WHY didn't Gore start a liberal Fox?

[DeepModem Mom]

I haven't seen "Current" today, but the reports here have not been good. I'm afraid this network will supply the press and the Right yet another reason to deride and humiliate Gore,

I like Gore. I tend to like most everybody on our side. But why didn't he try a liberal Fox? If he crashed and burned, he at least would have taken a shot at a media project that truly mattered.

Too often, our side just doesn't fight fire with fire. Or as the Big Dog used to say, in his Arkansas accent, "fahr with fahr."

[Kraklen]

1. It hasn't been on even 24 hours.

It's impossible to judge yet, and anybody saying otherwise is just blowing smoke up your ass.

[DeepModem Mom]

3. You're right about that, Kraklen! We should give it a chance....

But we know already it's not a liberal media outlet.

[converted_democrat]

5. Not true............

They have been promoting it for months now. They want it to be like MTV without the videos. That is more or less how they are billing it. It's for teens and young adults.

[Sterling]

37. They already have that, it's called MTV (the don't have many videos)

MTV is just reality TV now. Goe is stupid if he thinks this kind of thing will do well and matter.

[Ladyhawk]

20. True, that. I remember threads about Air America that said the same

damn thing and they've lasted.

Of course, with no TV, I have no way to see what's been going on.

[converted_democrat]

2. I've been thinking the same...........

I hope this does not turn into a wasted opportunity.

[Karmadillo]

4. By not fighting hard, we win!

How else can you explain our hold on the White House, the Congress, and the Supreme Court? We must be doing something right to be so damn dominant. McCain/Bayh in 2008!

[ThoughtCriminal]

6. We don't need a "Liberal FOX"

We need JOURNALISM.

[LeftyDarthBrodie]

11. I strongly agree with your point

True journalism will bolster our cause, especially nowadays.

[Karmadillo]

16. What is true journalism? "Fuck 'objective' journalism," says one

person and I think maybe he has a point.

http://www.technopuritanism.net/000097.html

<edit>

Of course, newspapers came into existence in the 19th Century by being funded by political parties - they were published by political parties to advance an agenda until industrialization created the advertising industry and mass culture, which created a demand for 'fairness' and 'balance'.

FOX is a multimedia hark back to the 19th Century partisan newspaper environment.

The left needs to create its own 24-hour partisan news network and be unabashed about it. I hope Al Gore realizes this with his disaster-in-the-making kids' channel.

more...

[dissent1977]

18. Yes, there is no such thing as objective journalism

To be a journalist you MUST choose to report certain facts and omit others. There is nothing objective about this process. The big question is do you pick the facts that would help prop up the ruling powers, or do you report the facts that will challenge the people in power?

Howard Zinn has some great writings on why we should not be "objective", and I would suggest everyone to read his work before they say that they want objectivity in the media.

We need a progressive news outlet, luckily it looks like we are getting one with IWT News(http://iwtnews.com), and it will be much better than anything Al Gore could provide us as it is free of commercial advertising or corporate dollars.

[SoCalDem]

28. Slant is unavoidable in journalism..Would we see ABC

taking an aggressive tack if some huge Disney scandal was brewing? Nope. they would deadpan it for a few sentences, and then move on...

Pure journalism is who, what, when, where..

"A 50 yr old man was hit by a car and killed yesterday at the corner of Smith & Wesson"..

Those "facts" can be manipulated anyway a station chooses to report them..

"A 50 yr old illegal immigrant was jaywalking, and was struck and killed yesterday at the corner of Smith & Wesson"

"A 50 yr old man was struck and killed yesterday by a car driven by a woman on a cell phone"

all of the above could be true, but could be reported in any way that the paper chose to , in order to rouse passions..

[Eric J in MN]

30. It's possible to report both facts which help the powerful and

facts which help the masses in one article.

[dissent1977]

43. You still have to omit certain material though...

That is unless you want the newspaper to be thousands of pages long every single day. Telling both sides does NOT mean you are telling the whole story on both sides.

[iconoclastNYC]

42. I agree.

It used to be that every news organization had a very clear to recognize bias because they were aligned closely with one party. Then this mythical balance comes about where journalist try to appear to be this all knowing, fair minded god. It's bullshit. There is no such thing as an unbiased report and anyone who tells you there differently is drinking the journalism coolaid.

[LeftyDarthBrodie]

46. I think Fox's impact is overblown

There ratings are still miniscule compared to network news, which is far from great, but better than Fox. Fox reaches the people who already believe the MSM has a liberal bias and few others watch it. Fox does a disservice to the public but I very much doubt it has widereaching effects.

I would like some liberal opinion shows to balance O'Reilly, Hannity, Scarborough and others though. We should still strive for objective journalism and hard working investigative reporting. Regardless of how much the right tries to smear Woodward and Bernstein they did not report on Watrergate because they hated Nixon.

[RoyGBiv]

12. My thoughts exactly ...

Walter Cronkite didn't gain the moniker of most trusted man in America by being a partisan hack for anyone. *That* is why his opinions, when he did give them, held a tremendous force.

[DeepModem Mom]

14. We DO need journalism -- it's necessary to democracy.

But we may need propaganda, or something, to hold off this cabal. Besides, I don't know where we get the power to restart journalism as it should be.

[Eric J in MN]

23. Is "The Al Franken Show" on Sundance TV propaganda?

I would call it opinon, and giving more of one-side, but not propaganda, which implies deceit.

Why not have 24 hours of that type of show?

How could that do anything but help Democrats?

[DeepModem Mom]

27. I agree, Eric -- "opinion" is a better word! nt

[Eric J in MN]

21. We need both.

Paul Jay is starting a channel you'll probably like for 2007, for good journalism:
www.iwtnews.org

He isn't interested in producing liberal political shows.

But he's said that liberal political shows are needed as well (not on his channel), to counter the right.

[Rose Siding]

7. To me, it looks like he's thinking way ahead

Coming in now with a fox wannabe would be like fighting the last war. From what I can tell on the Current site (I don't get the channel) they are stressing participatory TV- submitting tapes and articles.

That could be just a lead in to participatory democracy, something *this* democracy has neglected on a grand scale.

I don't know how far he'll get, but I love the concept.

[donco6]

8. When you fight fire with fire . . .

. . . all you get is smoke and ash.

To create a "liberal" Fox, we'd have to create a phony news organization that passes on propaganda as news. Is that what we really want?

[DeepModem Mom]

10. At this point, I guess I'd try most anything...

that's not criminal, inhumane, or unConstitutional.

[Eric J in MN]

22. Suppose we proposed "Air America Television" instead of

"Liberal Fox News?"

Would you be against "Air America Television?"

[donco6]

38. Not at all.

I don't believe they are a propaganda arm of the White House.

[FreedomAngel82]

9. I wish he did that myself

There is another network that is supposed to be forming though that will be better it seems. I wish Gore could've made a liberal network myself. Had liberal talk shows and real news and documentaries. That would be nice.

[Eric J in MN]

25. Are you talking about "Independent World Television"

www.iwtnews.org

or another project?

IWT isn't intended as liberal Fox News, either.

[AlCzervik]

13. Well since it's just started up it may take a left turn

It's possible he wanted to avoid a lot of controversy and bashing in the early stages so he kept mum on what "Current" will eventually be, course i haven't seen it but i'm hopeful thats the plan.

[deadparrot]

15. Because FOX sucks.

People know it sucks, that's why they make jokes about it. It's propaganda, plain and simple, and I don't want propaganda, or any sort of misinformation, from my side. Just the facts, and intelligent debate from a number of viewpoints.

[RagAss]

17. OH NO NO NO....We can't do that now

We need to take the higher ground. Wouldn't want them to say we were practicing Liberal bias in the media, would we?

In the meantime FOX is cutting off our fuccin legs with a rusty saw, and those of us who care are walking around on our bloody stubs and crying "foul, foul .. they can't do that can they?".....when are we going to get someone with some guts to take us to the next level?? Where's our voice?

[Eric J in MN]

19. I would prefer a liberal, more honest Fox News

to the "Current" concept.

(I haven't seen "Current.")

[indepat]

24. It would fail without listeners having something to hate: spreading

liberal ideas such as liberty, freedom, democracy, equal opportunity and justice under the law, the rule of law, fairness, fiscal sanity, preservation of the environment, there's just nothing to hate or otherwise get worked up about.

[RagAss]

26. I can hate the people who call us terrorist lovers

let's not forget that...let's never forget that...

[bloom]

41. How about people who call us "anti-American" for being "anti-Torture" eom

[Eric J in MN]

31. Talking about justice usually includes talking about injustice (nt)

nt

[kentuck]

29. He might be smarter than that..

He is trying to appeal to a certain age group, and maybe he thinks that "partisan" politics is the wrong way to accomplish what he want to accomplish. I did notice a little factoid about how much Pharmaceuticals spent on the last election. It's a slower process of education, perhaps? Al may be smarter than people are giving him credit for this time?

[DeepModem Mom]

32. That's an interesting idea, kentuck. I think Gen Y...

will surely make a difference, but in some way that is all their own.

[librechik]

33. hey, Fox STILL claims to be "fair and balanced"

why should Gore be forced to put all his cards on the table?

Leave Gore alone. This country has treatede him badly enough. let him be whatever he wants without blame, please. He deserves the opportunity, no matter what our media needs may be.

Why aren't ten people besides Gore stepping out to make liberal networks? That's the better question right now.

[DeepModem Mom]

34. You're right, librechik -- it shouldn't be up to Gore to do it....

I just thought, as he was starting a network....

[Rosco T.]

35. He may yet... sometimes the best way to start something...

.. is to do something else so your detractors decide you're not worth the effort....

then...

it's the lobster in the hot water pot theory.

[kentuck]

36. I think you may be right Roscoe....

:)
They were just waiting to attack his "political" viewpoints. So far, they can only attack his show as being boring. It may do much better than they think. Al Gore is a smart fellow. He knows how they play the game.

[Ivan Sputnik]

39. It would be a lot tougher

and way more expensive (I would think) to start a serious cable news operation than a network that depends on viewers to send in material. The three cable news channels are already struggling for ratings. A fourth would have a very hard time succeeding, I think. A better tactic might be to get some liberal zillionaire (Soros?), or group of them, to buy CNN.

[Georgia_Dem]

40. Gore didn't want to do a liberal Fox News.

He had already been saying for the longest time that he wanted to reinvent young peoples' television. He did not want to do a network with strong political overtones. Those calling him a coward for not creating a propaganda outlet are misunderstanding him entirely.

By the way, Fox News' ratings have been in a downward spiral for the last many months. A little something that those going, "well Fox is spewing propaganda" are conveniently forgetting.

[Cha]

44. I've been doing some reading

on Current after seeing Al Gore on Jay Leno and it sounds Good to me..

This is from Al Gore's business partner Joel Hyatt..

Joel Hyatt, Current's co-founder, credits the vision of the new network to an Orson Welles quote he once heard: "Don't give them what you think they want. Give them what they never thought was possible."

And this from MyDD..

>snip<

Al Gore's New TV Channel: Current
by Ann Driscoll

"I hope that others share my excitement about Al Gore's new TV Channel, Current. The great challenge since conglomeration is returning the media to the public, making it democratic and participatory rather than corporate and exclusive. Current, which will be launched August 1, aims to do just that. The station takes short clips produced by the public about various subjects and broadcasts them into the programming schedule. Thus the concept is a television station of video blogs (or "pods" as the station calls them). Gore has advertised Current as "the television home page for the Internet generation."

"He has said that the station won't endorse a particular political ideology- rather it will allow the public who creates the clips determine the content. But, of course, the clips will accumulate to a liberal ideology. That's the beauty of the democratic framework of the station. Even aside from the demographics of the videographers (young and liberal) who will be producing the content, public participation at large has historically yielded liberal viewpoints."



More on Gore's tv..
http://ann-driscoll.mydd.com/story/2005/7/19/135156/035

On Edit~ Couldn't resist adding some more snips before I say ga'nite..

"With the take-over of that last vestige of democratic broadcasting, PBS already underway, we need a democratically produced news station. I predict that Al Gore gets this, and that he wants to expand the voice of the citizen activist. What we are attempting to do through blogs, Al Gore is attempting to do through television. The question now is: will people watch it? I think so."

"There is, I feel, a subculture that has cropped up since the Bush Administration. I have no way to substantiate this feeling, but I see it when I go to Blockbuster and find a whole crop of anti-Bush documentaries, or I surf the blogs and feel the fire of grassroots liberalism, or I go to an organic food store and notice that all the cars in the lot have Kerry-Edwards stickers or I look at the pages of some of the entertainment magazines and realize that Jon Stewart's the Daily Show is a media phenomenon. Call me crazy, but there's a subculture and I think it'll provide a market for Gore's station. I know I'll tune in."

[Selatius]

45. "Freedom of the press is limited to those who have one." - AJ Liebling

Does the average working man of America own a press? Hell no. It's owned by their employers, the corporations.

Either the people pool together their resources to start a news network subsidized by their dollars, or they will continue to languish in a prison of ignorance and fear the corporate news media helps to cultivate for their corporate friends in government.