As already mentioned earlier in this thread, us lefty types don’t really enjoy sitting in a circle going “Me too” and “Ditto” all day long.
Why (apparently many) conservatives appear to enjoy such behavior continues to elude me.
So? Fox News was designed to preach to the choir – mainly – but that doesn’t mean its existence hasn’t done a lot for the conservative cause in America. As for demonization – there’s no bad publicity, is there?
News should be “fair and balanced” - I don’t think there should be news with a left-wing bias since they might leave out some important information that puts things into perspective.
Well I guess you’ve answered the question then…there will be no left-wing analogue to Fox News because ‘lefty types’ don’t enjoy listening to their own positions and talking points…unlike conservatives appearently.
So, the reason for Fox eludes you, ehe? Well, thats unsurprising. I suppose ‘lefty types’ don’t enjoy making money either…wouldn’t want to form a profitable venture, right? They just enjoy spending other peoples money I guess. 
-XT
The irony of this statement, which has been echoed here many times, is that if this were true, almosy EVERY outlet everywhere would be conservative, including this board.
But from what I’ve seen, there’s more leftys here, and many involve themselves in gang behavior. So, the fact that there are more leftys, and righties who come here anyway, seems to negate your point.
In other words, you constantly engage in the behavior that you claim that only righties enjoy.
The success of Air America seems to prove otherwise.
Depends. Not bad for Paris Hilton, but we’re talking about a news network. And if you’re depending on ad revenues - sponsors don’t like to be demonised, as a general rule.
Fox cashed in on 20+ years of Conservatives beating the “liberal media” drum. They drilled a hole and then filled it.
Fox not only positioned itself brilliantly, they got there first. Anything that comes after has to compete with that. It’s very difficult to overcome established positioning. Brand loyalty is a tough nut to crack as a general marketing rule, and the unique position Fox has established is even tougher to erode.
Fox still defends its “fair and balanced” logo, and many people buy into that in spite of acknowledging the obvious right-wing bias, because: It’s only fair that they lean right, in order to provide balance against the rest of the media (which has been conveniently positioned as left-leaning). I’ve got some interesting poll data should you doubt this.
Any left-wing start-up will be competing for the market share based on that established positioning strategy, ie: Fox v. all other news media.
So, on that basis, what is your strategic proposal for positioning your hypothetical news network? Potential investors need to know that.
I think that most of those who claim this board has a left-wing bias would still admit that there is a broad spectrum of debate here. It is not like listening to Rush Limbaugh.
And, I also think the political dynamics of this Board are more complicated than you suggest. Are leftists over-represented here and the religious Right under-represented? Sure. But, libertarians are over-represented too. Way, way over-represented.
I totally agree with you. The point I’m trying to make is in response to the sentiment “us lefty types don’t really enjoy sitting in a circle going “Me too” and “Ditto” all day long” is negated on this board. Everyone here bears witness to the lefties agreeing with the lefties and ganging up on righties. IF there’s a majority of lefties here (or plurality, if that’s more accurate) then that would negate the very idea that liberals don’t congregate with like-minded, whereas righties prefer it. That’s just plain silly. If it were true you wouldn’t find so many righties here in the minority being hashed by the lefties.
The ditto-head comment is DULY noted, however. I stopped listening to Rush eons ago due to the “mega mega dittos Rush” mentality of every caller. But don’t think for one second lefties wouldn’t love to have an intelligent and engaging Limbaugh counterpart. I’d sure like to listen to one.
But I don’t think it’s possible to have Libertarians overrepresented
What board have you been posting in, Wrath? If you’ve been paying attention, you should have noticed that the lefties on this board argue with each other almost as often and almost as intensely as they argue with their ideological opponents; and that the same cannot be said of the right-wing Dopers, at least not to nearly the same extent.
That is, in fact, a disease endemic to the left, at least in the United States, and has hampered its organizing efforts to no end. Leftists have been extraordinarily given over to fighting among themselves, splitting over fine points of doctrine or strategy, and placing more emphasis on having the “right” position on everything than on achieving workable compromise positions that might actually be sold to the public.
None of which, of course, means that lefties don’t like to congregate with the like-minded, online and in real life. But it does make it harder, once we do get together, to get anything done.
Which raises the relevant-to-this-thread question of how a left-wing cable news network would resolve those inevitable, touchy intramural conflicts over editorial policy. But, if Pacifica Radio can manage it, why not a TV network?
Easy . . . well, not easy, but simple. Turn it around. Start beating the “conservative media” drum, pointing out that practically all the “mainstream” news outlets are controlled by a handful of megacorporations and demonstrably serve their interests and the interests of the ruling class. Put out the message that a network with an openly left-wing bias is urgently needed to bring “balance” to a corporate-controlled media system that puts out messages ranging from center-right (CNN) to far-right (Fox).
LOL! Does that follow from PROgress being the opposite of CONgress???
Funny thing is, I noticed this phenomenon right away while watching you lefties here tear apart a lefty like Alan Colmes, as if he had no redeeming qualities at all. If lefties are not going to support “one of their own” - indeed, tear him apart - for various reasons, it will be difficult indeed to get the masses to support one.
That’s different. We don’t criticize Colmes because we disagree with anything he says, but because he is on Fox News only as a shill, to create a false impression of “balance.” As I said above, he is there only to be Hannity’s foil, whereas Hannity is not there to be Colmes’ foil. We don’t say Colmes has “no redeeming qualities at all,” only that what he’s doing at present does nothing worthwhile for liberal causes and gives aid and comfort to conservative causes.
Update: Well, it looks like something’s finally happening! 
A group of left-leaning journalists and media activists are trying to start a new progressive 24-hour news network, Independent World Television. See http://www.iwt.tv/; http://www.anarchogeek.com/archives/000435.html. Members of the Founding Advisory Committee include Howard Zinn, Norman Solomon, David Theroux, Naomi Klein, Greg Palast, Amy Goodman and Janeane Garofolo. (But not Al Franken – I guess he’s too busy with Air America.) Let’s see what develops!
Good post. Personally I find Fox news right slanted with the Big 3 and CNN to slanted much heavier to the left. And prefer MSNBC. CNN and the Big 3 have lessened their slant since Fox’s start up, but it is still definitely there and at least equal that that Fox displays.
I’m talking about news BTW, not commentary like Hannity or the Cossfire nuts (I hate the leftwingnut on that one with the same passion as I do Hannity).
And this being Great Debates, I’m sure you’ve got some credible examples of this “leftward bias” you claim to see in the Big Three, yes? Something a bit more substantive than “they actually dare to say something negative about George W. Bush,” preferably.
Meanwhile, here we have an example of CNN and the Big Three conspicuously ignoring Newt Gingrich’s denouncement of Tom DeLay’s finger-pointing defense. I guess that’s a very subtle manifestation of the media’s left-wing bias, eh?
South Park Conservatives, by Brian Anderson gives numerous empirical examples. Among them:
“In 38 different stories on antiwar street demonstrations, CNN noted only once that most Americans did not support the protestors’ views” - page 9
Re: the 2001 debates on the tax cuts - “In 93 stories the MRC points out, the networks quoted liberal critics who disparaged the tax cut as ‘massive’ or ‘huge’ five times more frequently than they quoted tax-cut backers making the opposite point.” - page 5
If I had it on disc or the internet I’d be glad to cut and paste several more examples.
BTW, I think it’s an excellent book for conservatives or moderates. Very readable. I was literally laughing out loud at several points in the South Park chapter. And it’s extremely optimistic about the future. Only complaint is that it’s too short, 165 pp. with big margins, etc. But I was lucky enough to get mine for free.
Haven’t read it. But Bias and Arrogance by Bernard Goldberg give numerous empirical examples too – and they’re all bullshit, as fairly conclusively proven by Eric Alterman in What Liberal Media? (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0465001777/qid=1114402733/sr=8-2/ref=pd_csp_2/104-6791780-4436752?v=glance&s=books&n=507846). See also The Republican Noise Machine by David Brock (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1400048753/ref=pd_sim_b_4/104-6791780-4436752?_encoding=UTF8&v=glance), which is much more readable than Alterman’s wordy, detailed, footnote-heavy tome and has the added advantage of being written by a former insider.
Huh? So when they show Fred Phelps and his crew, they have to point out that most Americans don’t support them? That doesn’t make any sense.
I’m not quite getting this. So they didn’t have many supporters of the tax cut going on about how tiny it was?
Pointing out examples gets pointless pretty quickly. Even if you do find some legit instances of left-wing bias in the conventional media, I guarantee that they can be matched one-for-one by equally egregious examples of right-wing bias in the same conventional media, and that’s without including Fox News.
The idea that CNN and the networks’ leftward bias is stronger than Fox’s rightward bias, however, is just ridiculous.
Typical of leftists who have no desire to learn anything new.
l. rjung asks for examples.
-
I give two examples and cite a book that has many more.
-
BrainGlutton implies that all examples given by conservatives are bullshit.
-
Doctor J says all examples are meaningless.
So let’s see if I get this. According to leftists, conservative theory is bullshit and should be dismissed as such. And all examples given by conservatives are bullshit and should be dismissed as such.
So what, if anything, would you guys listen to?