It was a rhetorical question. I did get the point of your OP. And that is how I get my news now - by reading various POV sources on the net.
But I’m not sure most people would do that. More likely that they would accept one view and disdain the other as “biased”. And they would have a valid point, since you admit it would be founded on furthering a political agenda, same as Fox.
Even assuming the best-case scenario - intellectual triangulation is time-consuming and requires critical thinking (I don’t always manage it, and I’m making an effort). A polarised political climate doesn’t foster critical thinking.
I’m also worried it will lower the bar even further for journalistic standards:
Richard Viguerie to Bill Moyers:
“That’s what journalism is, Bill. It’s all just opinion. Just opinion.”
N.P.R. is just about as mainstream and establishment as you can get. Pacifica is (or was) genuinely leftie, but has experienced recent problems with a pro-corporate takeover, which N.P.R. and P.B.S. went through a few years ago. Pacifica as it is isn’t stable or reliable, but it could form the basis of a vast leftie media empire if it’s supported properly by leftie millionaires and also if it constitutes only one cog in a wheel – compare the right wing’s vast network of radio, television, print, think tanks, legal foundations, etc.
Fox News is nothing but a propaganda source for the Republican party and not comparable to a real news organization. As I said before, it’s not even conservative; it’s nothing more and nothing less than a Republican party organ.
And you can learn something if you try to puzzle out what the difference is between a liberal and a communist, and what the terms “left” and “left wing” are in relation to them. Or maybe you just feel more comfortable with the delusion that there’s no difference.
I’ll call bullshit on that statement. Read BIAS by Bernard Goldberg.
Fox tries to counterbalance the leftwards tilt of the mainstream media. We damn sure don’t need another leftwing media outlet. Besides, you’ve got that wonderful bastion of success and bounced checks called Air America.
There is no major media news source “designed” to appeal to so-called liberal interests, and that is the point of the OP.
You can’t listen to the reporting on CBS, NPR, or read the NY Times, or what have you, and be at all sure of the political bent of the reporter, purely based on what you’re hearing or reading. You can assume it’s a liberal doing the reporting, since most are, but that’s a guess based on statistics. All of the news organizations were pretty damned hard on Clinton, and all have been far less hard-nosed about questioning problems in the Bush adminsitration. In the end, you can almost never know what the political bent of the reporter is.
Except with Fox, where there is no such problem. They wear their “patriotism” and “rah-rah-rah go U.S.A go Bush” and “making money is more important than anything” ideology on their sleeves. There is no editorial point of view in any other major news outlet where a major personality in the organizarion went on record with anything comparable to saying that criticizing the president’s policies in Iraq is tantamount to treason. Bill O’Reilly, Fox News. He said that. Show me where Dan Rather, Carl Kassel, Peter Jennings, Mara Liasson, Jim Lehrer, etc., ever said anything remotely as extreme.
Editorial pages are of course always another story, but we’re talking about reporting, here. But even with editorials, it’s not at all clear whether the editorial boards of all those news organizations are truly out to promote a specific political party’s agenda the way Fox News is.
Simply put, there is no major media outlet with a clear agenda regarding any of the following liberal interests:
relentlessly questioning the government on all policy levels
promoting labor concerns over corporate concerns
promoting civil liberties
advocating environmental protection
promoting real gender equality in terms of political and economic power
advocating universal health care
questioning the importance of maintaining the U.S. as a global superpower
questioning the supposed fundamental superiority of capitalism as an economic system
etc.
Anyone who thinks there is a real liberal point of view in any of our major media outlets is either an idiot, woefully ignorant as to what leftist positions really are, or simply not paying attention.
O’Rielly said nothing of the sort. Find me a direct quote where he mentions treasonous behavior for those engaged in criticizing the president.
O’Rielly has, on many occasions, stated that some of the anti-war protesting is on the level of supporting or giving aid and comfort to the enemy, and is sediitous. But vehement protesting and criticizing intelligently are not the same thing.
And yet Fox News is harshly criticized by the right because Fox doesn’t support the president enough. All depends on you POV, doesn’t it.
There ought to be. I’d like to see some serious and open discussion (and debate) from the left-leaning itelligencia on how some of the social programs they espouse would work. Maybe independent Americans could then decide if such programs are worth their consideration.
And there are lefties who only want to hear their own drumbeat, and there are righties who like to hear differing POV’s. I heard someone recently mention that SDMB is loaded mostly with lefties. So that, and the presence of a few righties, seems to negate your postulate.
Arguing FOX News is conservative and all the rest aren’t Liberal seems to be what this boils down to. Sorry – but FOX News grew out of a gap in the market that wasn’t being addressed. It’s all money – not some cabal or plot. They are making out like bandits because there is everyone else in the media who claim not to have their own skew – and while non-Fox media may not be liberal, it certainly IS pro-democratic party.
The “Liberal Media” has been co-opted by the Democratic Party Media – who aren’t beholden to liberal ideals. Milwaukee pumped Billions of gallons of shit into Lake Michigan in the last couple of years – why didn’t you hear about it? Because Milwaukee is run by democrats, we have Democratic Senators, a Democrat Governor, a democratic Mayor. Who the fuck did the Sierra club blame for the dumping? George Bush – when the only one to fine anyone was the EPA leader. Hell the lawyer for the Sierra Club runs the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District.
Is there room for a liberal media – yes, as long as they don’t turn into the Democratic Party Media. They seem to complain that the non-Fox media is too right wing – well, it’s not – it’s too dishonest trying to win minds over to a party, not an ideal. I like hearing differing opinions, but not the same schlock of a two party media.
No cite. You’d have to actually watch Fox to hear the comments when they air letters to the station or to the show. Try watching O’Reilly when he does his letters section (last 3 minutes of the show) and he airs the letters critical of his so-called right-lean. The right and far right are very quick to lambaste Fox and O"Reilly.
It would suck. The one viewpoint shown with blatant bias against the right would be very boring to watch, even to those who agree with that viewpoint. The “news” that it presented would be very predictable and not very accurate. Anybody interested in getting worthwhile information would tune in elsewhere.
No.
Very few. In addition to the reasons outlined above, there simply isn’t that many liberals in America. Although something like 45% of the country is conservative only about 20% is liberal. You are suggesting a left of liberal network, so this target market is even smaller.
Existing liberal news sources usually need some sort of prop to keep them up, since the demand doesn’t really exist for them. Networks have been losing viewers ever since other choices have become available. Air America is kept alive by private financing, not listeners. PBS uses tax dollars to support itself. By comparison Fox News and conservative talk radio are flourishing.
It would sway some people to the left. Some people would be caught up in it and vote democrat that maybe wouldn’t have before. However, since it would never be able to support itself with advertising, it would basically be a very expensive political advertisement. It would be inefficient in this regard as well. Soros would do better spending the millions of dollars that such a network would require on campaign donations as he currently does.
I think the problem with any of these news analysis programs (FOX, CNBC, NPR, what-have-you) is that too many people very easily forget that they are, keyword: ANALYSIS, news programs.
The opinions stated are simply that; OPINIONS. They may represent opinions of the broadcaster or the entire network in question but one must not lose sight of that when listening/watching these shows.
Unfortunately, it’s human nature to want to hear opinions that reflect your own personal ideology. It’s human nature to resist contradictory points of view. Some people are not inclined to have their views challenged and I don’t know of a way to modify that kind of inclination. It is my opinion that creating more left or right leaning programs to balance the percieved imbalance will just make things worse. An attempt must be made to bring media back to center by limiting the hype and focusing in on the fact. It may not be as voyouristically rewarding as having every painful detail of the Peterson trial trotted out in gorry detail but I think it will contribute to a better and more balanced view of news events, domestic and worldwide.
None of those things are true of the Pacifica Network’s radio shows. What makes you so sure they would be true of an analogous TV network?
Cite? (And what definitions of “conservative” and “liberal” is the source in question using?)
In Dude Where’s My Country? (Warner Books, 2003), Chapter 9, Michael Moore called the U.S. a “liberal paradise” based on the following statistics (all taken from polls cited at the back of the book, from 2002 or 2003):
57% of Americans believe abortion should be legal in all or most cases.
86% say they agree with the goals of the Civil Rights movement; four out of five say it is important for colleges to have racially diverse student bodies.
83% say they agree with the goals of the environmental movement.
94% want federal safety regulations enacted on the manufacture and sale of all handguns; 86% want this even if it makes guns more expensive.
Eight in ten Americans believe health insurance should be provided equally to everyone in the country.
62% support changing current laws so that fewer nonviolent offenders are sent to prison.
85% support equal opportunity in the workplace for gays and lesbians.
58% think labor unions are a good idea.
None of these statistics, of course, deal with military or national-security issues; many commentators believe it was just those things that tipped the last election towards the GOP. But obviously there is a big market for liberal ideas in America, much more than the 20% figure you gave.
(a) Fox can pick out a few far-right kook letters to demonstrate their “fair and balanced” nature (for all we know, they received 100,000 letters in a week, of which two criticized them for being “too liberal,” then put those on the air)
and
(b) conservatives are even kookier than we believe.
No, it ONLY demonstrates that there are right wingers who don’t feel that Fox is right wing enough. They don’t do it for the "fair and balanced " tag necessarily. Even Rush will air folks who disagree. Debating discourse is what makes the show more interesting, even if folks like O’Reilly always get the last word (despite what he says).
Is there a general concensus on SDMB that all conservatives are kooky? If not, who are “we”?
In the third trimester? Partial-birth abortion? What’s the number if you remove people who accept abortion only in the case where the mother’s health is in danger, or people who only beleive in 1st trimester abortions in the case of rape and incest?
And how many support affirmative action? How many support quotas?
Mom and apple pie. By the way, what are the ‘goals of the environmental movement’? It’s going to be pretty hard to find anyone who believes that the environment should be raped willy-nilly. Ask more specific questions.
What federal safety regulations?
Here is one example of what I would consider to be a ‘liberal’ belief.
Again, you need to be specific to get what people are really wanting.
Including most conservatives. This isn’t a ‘liberal’ viewpoint.
How about closed shop laws? How do people feel about union violence? Strikes by necessary workers?
And yet, over half of all voters voted Republican. How do you reconcile that with the above poll?
This is the problem with stupid stats like this (and I’m not surprised to find them in a Michael Moore book) - it’s trivially easy to make the electorate look like anything you want, just by choosing which questions you ask, how you ask them, and how you word them. Let’s take those same questions and turn twist them a bit:
Do you agree with partial birth abortions? Do you think people should be allowed to have an abortion at any time during a pregnancy, regardless of the reason?
Do you think colleges should have more conservatives on their faculties?
Do you think that environmental interests should come before economic interests? Do you support drilling in ANWR? Would you accept the Kyoto treaty if it meant an end to economic growth?
Do you support the second amendment? Do you believe people should have the right to own firearms, both handguns and rifles?
Do you think the state should control access to health care? Do you believe that doctors should be allowed to treat who they want and set their own fees?
Do you support anti-crime initiatives? Do you believe that criminal punishment is too severe, or not severe enough?
Do you support a federal amendment to allows gays and lesbians to marry?
Do you support ‘closed shop’ laws? Should employers be allowed to hire non-unionized workers if they so choose?
Somehow, if you asked those questions I think you might get somewhat less of a ‘liberal’ result.
I understand it was a lighthearted comment - no offense taken at all. But the use of the word “we” implies a general consensus. Just curious. I’ve been away for three years and I was wondering just how rampantly liberal this place has become.
Neither is this. I don’t believe there’s any mainstream support in either party for repealing the 2nd Amendment, banning guns, or telling doctors who to treat and what to charge.
