joel). He witnessed two CFR members, very prominent, who cornered Reagan for the weekend. According to this third-hand, unverifiable testimony — which Skousen relayed to me a few years later — they presented Reagan with a choice: Bush as VP with media neutrality or someone else with media skewering. One of these figures was a talking head with enormous influence. The other was a Rockefeller hireling with enormous influence. They are still alive. One of them still has influence.

    The one who no longer had influence was Cronkite, the talking head. At some point, the other member of the two-man team will die. I will reveal his name at that time.

    Skousen’s relative was a nephew.

    The media are in a position to make or break any candidate. They knew Reagan might win. They wanted leverage if he did. Carter was a political liability for the Establishment in 1980. They wanted a new face. But they wanted to control him.

    This is Ed Meese’s 2008 version of Reagan’s decision. Notice that Cronkite was in the middle of this decision, too.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/04/opinion/04meese.html

    Bush’s advisor, James Baker III, took control of the White House as Chief of Staff as soon as Reagan was inaugurated. Here is the Wikipedia entry on him.

    He served as the Chief of Staff in President Ronald Reagan’s first administration and in the final year of the administration of President George H. W. Bush. Baker also served as Secretary of the Treasury from 1985-1988 in the second Reagan administration, and Secretary of State in the George H. W. Bush administration.

    There was not a single New Right figure in the top echelon of the Reagan Administration. They were all CFR and Bush people. There were a few conservatives briefly in the lower levels. Then, one by one, they quit.

    ——————–

  4. As I noted on CM’s site:
    While I applaud the idea, and the effort in support of it, I’m actually in The Biz, and personally I’m a nuts-and-bolts guy:
    Granting your premise, say you get this thing done, the way you envision, and it’s in the can, ready to launch.

    How?
    Where?
    To whom?

    And then what happens?

    Those are serious questions, not simply easy sarcasm.
    cf. “The Lion Tamer Skit”
    It’s going to take more than a hat, sir.

    OTOH, going a step back, simply making a documentary requires little more than a decent HD camera, quality sound recording equipment, a tripod, and a PC to edit it. And the time and will to do it all. In other words, about the price of a decent AR with optic sights; no more, and no less.
    So what’s the sticking point there?

    For reference, twenty three years ago, Robert Rodriguez, with one whole year of film school under his hat, a borrowed camera, and a tape deck on his hip, made El Mariachi, an entire feature film, for the approximately $10K he earned as a medical test subject, and he made no secret of the details of how it all came about in his autobiographical Rebel Without A Crew. His movie grossed $2M, and he currently pulls better than $10K/day for major feature films. Just saying.
    The simple takeaway is that anyone who can afford underpants and beanie weenies can make any film they set their mind to, on damn near any budget they have available.

    Nothing wrong with crowdsourcing that, but FWIW, that’s not really a bleeding edge approach. I’ve got nothing against blegging, esp. for a worthy cause, but if this is even partly finished, a small tease to attract what’s needed financially to complete it wouldn’t go amiss.

    • https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/lies-of-omission-freedom-media#/

      See also http://www.clairewolfe.com/blog/2016/11/01/lies-of-omission/

      I was there as gofer for both the Vanderboegh and Bracken interviews. There’s a boatload of good stuff there – literally hours. I was not there for the Wolfe interview but am told by TL that it went well.

      This project is not bullshit.

      It will get made.

      Just would prefer that it not come solely from TL and my pockets.

      • Fair enough. That’s a position I can respect.
        And thanks for the links. I’ll hit them later today.

        I didn’t doubt the reality of the project; my questions are directed more towards its aims, and the plan to fulfill them.
        What prospective lender/investors would normally call a business plan.

      • Okay, Claire’s write-up hit what I was looking for.
        My $0.02:
        1) $200K is an ambitious (as in a kid who wants not a pony, but an Arabian thoroughbred racing horse-ambitious) budget. As previously noted, real feature films get made with name actors for less than that.
        2) Shooting, then looking for the money, is basically one way (a kind of bassackwards one, but rookies, what can you say?) of going about this.
        Most people get the money, then do the project. Generally, the project the money they get lets them afford. Water under the bridge now.
        3) Given the closest beneficiaries, if someone hasn’t – in person, in a suit and tie, with a no-BS legitimate prospectus – hit up every major and minor firearms company, ammunition manufacturer, pro-gun media cable channel, and major ancillary product mfrs. and distributors (Dillon, Brownells, BassPro Shops, etc., ad infinitum), and any other interested party with deep pockets for funding in ANY amount, from the NRA to every conservative to libertarian thinktank or media entity – you’re either leaving money on the table. Or, if they don’t care to support truth where their bread is buttered with actual cash, you’re probably barking up the wrong tree.
        4) Hoping for liberal-run film festivals to run this is a fine thing.
        Trying to jam it into programming with Fox, the Outdoor Channel, Glenn Beck’s Blaze TV, and anything/anyone else similarly positioned, might could be a lot savvier way to go.
        Pursue sneaking it into the liberal festivals, and good luck.
        But geez, find some sure things for this. Unless it’s better than Jenna Jameson topless on your TV or front porch, what will trickle in from internet sales probably won’t cover the PO box rental for the orders.
        5) Documentaries are the area of media I’m least interested in.
        That’s just me, but my reasons are:
        No one cares. No one watches them. They make no money.
        We all know the exceptions. But only because they are exceptions.
        Most of what gets made never gets seen. What does get seen is funded because its made-to-order for a pre-existing market (sports, nature, lefty politics, artsy-fartsy film festivals, whatever). Gun people, OTOH, are the skin-flintiest cheap bastards on the planet. (As Tam recently noted, if you offered them genuine chocolate ice cream on a stick for $2, or chocolate-covered dog turd for $1.95, they’ll suck the turd every time. I think she understates it a bit, if anything.) Small government freedom lovers aren’t even on the scale, and would give you the Secondhand Lions salesmen pitch response, in 12 cases out of 10. So instead of setting out to make a full documentary feature, starting out with shorter weblets, and shopping them around to some found audience (cable TV gun/outdoor/alt right freedom types) would have been a better idea, with a view to getting the bigger project later.
        6) I could be totally wrong. Everyone, including in Hollywood, tells you no. Thus all projects are only made by people with hard heads and thick ears who persist in their chosen madness beyond all rational explanation.
        No, really, that’s how it works, since Edison made the movie camera itself.
        And nobody in this town knows nothing.

        But I doubt I’d pay to see the thing, or spend the time to watch it, and I care about the subject(s). File under “preaching to the choir”.
        So my gut instinct is the target uneducated low-information millennial gives even less fucks (or $) than that.

        But still, #6.
        So my sincere best wishes, I hope it wildly succeeds anyways, somehow, and I’ll swing by the indiegogo spot and leave something from Santa.

        Oh, and also
        7) Baby bird with mouth shut who never squawks, starves.
        If you/the director/producer(s) aren’t willing to swing for the fences…
        With that in mind, hit up, directly (as possible, including agents/reps/whatever)
        Clint Eastwood
        Mel Gibson
        Jon Voight
        Tom Selleck
        Kurt Russell
        Chuck Norris
        Dennis Miller
        Ted Nugent
        David Mamet (Who? look him up)
        Limbaugh/Hannity/Beck/Coulter
        every other Townhall media columnist
        Any And Every Other Swinging Richard Hollywood/entertainment/media conservative/libertarian celebrity whose name and contact information you can chisel free from the boundless resources of the Internet, and be prepared to give the goddamedest Best 60-second Pitch Of All Time or World Class Begging Letter (including, if possible, a DVD presentation/tease, and it better be better than the flick itself), asking for anything they can spare, an on-air plug, a kind word, their name, and even just one effing dollar, (because the next letter will include the phrase “(Insert Big Effing Celebrity Name/s) has already thrown their financial and moral support to this project”.
        Don’t stalk, but don’t be above finding a nearby event, book-signing, or whatnot, and taking a shot. You’re fishing for a “Yes”. “No”s don’t count.
        Try to find one that’s a sure thing “yes”, so you can log-roll the next eleventy-nine. Every radio and TV talk show host wants to be an opinion maker, and ever star wants to be an artiste (yes, even our side’s), so once you get one, you can get more.
        And if you get a bite, ask them to let you know of anyone they think might be interested in helping out, and tell them to forward your info along.
        That’s how this entire town/biz/racket rolls.
        Also, a lot of them are p.o.’ed about having to hide their beliefs since forever; there’s nothing wrong with appealing to their desire to stick it to the lying Lefties for a change. The worst they can do is say “no”, and you’re there now, so what the hell, right?

        If one or more of y’all haven’t got the balls to do 7, fuggedaboudit.
        Because if you ain’t pitching your next movie, you ain’t making movies.

        Love your work, call my office and we’ll do lunch, you’re welcome, and I owe you for that time with the guy and the thing. And if you pull it off, in lieu of my customary 10% cut, keep your money, send me a complimentary copy for awards season, and/or put a thanks in the credits.

        • Bravo. And appreciated. Thanks.

        • Aesop, hopefully people will go to Christian Mercenary and read my reply to you there, it will answer a lot of questions, but since you are here I will let you know that I have done most of what you have suggested, though I have not done it all, but I have hit up any number of those people. Here’s the thing, asking the media to publicize your finished documentary and asking them to publicize your request for funding are different things. The film business is not that much different than the writing business in the sense that no one wants to by a half finished script, or novel.

          But, you did offer some good advice. I think where you are mistaken is in thinking I have no experience at this sort of thing, but I do. I know what I am in for and I don’t like asking for money, but we have spent a great deal already and we know we are not going to make any money at it, it is not a profit center and if we should somehow make a little cash, I intend to put it toward a Fast and Furious doc.

          I have not stopped doing anything, but if we are going to go any further we need a little help to finish the interviews, then we can work on everything else. I do know what I am doing here, even if it does not meet your muster from what little you have seen about the project. You don’t understand the whole strategy.

          I do appreciate your honest advice and will look into more of it as we go along. We could always use some help if you are interested.

          Two last things: the budget is what it is because we are making a different sort of documentary than most, who mostly follow the subject around, never leave town, or when they do, they are in a car. We are interviewing these people in their environment, which means travel and lodging and we want a film that looks good, is done well and will be something that makes an impression. Second thing, Millennials don’t get credit, they have bad press, there are a lot, some of them our own children, who are begging for some direction, for someone to tell it straight, who has documented support for the views that do not line up with theirs, so this has to be done the right way.

          Thanks for your time and advice.
          TL

          • I’ve regularly heard multiple plugs for projects in development on both Hannity and Beck, and given how seldom I’m even awake in the daytime to hear that, I think it isn’t quit as scarce, at least with them, as one might think. Otherwise, I get that “finished” is a much better thing than “in progress”. Get money and more contacts first, go for plugs when you’ve just about got it all in the can.

            I don’t assume you have no experience in this sort of thing, I just think you’ve chosen an unconventional route to go about it, and thus made your work harder than it had to be. But it’s your project, and your time, so that’s really your affair.

            If you didn’t give a damn it would never have gotten this far, but I hope you can see it get out the other end of the tunnel the way you like. I would simply encourage you to knock on every possible door you can get at to leverage some momentum and support for this thing, so you don’t have a heart attack pulling it off. Not least of which because any/all of the folks I pointed to will also help get it the audience you’re hoping for.

            And when you go to do F&F, and start pimping that project, you’ll be the folks who made that bitchin’ prior doc, and you’ll have a track record with everyone that’ll open more doors, faster, next time around. (You’ll also have pissed off all the right liberal @$$wipes, which is worth even more points.)

            This is why all “overnight” success in media generally takes 10-15 years of back-breaking effort.

        • Cassandra (of Troy)

          Aesop,
          Re: #7 – Dedicated pro-2A media outlets

          Breitbart: A.W.R. Hawkins (Decidedly PRO-2A & an ENGLISHMAN!)
          Daily Caller: Tucker Carlson, Harold Hutchinson
          Townhall: Katie Pavlich, Matt Vespa
          Fox News: Tucker Carlson, Greg Gutfeld, NOT the ‘Irish Mafia’ a.k.a. O’Reilly/Kelly/Hannity nor Neil Cavuto
          Fox Business: Charles Payne, Lou Dobbs, Kennedy
          Taki’s Magazine: Gavin McInnes, Jim Goad, David Cole, Kathy Shaidle (Pro-2A CANADIAN!)
          American Thinker
          Washington Times
          Canada Free Press
          Keep & Bear Arms.com
          Tom Gresham’s Gun Talk
          J.P.F.O.

    • One of the big studios (Universal?) spent $100 thousand redoing the audio on “el Mariachi” to make it passable enough to release. He also had friends and people he impressed along the way open a few doors for him. I’m guessing a pro gun documentary might not have the skids greased the same way…

      • It was Sony. And if you’d read Rodriguez’ book, you’d know that they “spent” that $100,000 to hire Rodriguez himself, at Hollywood sound editor rates, to re-cut the exact sound he recorded, to try and synch it up better for theatrical release.
        Stupid Sony only recouped $2M for that investment, and Rodriguez got 10X his original $10K investment back to make his own flick better. Plus what they paid for the film rights, and the screenplay (again, at industry rates). Everyone cried all the way to the bank.

        And no, that never happens on documentaries.

        But then again, this isn’t 1993, you aren’t shooting on actual film, and trying to synch up reel-to-reel tape which RR shot without the camera running (it was an old 16mm that made too much noise to get clean sound, so he shot the film silent, then had the actors try to reproduce each shot talking with no film) – which was why the original cut, intended when it was made for Telemundo/Univision distribution, not Anglo theatrical release, looked more like bad lip synch kung fu flicks, and needed all that sound clean-up.

        Now you can just buy a Zoom digital recorder for three hundred bucks that records six tracks of 96kHz/24-bit sound, which is recording studio quality, and can output it synched right back into your digicam. So for $300, you eliminate the need for all that post-production work. (If someone is smart enough to put good mikes on their talent, and use wind screens, which eliminates 95% of the f***tards making YouTube diaper spackle.)

        As I’ve said multiple times and places, you can now be Warner Brothers or Paramount, at industry quality, for no more than a couple thou. After that you just need a script, a competent director, and something to put in front of the lens. Those last three are what kicks the ass of 95% of everyone, including major studios, every day. But the ante to get to that point has now gone from $5-10M, down to $2-3K.

  5. How did I miss this project ?
    Donated

  6. Alfred E. Neuman

    Reblogged this on FOR GOD AND COUNTRY.

  7. Aesop, consider Revolutionary War vs. Civil War from a logistics point of view. Revolutionary war succeeded for Americans because the aggressor logistics originated from the far side of very expensive terrain to cross, an ocean. I think the ocean was a much bigger factor than France’s help. Civil war failed for the South because the aggressor logistics originated from the region with more industrialization and factories to produce army supplies. The money to operate Northern factories was not produced by a single inedible crop whose export to customers was cut off by an unaffordable tariff enforced by a blockade (cotton). The South’s farm workers were enemies and required much effort to keep suppressed.

    Who pays the salaries of US government employees? US taxpayers. Printing dollars does not help government because dollars are just a tax collection mechanism and government can’t print the food or gasoline its employees need. Taxpayers have the power of the purse, and if they don’t like government they can just stop funding it.

  8. Cassandra (of Troy)

    Mr. Davis,
    Re: The ‘Multi-prong approach’

    The pro-2A community’s had quite a bit of experience w/ this tactic as it’s been used against us for decades & is known as the Metzenbaum Strategem after the (now thankfully dead) OH Leftocrat (& Communist lawyer) Sen. Howard Metzenbaum.

    Ol’ Howie (in collusion w/ other House/Senate/media anti-2A/pro-thug/pro-dictatorship cultists) would come up w/ an (ofttimes ridiculous if not outright INSANE) anti-2A proposal, push it HARD until pro-2A forces begin to effectively fight it, then (after the appropriate amount of dutifully reported & thoroughly false irritation/outrage) withdraw said legislation/let it be defeated. Afterward, another anti-2A co-cultist (usually fellow Leftocrats Kennedy or Schumer) introduces a bill that appears to be/is promoted as a ‘moderate, reasonable’ alternative to Howie’s ‘extreme’ proposal which is (to the GREAT relief of allegedly pro-2A Reps/Sens) summarily passed w/ great fanfare.

    Problem is that the ‘moderate, reasonable’ ‘compromise’ legislation contains an element/elements of the original ‘extreme’ bill & sets up the next attempt,: Wash/Rinse/Repeat. It’s VERY effective & so has become SOP for the Left w/ other seemingly unrelated proposals, e.g., ‘gay rights’. Recall how successfully that was marketed using ‘equal rights/fairness’ as cover & you’ll get what I’m talking about, the same can be done w/ FreeFor’s agenda.

    Put militarily, this approach is the equivalent of having 3-6 2 man 60mm mortar teams surrounding an enemy camp, firing 3 rounds apiece, then moving 20′ to their left or right, firing 3 more rounds, moving again, firing/moving/firing/etc/etc then taking off after 3-5 attack circuits. Visualize the enemy camp’s panic as round after round after round come in from multiple directions & ranges, they’ll be on the radio screaming that they’re under attack from @ least a regiment, they’re ALL gonna DIE, & need Help NOW!!! Same same w/ how to proceed against the Imperium/its allies, it ain’t that hard, the question is whether people will break their mental chains & Just Do It®.