# 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:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![annaplurabelle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/919ad9/32.png) [@annaplurabelle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/annaplurabelle)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2004, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-prospects-for-a-left-wing-analogue-to-fox-news/280544/21 "2004-12-20T16:41:13Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Yes, in the sense that they can provide informative triangulation. Suppose Soros founded a “Pacifica TV Network” or a “Revolution News Network.” Then you the news-consumer could watch Fox News on Mondays, CNN on Tuesdays, Revolution News on Wednesdays, etc., and with all that, maybe you could get a more or less complete picture of what’s really going on in the world. 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.” Do you agree with that? ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2004, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-prospects-for-a-left-wing-analogue-to-fox-news/280544/22 "2004-12-20T17:03:37Z")
> [@Krokodil](#): > > NPR and Pacifica cover what you’re craving, and could do it better with the backing ov a billionaire like Soros. Al Gore and Al Franken were trying to launch such a project, but it wound up being a low-rated half-hour show. 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. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2004, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-prospects-for-a-left-wing-analogue-to-fox-news/280544/23 "2004-12-20T17:15:13Z")
> [@Hail Ants](#): > > I could go on, but what’s the point. Fox News is a legitamite, professional, serious news organization. And their slant to the right is less than half CNN’s and the Network’s slant to the left. 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. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2004, 7:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-prospects-for-a-left-wing-analogue-to-fox-news/280544/24 "2004-12-20T19:12:20Z")
> [@acsenray](#): > > Pacifica . . . 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. My thinking exactly. Has anybody sent Soros a memo on this? ---
**Author:** ![Clothahump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/51bf81/32.png) [@Clothahump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Clothahump)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2004, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-prospects-for-a-left-wing-analogue-to-fox-news/280544/25 "2004-12-20T19:19:05Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > This current thread – [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=292350](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=292350) – got me to thinking. The liberal posters in it are, IMO, dead right on at least one point: In today’s American news media, there is a great void on the left. CNN, CBS, etc., are, despite right-wing assertions to the contrary, serious news organizations, with a lot of editors and reporters of liberal bent, but no political agenda as such. 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. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2004, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-prospects-for-a-left-wing-analogue-to-fox-news/280544/26 "2004-12-20T19:34:33Z")
> [@Clothahump](#): > > I’ll call bullshit on that statement. Read _BIAS_ by Bernard Goldberg. I call bullshit on Bernard Goldberg. Read _What Liberal Media?_ by Eric Alterman. ---
**Author:** ![Knorf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/58956e/32.png) [@Knorf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Knorf)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2004, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-prospects-for-a-left-wing-analogue-to-fox-news/280544/27 "2004-12-20T19:34:42Z")
> [@Martin Hyde](#): > > Just like with Fox News you get news designed to appeal to Conservative interests. 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: 1. relentlessly questioning the government on all policy levels 2. promoting labor concerns over corporate concerns 3. promoting civil liberties 4. advocating environmental protection 5. promoting real gender equality in terms of political and economic power 6. advocating universal health care 7. questioning the importance of maintaining the U.S. as a global superpower 8. 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. ---
**Author:** ![Wrath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/ee7513/32.png) [@Wrath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wrath)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2004, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-prospects-for-a-left-wing-analogue-to-fox-news/280544/28 "2004-12-20T20:18:38Z")
> [@](#): > > 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. 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. > [@](#): > > 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 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. > [@](#): > > Simply put, there is no major media outlet with a clear agenda regarding any of the following liberal interests 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. > [@](#): > > Lefties like thinking for themselves and hearing different opinions. Wrapping ourselves up in our own little bubbles insulated from what other people think isn’t our cup of tea. 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. ---
**Author:** ![RevCo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/9fc348/32.png) [@RevCo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RevCo)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2004, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-prospects-for-a-left-wing-analogue-to-fox-news/280544/29 "2004-12-20T21:07:22Z")
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. [EPA complaining about dumping](http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=649321861&sid=1&Fmt=3&clientId=49500&RQT=309&VName=PQD) [Some links about the media ignoring a galactically big coal plant on Lake Michigan](http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=705298331&sid=1&Fmt=3&clientId=49500&RQT=309&VName=PQD) 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. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2004, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-prospects-for-a-left-wing-analogue-to-fox-news/280544/30 "2004-12-20T21:14:47Z")
> [@Wrath](#): > > And yet Fox News is harshly criticized by the right because Fox doesn’t support the president enough. News to me. Cite? ---
**Author:** ![Wrath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/ee7513/32.png) [@Wrath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wrath)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2004, 9:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-prospects-for-a-left-wing-analogue-to-fox-news/280544/31 "2004-12-20T21:26:14Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2004, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-prospects-for-a-left-wing-analogue-to-fox-news/280544/32 "2004-12-20T21:28:42Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > What would it be like? 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. > [@](#): > > Would it fly? No. > [@](#): > > How many people would watch it? 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. > [@](#): > > How would its existence affect public Discourse in America? 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. ---
**Author:** ![QuickSilver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quicksilver/32/7832_2.png) [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2004, 9:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-prospects-for-a-left-wing-analogue-to-fox-news/280544/33 "2004-12-20T21:54:13Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2004, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-prospects-for-a-left-wing-analogue-to-fox-news/280544/34 "2004-12-20T22:07:57Z")
> [@Debaser](#): > > 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. 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? > [@Debaser](#): > > Although something like 45% of the country is conservative only about 20% is liberal. 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. > [@Debaser](#): > > Existing liberal news sources usually need some sort of prop to keep them up, since the demand doesn’t really exist for them. . . . Air America is kept alive by private financing, not listeners. Cite? From [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air\_America\_Radio:](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_America_Radio:) > [@](#): > > Evidence of the network’s success is demonstrated by the growing number of stations owned by Clear Channel Communications which broadcast Air America’s shows as part of a switch to a progressive or liberal talk radio format. Such stations often broadcast the network’s shows in combination with programming such as The Ed Schultz Show. > > Clear Channel tested the format at KPOJ-AM in Portland, Oregon, the first station to join Air America as an affiliate broadcasting Air America shows combined with other programming. As a result, the station increased its market share for ages 12 and up by nearly an order of magnitude. KPOJ’s spring 2004 Arbitron ratings grew from a 0.4 to a 3.7, and KPOJ moved from 22nd to third in listeners aged 25 to 54. > > The success in Portland has led Clear Channel to switch more of its stations to the format, so that as of September 2004 over a third of Air America’s affiliates are owned by Clear Channel. This includes stations in swing states such as Florida (West Palm Beach and Miami (12th largest radio market)), Colorado, Ohio, and New Mexico, as well as major markets such as San Diego (17th largest) and Boston (9th largest). > > Infinity Broadcasting is also testing Air America on its stations. On October 22nd, Infinity announced that it was switching one of its country stations in Seattle (1090 AM) to Air America. > > The senior vice president of Infinity Radio Seattle said of the switch, “We believe this is distinctive programming. There are those in the radio business who believe that shows with a liberal perspective won’t get an audience. Air America in recent months has shattered that myth.”[1] ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2004, 12:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-prospects-for-a-left-wing-analogue-to-fox-news/280544/35 "2004-12-21T00:08:53Z")
> [@Wrath](#): > > No cite. You’d have to actually watch Fox to hear the comments when they air letters to the station or to the show. All that proves is that (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. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Wrath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/ee7513/32.png) [@Wrath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wrath)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2004, 1:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-prospects-for-a-left-wing-analogue-to-fox-news/280544/36 "2004-12-21T01:52:11Z")
> [@rjung](#): > > 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) 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). > [@](#): > > conservatives are even kookier than we believe. 😉 Is there a general concensus on SDMB that all conservatives are kooky? If not, who are “we”? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2004, 2:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-prospects-for-a-left-wing-analogue-to-fox-news/280544/37 "2004-12-21T02:27:48Z")
> [@Wrath](#): > > Is there a general concensus on SDMB that all conservatives are kooky? If not, who are “we”? Can’t speak for **rjung,** but “we” might be those who understand the import of a winking smiley. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2004, 2:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-prospects-for-a-left-wing-analogue-to-fox-news/280544/38 "2004-12-21T02:32:12Z")
**BrainGlutton** said: > [@](#): > > 57% of Americans believe abortion should be legal in all or most cases. 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? > [@](#): > > 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. And how many support affirmative action? How many support quotas? > [@](#): > > 83% say they agree with the goals of the environmental movement. 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. > [@](#): > > 94% want federal safety regulations enacted on the manufacture and sale of all handguns; 86% want this even if it makes guns more expensive. What federal safety regulations? > [@](#): > > Eight in ten Americans believe health insurance should be provided equally to everyone in the country. Here is one example of what I would consider to be a ‘liberal’ belief. > [@](#): > > 62% support changing current laws so that fewer nonviolent offenders are sent to prison. Again, you need to be specific to get what people are really wanting. > [@](#): > > 85% support equal opportunity in the workplace for gays and lesbians. Including most conservatives. This isn’t a ‘liberal’ viewpoint. > [@](#): > > 58% think labor unions are a good idea. 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: 1. 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? 2. Do you think colleges should have more conservatives on their faculties? 3. 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? 4. Do you support the second amendment? Do you believe people should have the right to own firearms, both handguns and rifles? 5. 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? 6. Do you support anti-crime initiatives? Do you believe that criminal punishment is too severe, or not severe enough? 7. Do you support a federal amendment to allows gays and lesbians to marry? 8. 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. ---
**Author:** ![Wrath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/ee7513/32.png) [@Wrath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wrath)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2004, 2:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-prospects-for-a-left-wing-analogue-to-fox-news/280544/39 "2004-12-21T02:41:59Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Can’t speak for **rjung,** but “we” might be those who understand the import of a winking smiley. 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. ---
**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:** [December 21, 2004, 2:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-prospects-for-a-left-wing-analogue-to-fox-news/280544/40 "2004-12-21T02:51:02Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > 1. Do you support the second amendment? Do you believe people should have the right to own firearms, both handguns and rifles? That’s not a “conservative” viewpoint. > [@](#): > > 1. 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? 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. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-prospects-for-a-left-wing-analogue-to-fox-news/280544.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-prospects-for-a-left-wing-analogue-to-fox-news/280544.md?page=3)