Howard Zinn, Norman Solomon, David Theroux, Naomi Klein, Greg Palast, Amy Goodman and Janeane Garofolo?
(not that I think this network has a chance in heck … )
LOL, furt.
Don’t tell them about the network’s chances, the more time and money they waste on it, the less they have for other stuff. And some of them may learn something about business in the process, and wind up joining us.
Meh, I hope it succeeds at the expense of CNN, CBS, etc. I prefer my media biases be upfront.
Your argument would be more convincing if you could cite some less-obviously biased sources. As it is, it’s like claiming that everyone knows Bill Clinton is a scheming mastermind of evil and deceit because Jerry Falwell put out a video saying so.
I love it! Another leftist tactic. Attack the credibility of the source, and drag some extremist nut into the argument as a distraction. So, where’s the evidence that Brian Anderson is not credible? Or by not credible do you mean conservative?
Never mind, don’t bother.
The first example I grabbed is by Anderson’s own count. If he’s wrong on that it would be very easy for someone at CNN to prove. Just assign an intern to pull all the videotape on antiwar demonstrations and check the transcripts. No doubt they’ve already done that. And until I hear them protest I believe Anderson.
The second example is from a study by the Media Research Center. Sorry for abbreviating, I should have typed it out. Are they liars too?
The point with this kind of empirical research, is that it speaks for itself. If the numbers are wrong, it’s incredibly easy to prove. The ad hominem attacks on the author are a waste of pixels.
And most important, the book is very entertaining, IMHO. I still recommend it highly.
Considering their own web site proudly boasts that they are a conservative watchdog group, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to conclude that their views about the media might be a wee bit slanted.
Tightly argued.
No evidence need be considered, because any source that gives evidence is biased.
It’s called ad hominem.
I’d give a cite, but everything I could find gave examples, so you wouldn’t believe it.
Regards,
Shodan
This really makes me laugh. CBS/NBC/ABC/CNN/PBS are so biased to the Left that the Left thinks they are mainstream.
You will get your wish one of these days, however. Gore TV is coming!
And if and when it arrives, it will have to compete on its own terms.
Which is part of the problem. Left-wing media have to compete with all the established outlets for a target market that already has PBS and ABC and CBS and all the rest of them. When Rush Limbaugh got started, he was almost alone in going after his target market of disaffected conservatives.
Of course, wonderwench has a point - what the SDMB thinks is mainstream is likely to be more than slightly further left than what the rest of America thinks is mainstream.
Regards,
Shodan
The implication that Al Gore* is on the “left” makes me laugh even harder, wench! You are looking at the left side of the spectrum through the wrong end of a telescope.**
OTOH, a real left-progressive TV news network, Independent World Television – http://www.iwt.tv/ – is coming. See post #154 above.
*A media company led by Al Gore and Joel Hyatt just acquired Newsworld International and are planning to start with a liberal alternative to conservative talk radio and, in August, launch a cable TV news network, Current TV. “NWI will be developed by its new owners into a network offering innovative and compelling programming created by and for a target audience of 18-34 year-olds.” All News Releases and Press Releases from PR Newswire See also http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,459345,00.html; http://news.com.com/Gores+TV+network+set+to+launch+with+Google+tie-in/2100-1047_3-5653913.html; http://www.wired.com/news/digiwood/0,1412,67205,00.html. Meh. Nice, it would fill a significant gap in range of coverage – center to very-slightly-left-of-center – but it would by no means be an answer to the OP. I foresee only a slightly more liberal and “hipper” version of CNN – something that is, perhaps, where the mainstream broadcast media were in the '60s and '70s – not something that’s really going to try to Fight the Power like Amy Goodman, et al., do. If I were Soros and wanted to emulate Murdoch’s accomplishment, I would put my money into IWT, not CTV.
On the subject of progressive media generally, see the latest, 5/9/05 issue of In These Times, particularly “Making Connections: Why is the news so bad? What can progressives do to fix it?” by Jessica Clark and Tracy van Slyke – http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/2069/. It links to excellent diagrams of the conservative and progressive media networks as they now exist – in the case of the latter, emphazing the still-missing links.
** I’ve said this to so many other conservative Dopers that it’s turning into a hoary cliche, but somehow I keep running, again and again, into situations where it’s too perfectly fitting not to use.
Short answer is no. It wouldn’t make money and that’s why people start broadcast networks.
Not always, I think. To some minds, a broadcast network is what you spend money on. Has PBS ever made money? Has NPR? Pacifica? I doubt Air America will. I’m sure Fox News makes money – but I’m equally certain that if it started operating at a loss, Rupert Murdoch would draw on other parts of his business empire to subsidize it and keep it going.
On that note, I doubt International World Television will make money – but I wouldn’t be at all surprised if Al Gore’s Current TV does.
Nice way to dance around the facts, Shodan.
But then, I find it amusing that the same folks who believe the MRC is a trustworthy source tend to be the same folks who reflexively dismiss anything Michael Moore says. Maybe if he formed a corporation and gave it a nice, authoratative-sounding name…
You haven’t presented any facts. You have simply announced that you will disregard any source that disagrees with you.
Come to think of it, I can’t remember the last time you did anything besides your usual drive-by bullshit. And thus, you can usually be safely disregarded without missing anything.
So do I. But I expect this has at least as much to do with size of audience as it does with broadcasting in general.
Rush Limbaugh had a TV show for a while, IIRC. But it didn’t draw the same audiences as his radio show, and is now gone for good.
Isn’t it interesting that PBS and NPR expect public subsidies, while FoxNews and AM radio can survive on their own fairly well? Almost like the right wing can stand on its own, while the lefties need special care and attention.
Regards,
Shodan
What, you mean a link to the Media Research Center’s web site proclaiming they’re a conservative think-tank doesn’t count? :eek:
You apparently have me mistaken for yourself.
Disregarding ideology for a moment, let’s examine what problems Independent World Television will face in getting off the ground.
They plan to be a cable news channel. That means that they plan to compete with Fox News, CNN, MSNBC and (to a degree) CNBC for the same audience. As fragmented as the audience is with over 100 choices available 24 hours a day, I would venture to say that anyone who will regularly consume cable news is already watching one of the existing channels.
So what will be their marketing strategy? I see two choices.
(1) “By god we are liberal and proud of it”. An open declaration of bias will alienate anyone looking for straight information presentation. That means they will draw a few people from those who don’t consume cable news regulary and some from those who already view the existing choices. I suspect that the views that do choose to come over will be members of the choir looking for more preaching to make them feel good. Are there enough of them for a national cable news effort? Look at the fortunes of Air America for your answer.
(2) “We are fresh, hip and new!” The Daily Show with an attempt at more credibility. That might be more successful in the short term…but the people who want news will be annoyed by the forced hipness and those who want to be entertained will be bored by the straight news. The result will be shows that could be called “Colmes and Hannity” and the person who wants to be the next Rush Limbaugh on the left. Opinion to attempt to entertain and news to attempt to inform. In other words, what Fox is doing now and what CNN is trying to imitate. Will they be able to pull enough viewers away from competitors who have more resources and experience? I think not.
Trying to run a national cable news network will be shockingly expensive. I have worked in local TV newsrooms where the annual budget was over a million dollars a year. They will need at least ten million to even attempt it. I don’t think they will be able to raise enough cash to make a big enough splash to attract the advertisers they need to survive. Remember that ESPN started in 1979 and CNN in 1981. They had a chance to grow without a competitor strangling them in their crib.
A left wing equivalent of Fox news would just be another propaganda outlet. It would not inform rational debate, just stir up more furor by loudly enunciating half truths.
My money (and hopefully Soros’, if he’s so inclined). would be to support more documentary work on NPR and PBS. Something like Frontline, that tries to present intellectually honest portraits of both sides, could be a stimulus for political discourse, not desk-pounding. The last thing we need is another partisan screecher, whether left or right winged.
If you can’t be a good example, you’ll just have to serve as a terrible warning.
The real purpose of a truly left-oriented cable show will be to help define the spectrum, putting an end to the ridiculous assertions that CNN and the major networks are as biased to the left as Fox News is to the right. (This will not likely happen with Gore’s network. if it reflects Gore’s DNC-style centrism, but IWT might pull it off.)
:rolleyes:
-
PBS and NPR are not “lefties.” (See post #170.) You want to know what real left-wing broadcasting is like, listen to Pacifica – then compare it to NPR, and you’ll feel like you’ve just stepped onto the campus of a business school.
-
PBS and NPR need public subsidies (and listener contributions) not because of any ideological slant but because they are non-commercial – they won’t accept advertising on principle because they’re trying to do something different than what commercial broadcast networks do, something not entirely driven by studio execs’ perception of immediate market demand. (But they are also trying to do something very different than what either Gore’s Current TV or Independent World TV would do.)