And I’m still saying it. To my mind, if there was a market for a national ‘liberal agenda’ media, we’d have one. I conceed that one could be coming soon of course…after all, Fox didn’t just spring up overnight either.
Not at all. What I was saying is that the soft center (or at least the independants) is up for grabs as far as voting goes…i.e. centrists mostly vote the candidate, not the politics. They vote the person…not partisan politics per se. However, from a ‘liberal agenda’ media’s perspective I don’t see the soft center as a really solid market. I think their market would come mostly from the left wing fringe, which I don’t think is a huge market in the US. Of course, if it really was a true left wing Fox equivelent, then it might have more appeal to that soft center as well. However, just from the posts I’ve seen on this board reguarding Fox I seriously doubt most folks on the left REALLY understand Fox or its appeal, so I have serious doubts as to whether or not they could pull off a true equivelent. However this is all my own opinion…YMMV as always.
Oh, I think it still has meaning. And there are plenty of folks who still self identify as ‘liberal’, both from an economic liberal perspective as well as a social liberal perspective. I think many aspects of social liberalism are accepted by the majority of Americans…however, I think most aspects of economic liberalism are not well accepted by the majority of Americans. Of course, my own prejudices are showing here and I could be completely wrong…this is, again, merely my own take on things and YMMV.
Then perhaps you could enlighten us as to the true appeal of the Fox network?
I don’t see how this “appeal” is anything that a good marketing exec couldn’t subvert to a “liberal” slant (mind you, this is strictly a “business” viewpoint I’m asking for).
This could be interesting, albeit a slight hijack…
Certainly…though you are right, its a hijack. If the OP feels we are going off on a tangent I’ll stop.
I think the appeal of Fox is that they attempt to present both sides. Certainly many of their commentators are unashamedly conservative. Hannity comes to mind right off the bat. However, they attempt to balance a Hannity with an Alan Colmes, who is certainly a left wing liberal…and is equally unashamed of the fact. Sparks often fly when those two go at it.
When doing interviews Fox always tries to bring opposing view points on the show…i.e. they will interview both a conservative and a liberal. And while the conservative commentators may argue heatedly with the liberals they bring on the show (or with the liberal commentators) they at least attempt to give them equal time to express their views (albiet ALL the guests usually are cramped for time).
In addition, Fox has many people who I consider either Independants or centrists. I know its an article of faith on this board, but I find O’Reilly to be quite balanced. Certainly he has some right wing positions…but he also has some left wing positions. He’s actually one of my favorite commentators, though I don’t always agree with him. I can well understand why he’s so popular. Then there are guys like Brit Hume who I really like…the guy just oozes gravitas IMO.
Basically though Fox has more conservatives than liberals, they do have liberals on the show quite often, both as guests and as commentators who actually work for Fox…and the liberals aren’t token by any means but speak their mind and get into quite heated debate. I’ve found many of the same arguements used by folks on this board debated on Fox in fact…which is one of the reasons I enjoy watching the show. I especially liked the coverage of the Presidential debates on Fox…where they would have both Republicans AND Democrats give their opinions of the debates, and then debate each other as to the merits of the two candidates. I actually found out more about John Kerry from a positive perspective from those debates than I did either here on this board or through the regular media.
And I’ll be honest…until I started coming on this board I NEVER watched Fox. I always believed the propaganda that it was a loony right wing news show, so skewed that you couldn’t get anything worthwhile out of it. It was only coming on this board and listening over and over again to the majority continue to trash Fox that got me to actually say…hey, I should find out for myself. And I have.
Certainly Fox has a right wing cast (right wing compared to US center of course)…but its an up front right wing cast. The real beauty of Fox and the key to its success IMO is the fact that they really do try and be ‘fair and balanced’ (though they of course don’t achieve that goal…no on really could IMO) by presenting BOTH sides of an arguement and then debating it out. The fireworks that go off when left wing and right wing (or the secular vs the theological) clash is a huge part of the appeal (at least for me)…and is whats lacking in similar left wing media (that I’ve listened too or watched anyway), where the norm seems to be kumbya.
Of course, all this is just MY opinion…take it for what its worth.
If you can say Alan Colmes is a “liberal” with a straight face, then I don’t know what to say to you…
Presenting two people who “shout it out” is not presenting a “fair and balanced” viewpoint, IMO. I’ve got a pretty good pair of lungs. For all intents and purposes, I can be expected to continue to shout for years after you’re dead. Does that mean I’m right?
I’ve watch Colmes hold his own against Hannity and O’Reilly a number of times. I don’t know why liberals hate this liberal.
You’ve missed xtisme point. Spirited debating is one of the appeals of some Fox programs. It’s not a Jerry Springer match, but it does present a bit of passion. Liberals ought to know this well - some issues ought to make you passionate enough to shout once in awhile.
I’ve actually argued for a left-wing network. (It’s a quiet little post, earlier on in the thread.) I think there IS a viable market for one. I just don’t see the market as large as you do.
The point was made, however, that such a venture will fail if it fails to capture and hold the core and target audiences in the manner that Fox has.
I certainly can say this with a straight face…because he says it himself. He most certainly is a liberal, and he’s a pretty good foil, IMHO, to Hannity. If you can sit there and say you’ve actually watched him and Hannity spar on their show and that he’s NOT a liberal, then I don’t know what to say to you…we are obviously so far appart in how we perceive things that we have no common basis to debate this stuff.
No, I think Wrath did a pretty good job of explaining this. I’m not talking about shouting it out…I’m talking about debate. Like the debate we are presently engaged in. Or like the myriad Iraqi debates. Sometimes they get heated (even you and I have been heated towards each other occationally in the past in various debates), but its still a debate. And I think this is the key to Fox’s success…much of their commentary (read: Non-news related editorials or shows) is in the form of debates, and they DO try and bring balance by bringing in folks of opposing view points. And I think this debate, and the attempt to at least try and present multiple view points instead of kumbya, lets all move in lock step and sing the same mantra, strikes a cord with many Americans.
And its not a sop or a token either…I’ve seen the liberals win in debates many times, or at least score major points. Alan Colmes, who you disparage as not being a liberal, in particular has done very well IMO…and I’ve even been nodding my head occationally at some of his points. The man has earned my respect even if I don’t agree with his politics…because of his earnestness and his fairness.
I’d be interested in your views though (since you aren’t buying my explaination) as to why Fox is so popular these days.
the Daily Show is the only liberal show I can think of offhand while the right has tons of shows like the O’reilly factor, fox & friends, joe scarborough, neil cavuto, the late Michael Savage show, etc, etc… They do a good job of poking holes though, but a show that actually discussed issues and why liberal views on several subjects are a better, more humane idea would be nice.
Well, I don’t know what to say to you still applies, but I’m gonna try, just for the hell of it…
When I see debates about the economy, I think - what would Hayek or O’Neill say - rational conservatives - but I don’t hear that on Fox (or any media, for that matter)…
See, I don’t identify as a “liberal” exept for the basic social issues (pro-choice, pro-gay civil rights). Like you yourself have stated here, I’m a libertarian in my core philosophy, and still looking for enlightenment on the fine points…
But I won’t get that from Fox. They stack the deck. Alan Colmes is just Sean Hannitty’s hand-picked foil and why the hell don’t you know that?!! It angers me that you don’t, because I’ve gone to the trouble to search that out. See?
Anyway, back to not getting a real debate from Fox (or any of the other cable channels). I just want the truth. I just want the truth! I can’t tell you how often I hear lies spread or repeated on these cable pundit shows, but it’s a lot. I say to myself, “I should be a spokesperson on there, because I know more than this idiot”…And yet, I don’t know enough to call myself an expert. Are you really telling me you don’t think the same thing when you watch this bullshit?
It bothers me because I don’t want to waste my time listening to ideologues or political patsies. I want facts, and I don’t get them on these shows. For so many years, I trusted people who lied to me about what was right and true. And I don’t have patience with it anymore, either on cable tv, or on an internet messageboard.
Ridicule me if you want to, but I don’t accept terms like “collateral damage”. I can see for myself that the economy isn’t strong and getting stronger in the US. Why should I respond politely to such obvious bullshit???
I do understand that people can come to different conclusions when presented with the same facts. But those facts aren’t presented on Fox news. They’ve already digested those facts and are only presenting their conclusions as foregone.
That’s not letting “you decide” as they advertise. It’s bullshit. And I’m angry because I’ve got to search out the facts on my own, even though I’m paying good money to funnel this crap into my home (and I pay because I want the comfort of being able to watch The Daily Show after enduring all the bullshit that comes before it).
FTR, I don’t think a “liberal” media will reduce my anger. Not unless “liberal” means “the truth, whatever”. If there is a political agenda attached I won’t know for sure, so I’ll still have to search out the facts for myself. As of now, leftists are more truthful than conservatives. But that might only mean they’ve got nothing to defend - they’ve got no power at this time.
I want something real. Naive? Maybe so. But don’t you dare ridicule my anger. It comes from the idea of democracy you love to shove down everyone’s throat whenever “nationalism” or “support the troops” comes into question.
So, what’ve you got in response? Anything real, or just the talking point-based ridicule I’ve come to expect?
Well, I have seen rational debates about the economy on Fox…and even, drum roll please, some pretty critical words about the current administration about how the economy is doing. I’ve seen O’Reilly actully rip into the administration about the deficit spending. So, I’m unsure why you HAVEN’T seen anything of substance at all as far as debates about the economy on Fox.
BTW, like you, I’m not a one stop shop…I cruise around and dig for the news that interests me. Certainly I don’t swallow all the pap that Fox serves up, and I find myself rolling my eyes more than once about something thats said (especially when its a guy like Hannity who’s doing the talking…someone I’m not very fond of). However, the question you asked me was why are they popular…and I still maintain that one of the reasons is their willingness to bring on folks of different views and debate the issues.
Hm…how to answer this one. Do they stack the deck? Of course…but no more so than any talk show person does. Whenever a commentator or commentators have guests on, the guests are always at a disadvantage just due to the nature of those kinds of shows…i.e. they are crunched for time, and the commentators already know ahead of time the questions they are going to ask, while the guests may or may not know. Also, the commentator(s) already have (presumably) their facts in front of them. That said, I don’t see that Fox stacks the deck any more than any other show of this kind…and they really do at least try and give the appearence of letting their guests have their say too.
Certainly Colmes is a foil for Hannity…and vice versa. Also, Colmes is normally a fairly mild guy so can come across weak on some issues. However, when his blood is up he gives as good as he gets to Hannity IMO. I’ve been watching their show fairly consistantly this past year and I don’t think its as bad as you say. I’m sorry that this angers you…but while you may have searched this fact out (whatever that means), I’ve actually WATCHED the show from (IMO) a reasonably unbiased perspective (admitting that I really can’t stand Hannity, so only reasonably unbiased) and I’ve found it quite informative.
Well, I want ‘the truth’ as well…but ‘the truth’ is a matter of perception like anything else. My ‘truth’ may not be your ‘truth’…i.e. we may look at the exact same set of data and come to very different conclusions about it based on our own world outlook. As I said before, I don’t exclusively watch Fox…I also enjoy CNN and the BBC (I have satelite and get the news package) as far as broadcast news goes. In addition I’m a web junkie and surf various foreign and domestic news sites (I’m not a bit blog reader though) for any news that I’m interested in.
Do I think that some of what Fox says as far as their commentary goes is utter bullshit? Of course I do. But then, I think the same thing from CNN and even the vaunted BBC on occation. When it comes to commentary its a given that some of its going to be utter bullshit. What I like about Fox though is that usually when they are spouting bullshit they have someone else on calling the bullshit for what it is…while on other broadcast news shows doing commentary I get just the one view, and if I am uninformed I’m out of luck as far as a different viewpoint goes. Again, I see that as one of the reasons Fox is so popular, especially with the independant crowd. I also think that Fox could do a MUCH better job of being ‘fair and balanced’ than they do…but its something anyway.
Well, see, thats a difference between us. I DO enjoy listening to ideologues of different stripes debating things…it gives me perspective and even occationally changes my mindset about certain things…or at least gives me a new perspective on them. Certainly I like ‘facts’ as much as anyone…but ‘facts’ again can be in the eye of the beholder, or at least what those ‘facts’ MEAN can be. Again, you can I could look at the same ‘facts’ and come to totally different conclusions. Thats why I like to see ‘facts’ pesented from different perspectives…and then debated between those ideologues of different pursuasions. Hell, its one of the reasons I come back to this board over and over again.
Why would I ridicule you for that? Its your worldview, and its not entirely unsupported by the facts as you (or I) see them.
Well, I disagree. Their news sections pretty much present exactly the same fare you’d get on any other news station. Same with their web site…mostly it just shows AP stories under the Fox header. As to their commentary, of COURSE they have already digested those facts and are presenting their already formed opinions. Same as any other station when they do commentary. However, again, the difference I’ve really noticed is Fox’s willingness to have people who oppose those digested and massaged positions on to debate them.
If the left really came up with an equivelent to Fox where they attempted to have opposing view points on their shows, where they had a certain percentage of conservatives of good integrety on their staffs as commentators, etc, I’d be all for the show…I’d probably watch it as much as I watch Fox (say, 2 hours a day). THAT might be marketable. I just don’t think, based on the left wing media I have seen (or heard…mostly radio), I don’t see it happening. BTW, I seriously doubt leftists/liberals will be ‘more truthful’ than rightists/conservatives…or vice versa.
Naive? Probably. Commentary sells, so you are going to get that increasingly no matter what media format you are talking about. However, if you just want something ‘real’, simply watch the news portion of ANY mainstream outlet and avoid all the commentary. Basically the news portions are fairly generic and you what little spin thats put on it can be easily dismissed by simply using multiple outlets for your news.
Again with the ridicule though…who is ridiculing you? Certainly not me annaplurabelle. As far as democracy goes…well, thats the beauty of it. If you like Fox, its there…if you like CNN or NBC or whatever, thats there too. All they have to do is be able to compete and be economically viable and Bobs your uncle. As for the ‘nationalism’ or ‘support the troops’…well, thats a matter of choice. No one is holding a gun to your head or saying you HAVE to agree with either of those things. In fact, the war protests should have shown you that…let alone the protests at the RNC this past year. No?
You seem to really want to be confrontational with me on this subject for some reason. At any rate, my response is above. How ‘real’ it is, or if you think its ‘talking point-based ridicule’ is for you to decide. Why you’ve come to ‘expect’ either from ME is a mystery, as I NEVER use talking points…or do I usually ‘ridicule’ people.
No, the point BG is that HE’S ON THE SHOW. I.E. Fox at least attempts to provide an alternate viewpoint AND a foil for Hannity. And frankly I think Colmes does a good job of representing and defending liberal view points…he’s not just a sop or a meat puppet IMO. Also, there are many times where its COLMES doing the interviewing and no Hannity at all…or where Hannity is playing second fiddle with Colmes doing the driving on the interview.
But this is just getting silly at this point. Its fairly obvious that some of the folks argueing against Fox don’t actually WATCH Fox regularly. I was in the same boat for years…I had formed my opinion by maybe watching once or twice and by what I picked up from other peoples opinions…opinions I now see are mainly formed from other folks who don’t really watch the thing more than occationally. Is it the be all, end all in news? Hell no. Does it exaggerate and go over the top occationally? Sure it does. But its still a worthwhile source for news and for different viewpoints IMO, and should be on even liberals lists of sources, if for no other reason that to give them some perspective on what the other side is thinking.
Anyway, back to the actual OP, if the left wants to do a Fox analogy then they are going to need to bring in many of the same elements we’ve discussed…i.e. they are going to have to bring in some conservatives on the staff, and have conservative commentators to be foils to their liberal commentators. They are going to have to do interviews with conservatives and debate conservative viewpoints. In retrospect, IF they were to do all these things and REALLY be a left wing oriented Fox I’d be quite interested in seeing it…and I’d probably put it on my own list of shows to watch for perspective.
Your first post in this thread was pure ridicule. Perhaps not directed at me personally, but I’ve seen you do it often enough in other threads, and without fail it is directed at liberals or leftists. I guess there are no right-wingers on these boards that inspire your sarcasm…
Your later attempts are better - I’ll give you that. But if you still insist that Colmes is a liberal, and able to hold his own with Hannity, well it’s no wonder you’ve got such a low opinion of liberals/liberal ideas. And guess what - that’s why he’s on the show - to give the “impression” of balance, and make liberals look bad. Much worse than featuring no “liberals” at all.
But note to anyone considering starting a left-wing network: Find the right-wing equivalent of Alan Colmes and get him under contract pronto. It’s only fair (and balanced).
I guess what one person see’s as humor another can take as ridicule. When I do ridicule I’m much more vicious…this was more ‘light ribbing’ as far as I’m concerned. Obviously YMMV though.
As to me never ridiculing (or doing my ‘light ribbing’) of right-wingers, you obviously never saw many threads with me and Milum in them. Or threads with the late great december or several of the other out there right-winger types…who used to consistantly call me a left-winger. Your loss…some of them were classic IMO.
I think this dead horse has been beat sufficiently. If you think Colmes is not a liberal, even though he self identifies as one, well, thats your right. If you think he doesn’t represent liberal ideas well or is some kind of mouth piece for Fox, again, thats your right. What it tells me is you don’t actually watch the show very often, but hey…I’m sure you can form an opinion just fine by psychic vibes or osmosis (these are ‘jokes’ btw…no ridicule intended). However, even if you are right that he’s merely there to give the ‘impression’ of balance, its more than many other commentary and interview type shows do…which is why its popular, and why Fox is what it is today.
If your theoretical left wing Fox can find guys of Colmes ability to represent conservative viewpoints I won’t have a problem with that at all. I really think you under rate the guy…but then, I really doubt you’ve actually watched him much.
Sounds good to me! The Pacifica Radio news and political-talk shows often have conservative guests and commentators – without compromising the shows’ character as unambiguously left-progressive journalism.
Well, good for them! I think thats great. I’ve never heard of them of course, but they sound like a west coast station. Are they on one of the satelite radio services do you know? If so I might try and tune in to check em out.
Yes, “jokes” meant to imply that I’m lying about having seen the show, or watched it often enough to form an opinion as valid as yours. Very funny.
The Appeal to Ridicule is a fallacy in which ridicule or mockery is substituted for evidence in an “argument.” And/or using inappropriate humor or ridicule to avoid the issue, to cast unwarranted aspersions, or to deflect attention away from the discussion.
