Hey, count me in. I probably don't have time for the in-depth research that raider99 and Ripper McCord do, but I can certainly help with setting up and maintaining data banks.

My input on the mission statement:

To develop or encourage the development of tools to facilitate immediate, large-scale citizen action against media distortions, lies and propaganda, and to create a viral campaign to inspire people to speak out.

This really captures the project well, but maybe we should cut it down a bit? Would something like this capture SCAAMD in fewer words?:

"To develop and execute a massive, viral citizen campaign to end corporate media distortions that misinform our citizenry and thus compromise our nation."

A few random thoughts I want to document while they are fresh. Apologies in advance if they restate what anyone else has said:

To fight mainstream media distortions, I believe SCAAMD has to go mainstream in a big way and become the missing link that enables all interested people and organizations to combine forces in one big SCAAMD effort.

A mainstream effort will entail informing as many folks as possible of what SCAAMD can do for them and their organizations. It also means a big effort (already begun) to recruit some respected sponsors for the front and people with expertise who can offer guidance behind the scenes. Any initial high profile sponsors willing to lend their valuable names will rightly expect a significant say in how this is set up and executed.

It seems to me that SCAAMD should be set up in a central way that allows organizations to easily hook in their entire membership to participate in the campaign.

The underlying premise of SCAAMD, as I see it, is to expose that the media represents a minority of interests. Media distortions are for the benefit of a few interests. Those few interests are big, but they have many competitors and opponents waiting for a chance to fairly compete or replace them. (example below) Each and every one of those competitors and opponents is a potential partner for SCAAMD. The potential SCAAMD partners far outnumber the few media outlets and interests that we've allowed to have such disproportionate control over the public discussion.

One example: SCAAMD can not only speak to the heart of patriots who want a strong country, SCAAMD can also speak to business who want a fair chance to compete and improve their bottom line.

Just one example: thousands of renewable energy companies and their employees might help in an effort like this. Let's say that the media has hurt these companies by short-shrifting their innovations or by using the recent high gas prices as an excuse to give disproportionate time and attention to promoting those busy peddling the more established oil drilling and coal mining businesses. The renewable companies also might join if the MSM "expert" speculators are biased or have wrongly implied that wind or solar or some alternative energy is not doable or affordable or ready to be implemented on a large scale, etc. Any who suffer from media distortions will be interested in helping with this effort, and together, these groups can work together and help each other under the SCAAMD umbrella. Apply this to all industries and you come up with a whole lot of partners for SCAAMD.

We could also go political, in an apolitical way, if we obtain a diverse group of political endorsements. For example, maybe Obama would endorse, since this is consistent with his agenda of positive change by the people and could ensure a fair campaign for both him and McCain. Maybe McCain would endorse. A mainstream SCAAMD effort could also help an Obama presidency to be more effective.

There are many others who might endorse and I will make a list. One lefty who comes to mind is John Kerry, who has tried to clue people in to this problem SCAAMD will address. (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56398), Perhaps Kerry or some of these others would have suggestions to offer. I'd like to see a diverse group of patriot-pols form a coalition around this effort which would protect and empower each of them in the long run.

Their are other groups to draw from, such as scholars. Environmental groups would be another place to seek partners.

So please add any other people or organizations that might benefit from SCAAMD so that we can ensure this is a massive, mainstream effort for balance in anything mislabeled as unbiased news or expert commentary.

The ultimate result after SCAAMD takes hold might be legislation. I'd like to see a law that defines news in a way that upholds the highest ethical standards for journalism.

Such a law could set standards for news products and require accurate labeling. Maybe TV news organizations will be legally required to have something on their screen that alerts viewers when what's being said is "opinion" or "speculation" or "news that follows the legal standards."

Food must have ingredient labels. Products that are dangerous must have warning labels. Movies that are rated x or r must have warning labels. Why shouldn't news products-- that many take to heart as fact and then act on with their votes--have ingredient labels? This would not infringe on the First Amendment because all media outlets will still be free to peddle whatever they want; they'll just have to label it.

Such requirements will also not infringe on any media corporation's fiduciary duty to their stockholders, because they can simply accurately label their products so they won't be liable for false advertising.

Finally, I'd like to see this law guarantee that all forms of information on the internet are forever and equally free to the public, and the access to that content is forever and absolutely unencumbered.

More later.

Looks like a good idea. I like it.

Can it ultimately be extended past just the Associated Press?

And would it be useful to consider a carrot as well as a stick? I've always thought that when correcting errors, it is very good to show examples of people who got it right so that those being trained have some idea what proper behavior is. Without positive guidance, punishment normally just creates anger instead of improvement. Of course, some reporters/Editors might find being complimented to be more of a threat than a reward. I imagine a reporter or editor at the Washington Times might not like being complimented by such an organization.

As for the mission statement - how does what you intend to do differ from what Bob Somerby or Media Matters does? Or any other competitors. I think I know (different or at least more focused targets)but that could be clarified. Also, as part of the method used, I assume this is intended as a sort of Wiki approach to media criticism rather than depending on paid staff as I think Media Matters does. A good mission statement sets out the goals, then sets out the means to be used to achieve those goals. It also should address the ethics of the methods being used.