# What are the prospects for a left-wing analogue to Fox News? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 18, 2004, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-prospects-for-a-left-wing-analogue-to-fox-news/280544 "2004-12-18T18:13:43Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 16\ **Page:** 11
**Author:** ![Evil\_One](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/45deac/32.png) [@Evil\_One](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_One)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2005, 7:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-prospects-for-a-left-wing-analogue-to-fox-news/280544/201 "2005-04-27T19:07:16Z")
> [@Harborwolf](#): > > This caught me because it reads something into nothing. I’m just fuzzy on how not reporting something indicates any sort of bias as news shows have a set time limit. I was a news producer for some time. That meant that i was responsible for choosing which news stories would appear in the newscast, in what order and how much time and attention to allot them. This power gives plenty of opportunity to demonstrate bias if the producer is so inclined. Shodans point about labels is a good one as well. The following point does not include soundbites from news sources. I’m talking about the words written by and for the newscasters and reporters themselves. You hear the words “conservative” and “right wing” as descriptors quite often. When was the last time you heard the words “liberal” or “left wing” on a network newscast? ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2005, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-prospects-for-a-left-wing-analogue-to-fox-news/280544/202 "2005-04-27T19:53:27Z")
> [@DoctorJ](#): > > I don’t know what Boortz expects to meet his conditions, but given that a cottage industry has sprung up documenting the atrocities on Fox News, my guess is that it’s pretty exacting. Basically what he says is that it has to be on a newscast (i.e. not opinion shows or editorials; he may even limit it to the 6:00 Brit Hume, but I don’t think so) and that has to be something open-and-shut, such as misrepresenting facts or misquoting people (i.e. not “he had a snarky tone in his voice.”) ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2005, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-prospects-for-a-left-wing-analogue-to-fox-news/280544/203 "2005-04-27T20:08:37Z")
> [@Harborwolf](#): > > I’m just fuzzy on how not reporting something indicates any sort of bias as news shows have a set time limit. Far more reasonable to assume that there simply was not enough time to cover the story than to read bias into it. I report that senator X is being investigated for ethics violations; I do not mention that senator Y is too, nor do I mention it when X is exonerated. I report that X is “under fire from supporters of cat-juggling;” I do not mention that the vast majority of cat-jugglers don’t care, or that other cat-juggling groups in fact support X. I report on the negative consequences of X’s policy; I do not report on it’s positive consequences or on the fact that his rival Y’s alternative policy is equally flawed. I report that Y is attacking X’s policy; I do not report that Y proposed a similar solution back when he was in X’s position, or that in fact Y has not offered any solution to the problem at all. I report potentially controversial comments coming from X; I do not report them from Y. I report anything coming from “voices on capital hill” or suchlike without naming them. Do you see a bias? I do. ---
**Author:** ![Harborwolf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@Harborwolf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Harborwolf)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2005, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-prospects-for-a-left-wing-analogue-to-fox-news/280544/204 "2005-04-27T21:02:47Z")
> [@Evil One](#): > > I was a news producer for some time. That meant that i was responsible for choosing which news stories would appear in the newscast, in what order and how much time and attention to allot them. This power gives plenty of opportunity to demonstrate bias if the producer is so inclined. But not necessarily. There could be reasons that a story makes the news that do not involve bias. Out of curiosity, what reasons did you use to make story decisions? Did your politics ever factor into it? How about other producers? > [@](#): > > Shodans point about labels is a good one as well. The following point does not include soundbites from news sources. I’m talking about the words written by and for the newscasters and reporters themselves. You hear the words “conservative” and “right wing” as descriptors quite often. When was the last time you heard the words “liberal” or “left wing” on a network newscast? This is just speculation on my part, but the left groups are much less united politically and less likely to identify themselves as left or right. “Liberal” has also taken on a much more negative connotation of late. A good example would be the ads from the last election referring to Kerry as “too liberal for America” or something to that effect. Noone has ever used the term “liberal media” in a positive light. **Furt** , the absences I was referring to were those of studies by think tanks. It was in response to **Evil One** ’s post answering my question. I will say again that I find it a bit silly to read bias into the lack of something when there are far more logical assumptions to be made. Just because somebody doesn’t comment on your new hair cut doesn’t automatically mean that they hate you. If there are any less fuzzy cites on liberal bias and NPR, I would like to look at them. ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2005, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-prospects-for-a-left-wing-analogue-to-fox-news/280544/205 "2005-04-27T21:10:14Z")
> [@Evil One](#): > > You hear the words “conservative” and “right wing” as descriptors quite often. When was the last time you heard the words “liberal” or “left wing” on a network newscast? I hear the word “leftist” as a descriptor quite often (and always in a derogatory sense). When was the last time you heard the word “rightist” on a network newscast? ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2005, 9:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-prospects-for-a-left-wing-analogue-to-fox-news/280544/206 "2005-04-27T21:22:20Z")
And as long as **furt** is bringing up omissions as an example of media bias, I’ll just toss out one example that’s been bugging me lately… > [@](#): > > Democrats call a simple majority rules change banning judicial filibuster the “nuclear option,” due to the toxic effect they say it would have on Senate relations. > –NPR’s _Morning Edition,_ 4/25/05 > [@](#): > > But Frist made clear that he is still considering an effort to ban filibusters on judicial nominees and smooth the way for a Senate vote on Bush’s controversial appointments. Democrats say such an action would be a “nuclear option” that would force them to bring the Senate to a virtual standstill, except for action on national security legislation. > –_Chicago Tribune,_ 4/25/05 > [@](#): > > Now Republicans are considering what Democrats call “the nuclear option” – a parliamentary move that would end the filibusters and force a vote on the Senate floor. In return, Democrats have vowed to grind Senate business to a halt. > – _Newsweek,_ 4/25/05 > [@](#): > > Frist is expected to try as early as next week to push the Senate to ban filibusters on judicial nominations – a move so explosive that Democrats are calling it the “nuclear option.” > – _Los Angeles Times,_ 4/22/05 > [@](#): > > Democrats are saying, “If you’re going to do that, then we’re going to pull the trigger on what we call the ‘nuclear option,’ meaning we’re going to shut this place [the Senate] down.” > – _NBC News,_ 4/25/05 And the omission? The simple fact that the term “nuclear option” was _first coined by the Republicans,_ not the Democrats (Trent Lott, in particular). The only reason for this bit of revisionist historical backpedaling is because the Republicans finally realized that the term “nuclear option” [wasn’t going down well](http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2005_04_17.php#005497) with the populace – whereupon they began an effort to start (mis)attributing the phrase as a Democrat-created smear. And the _oh-so-biased_ “liberal” media is playing right along… ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2005, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-prospects-for-a-left-wing-analogue-to-fox-news/280544/207 "2005-04-27T21:34:24Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > I would like to see a classical liberal (or libertarian) news network, seriously challenging both threats to our civil liberties and reckless economic strategies from all political parties. Watch what IWT and CTV do to get started and take notes. Maybe _Reason_ magazine or the Cato Institute would get behind such a project. I suppose a Libertarian news network would not be averse to selling advertising time. (Unlike IWT, where the very idea raises cognitive dissonance.) ---
**Author:** ![Ms2001](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ms2001/32/18463_2.png) [@Ms2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms2001)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2005, 10:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-prospects-for-a-left-wing-analogue-to-fox-news/280544/208 "2005-04-27T22:20:58Z")
From **Shodan** ’s link: > [@](#): > > Whether the alchemy is foolproof or not, the results are telling. According to Groseclose and Milyo, the most liberally biased news product is the Wall Street Journal, with a rating of 85.1. > […] > Meanwhile, Fox News with Brit Hume and The Washington Times rank as the most conservative, with ratings of 39.7 and 35.4 respectively. > […] > The only Internet journalist put through the ringer, Matt Drudge and his popular “DrudgeReport,” was just left-of-center, with a rating of 60.4. If this system ranks the Wall Street Journal and the Drudge Report as _liberal_, what does that say about Fox News and the Moonie Times? ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2005, 12:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-prospects-for-a-left-wing-analogue-to-fox-news/280544/209 "2005-04-28T00:08:34Z")
That they are right of center, by this measure. Which, as far as I can tell, nobody is disputing. What seems to be less acceptable is that NPR and CBS and so forth are left of center by the same measure. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Harborwolf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@Harborwolf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Harborwolf)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2005, 1:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-prospects-for-a-left-wing-analogue-to-fox-news/280544/210 "2005-04-28T01:39:36Z")
And I’ve raised questions regarding the cite you provided which for the most part have gone unanswered. I’ve you care to respond to them or provide another cite I would be glad to give it an honest read. FYI, I’m only defending NPR. I can’t stand television news. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Ms2001](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ms2001/32/18463_2.png) [@Ms2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms2001)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2005, 1:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-prospects-for-a-left-wing-analogue-to-fox-news/280544/211 "2005-04-28T01:45:17Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > That they are right of center, by this measure. Which, as far as I can tell, nobody is disputing. What seems to be less acceptable is that NPR and CBS and so forth are left of center by the same measure. How useful can it really be to say that something is left or right of this measure’s “center”, when that “center” is to the right of both Drudge and the WSJ? ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_One](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/45deac/32.png) [@Evil\_One](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_One)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2005, 1:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-prospects-for-a-left-wing-analogue-to-fox-news/280544/212 "2005-04-28T01:46:11Z")
> [@rjung](#): > > I hear the word “leftist” as a descriptor quite often (and always in a derogatory sense). When was the last time you heard the word “rightist” on a network newscast? I think “leftist” is used in that way…but in my opinion the counterpart for the right is “extremist”. I hear that one quite often. ---
**Author:** ![Harborwolf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@Harborwolf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Harborwolf)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2005, 1:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-prospects-for-a-left-wing-analogue-to-fox-news/280544/213 "2005-04-28T01:48:54Z")
> [@Mr2001](#): > > How useful can it really be to say that something is left or right of this measure’s “center”, when that “center” is to the right of both Drudge and the WSJ? This raises another good question. How are we to determine the slant of a news broadcast when we’ve completely buggered any and all honest perception of what “center” is? ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_One](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/45deac/32.png) [@Evil\_One](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_One)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2005, 2:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-prospects-for-a-left-wing-analogue-to-fox-news/280544/214 "2005-04-28T02:17:03Z")
> [@Harborwolf](#): > > But not necessarily. There could be reasons that a story makes the news that do not involve bias. Out of curiosity, what reasons did you use to make story decisions? Did your politics ever factor into it? How about other producers? Bias is actually pretty far down the list of factors when it comes to story selection. You have management looking over your shoulder so you can’t go too far down that road, even if you wanted to. However, the further left (or right) the newsroom culture is, the more bias will creep in. Story selection is a fluid process. You have to keep in mind the demographics and estimated interests of your viewers, current local, national and world events, stories that flow together and a whole host of other factors. ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2005, 6:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-prospects-for-a-left-wing-analogue-to-fox-news/280544/215 "2005-04-28T06:52:18Z")
> [@Evil One](#): > > I think “leftist” is used in that way…but in my opinion the counterpart for the right is “extremist”. Nah, “extremist” can be applied to nutjobs of either end of the political spectrum – “pro-life extremist” and “environmental extremist” come to mind. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2005, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-prospects-for-a-left-wing-analogue-to-fox-news/280544/216 "2005-04-29T21:33:45Z")
_The Nation,_ 5/15/05, has a cover story giving the whole history of Gore’s TV project: [http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20050516&s=berman](http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20050516&s=berman) The author, Ari Berman, is not optimistic: > [@](#): > > [At a pre-launch party in San Francisco,]Current screened three video clips as evidence of what the network plans to offer: the first a high-speed montage, created by a team of producers, freelancers and the audience itself, touching on everything from poppy fields in Morocco to hacking into Paris Hilton’s cell phone; the second, a twice-hourly news update spotlighting the top ten queries on Google for any given subject; and the third, winner of a $10,000 submission prize, a satire of political campaign ads that came across as an amateurish stab at The Daily Show With Jon Stewart. > > Reactions were lukewarm at best. “It’s the same references you see on any other channel,” said 26-year-old activist Julian Davis. “When did Google become alternative media?” asked 22-year-old filmmaker Jennie Heinlein. > > Comments like these suggest that what Current has become is quite different from the vision Gore and his partner, Joel Hyatt, started with. What began as an effort to challenge Rupert Murdoch and the right-wing domination of the corporate media has transformed into a business proposition to lure a youth audience with lofty rhetoric, new technology and pop-culture content. Gore and Hyatt didn’t have TV experience, so they ceded creative control to industry people who did. Along the way, “democratizing” the media–their buzzword from the get-go, which they described as giving space to ordinary young people–became more important than politics or elevating television’s dismal content. What emerges on August 1, Current’s launch date, could re-semble an interactive grad-school version of MTV. Current may still improve youth television and usher in a wave of new technology, but it isn’t likely to change the media, or the world. “Less and less they’re trying to run a company with a social mission,” says Orville Schell, dean of the Berkeley School of Journalism and a member of Current’s board of directors. “They want something that’s new and interesting and economically viable.” [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-prospects-for-a-left-wing-analogue-to-fox-news/280544.md?page=10)