I think I misunderstood the intent of the OP that ideas voted on in this public forum idea would subsequently be acted on somehow. Sorry about that.
If Henchman were really serious, he could apply for a grant, maybe set up a couple locations with cameras/editing software/computers people can use with some supervision/tutoring. Do some local advertising to make a call for contributions.
You could use YouTube’s geographic advertising feature (which isn’t that great, but…) to promote his channel to local people. The voting mechanism already is in-place of course, it just needs a curator to “promote” videos when they receive enough votes.
You could set up his concept with like $10k max. Whether anybody would participate or not, who knows.
So…some sort of “channel” to which the “public” has “access”, eh? Nah, it’ll never work. Crazy talk!
You’d have to repeal the first Amendment which was specifically designed to protect people’s political speech and to prevent the government from limiting people’s attempts to try and influence either the government or their fellow citizens.
Personally, I see far more of a drawback in giving government Carte Blanche to restrict political speech and the ability of citizens to agitate for or against political causes and candidates than in not allowing the government to do that.
1.) I never gave a diagnosis
2.) I gave examples of manufactured concerns. Read.
3.) Maybe you can explain why my dislike of Washington is ‘inchoate.’ I don’t believe I gave a structural breakdown of Washington’s problems, but feel free to assume you know me.
We agree.
All the major American networks do a piss poor job covering the issues. I thought I made my point clear, as I did mention a certain other network in my original quote. Didn’t realize I had to run through the entire list.
And despite Fox’s well-deserved ill reputation, their actual news coverage is no different than that of any other network. Heretical as it might sound, replace Shepard Smith with Tom Brokaw, and you won’t notice the difference.
From what I understand, Shep is well respected and is generally pretty good. I don’t watch much FoxNews, but I think he’s only on for an hour every day. The rest is pretty much editorial. Most people don’t take time to distinguish between the two.
Not sure if MSNBC is an better in the news:editorial ratio.
The highest voted videos would be the ones with the most memes and curse words, and with either breasts or cats. How does knowing this help society?
“I for one welcome our new gangnam-style overlords…”
You mean, the Internet?
I did read your post, and confess I didn’t understand your “examples of manufactured concerns.” Did I excerpt the wrong part above? “Inchoate” means “not fully formed or developed.” If you want me to retract that adjective, the burden is on you to develop your theme about “examples of manufactured concerns.” 
Admit it, you’d be more likely to watch CBN if they replaced Pat Robertson with Ceiling Cat.
Societies grow best from violence, poverty and injustice.
I’m not really sure what the OP is promoting that isn’t already there and doing at least as good of a job and probably better.
For instance, your idea of 5 minute speeches on the radio. How many people would actually tolerate listening to hours of obnoxious speeches for the chance of hearing something they’re interested in? I doubt very many people would want to invest that kind of time.
The thing is, the internet not only does this, but it does it WAY WAY better. If I’m passionate about something and I want to contribute to a cause, a couple quick searches and I can find a community and join it. If I can’t find one, I can start one. If I want to learn about topics, I can look them up. It’s trivial to go to youtube and find videos with people ranting on any particular topic I might be interested in. There’s also social media like facebook and twitter where I can subscribe to whatever topics interest me, keep up on the news and opinions, and participate in those.
In fact, this is a lot of how the third party and independent candidates are getting their message out there. It looks like these ideas are growing to some extent, but they’re still massively losing out to the major parties. Of course, our two party system forces, or at least makes people feel forced, to vote for one of them, so it’s difficult to tell objectively how much popularity those ideas actually have. Regardless, I don’t see how the OP’s proposal addresses this problem either.
Why do you put the people’s in scare quotes, and would you thereby characterize yourself as an anti-democract. Perhaps favoring an aristocracy?
I quoted (don’t know about “scare quotes”) “people’s views” because many citizens just adopt their views from Rush Limbaugh et al. The people’s views would be different without the turn modern media has taken.
As for “aristocracy,” assuming that means “rule by the rich” I’m afraid that’s what we have now, with Murdoch and the Koch Brothers pulling the strings on Limbaugh, Beck et al.
Rule by the rich is “plutocracy.” And while we veer towards it from time to time we don’t always fall for it (Romney lost).
“Aristocracy” is actually “rule by the best,” which in theory is the best form of any enterprise. You wouldn’t want your doctor picking your treatment based on a poll of the entire population. But you’re left with the rather intractable problem of who is “the best.”
So with representative democracy we try to have the middle way, choosing people more competent than we to run government, but never relinquishing the right to replace them. So far it seems like the most successful form of government for creating stable and happy states, but (1) we may come up with something better, or (2) technological and economic changes may ruin it.
And the bitter irony is as idiotic as Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell seem, they are miles ahead of the average American citizen.
Rule by the better, as Kepler wrote. If you think the people are too stupid to rule themselves, then I assume you must think it’d be better if they are ruled by their betters.
I’d rather rule myself and make a mess of it than be ruled by somebody better than me.