Al Gore close to buying cable channel. Liberal FOX news on the way?

[wyldwolf]

Investor group led by former vice president nears agreement to buy Vivendi channel for $82M.

French-American media company Vivendi Universal is close to a deal to sell its Newsworld International cable network to a group of investors led by former U.S. Vice President Al Gore for 70 million, or $82.03 million, according to a report published on Wednesday.

The Newsworld International cable network is available in less than 20 million homes in the United States. It runs newscasts from around the world but was left out of Vivendi's deal to merge its entertainment assets with General Electric's (GE: Research, Estimates) NBC.

http://money.cnn.com/2003/10/01/news/international/vivendi_gore.reut/

These days former Vice President Al Gore says he wants to set up a liberal alternative to the Fox News Channel, which, according to Gore, is too right-wing.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2003/9/27/123145.shtml

(Included NEWSMAX source to show how the rightwing is taking this news.)

[vi5]

1. I still maintain with 100% of my liberal heart....

That this is the suckiest idea that ever did suck.

I hate the RW spin and media more than anyone. But the fact is it is something that seeped in not something that they just set up one day and said "Hey...check us out!!"

This thing is only going to be set up for failure from the beginning. One of the things that differentiates libs from cons is that we don't have one specific set of belief. To try and create a channel around that is a horrible, horrible idea.

[Brian Sweat]

2. You assume that it would be a liberal version of Faux.

It need not be. A truly fair and balanced news network would be sufficient to counter Faux. Also, it need not cater to a liberal believe system. It just needs to get the truth out.

[vi5]

6. Well all anyone keeps saying is "liberal network...liberal network"...

If it's not going to be a liberal network then people should stop calling it that because if it fails it will be a liberal failure and I don't want that.

[Bandit]

20. So don't watch it.

I will gladly watch it and I would venture to bet I am not alone. It may not be as sensationalistic as Fox News but it will give all the news that the rest of the Media is neglecting.

[mindfulNJ]

18. truly a sign of the times

when truly "fair and balanced" is considered liberal.:eyes:

[Terwilliger]

4. Umm...what exactly do you think this network will do?

Espouse the "liberal" agenda?

Maybe they'll have a news division that actually reports the news instead of slanting it to favor a political view.

If you have the Al Franken show one hour, then repeats (or new episodes) of TV Nation...then maybe some liberal type sitcoms...

What's your problem with it?

[vi5]

5. My problem with it is....

That since conservatives are by and large older and middle class they ahve more time to devote to watching and listening to shows that tell them what they want to hear. That accounts for their big ratings. Factor in the number of liberals and democrats who are masochists that tune into RW radio and TV to "know the enemy", and you've got big ratings.

Conservatives won't tune in, and by and large democratic voters and costituencies aren't as rabid about hearing their own views thrown back at them.

Which means it's destined for failure and then that failure will be thrown back in our faces again and again.

We should be working to get more liberal voices on existing tv and radio shows, not taking our ball and running away and creating our own little corner to do nothing but pat ourselves on the back and tell us what we want to hear. If you want that, then great. Enjoy. I still think it's a terrible idea.

[Terwilliger]

8. You're making conclusions about the content

LONG before the network is even a concept. Why do you think they'll parrot liberal values? Why won't they appeal some format to center and left-of-center viewership? You seem to be making Republicans in simplistic caricatures here...so, liberals don't watch television?

[vi5]

13. I hope that's the case...then they should stop saying...

That they are going to be starting a "liberal network". That's what I take issue with. If they want to start a radio or TV network that will cover all news fairly then that is fine. But calling something a "liberal network" as is done every time this story is brought up is what makes me uneasy about it.

The fact is that my family and friends who are liberal and always vote democratic almost never watch political stuff or things that trumpet their liberal values. They just are and they just do. They don't need it reinforced and fed back to them.

My friends and family who are conservative DO like that which is why they listen to Rush and Drudge and O'Reilly and all the rest.

And the middle of the road people will be turned off by something touting itself as a "liberal network".

[Clete]

26. Then there's this old and middle class person who would

like to have a news channel that tells the truth and that follows principles of free journalism without any interference from any political side. In this case, since our broadcast media is overwhelmingly right wing and influenced by the GOP, any other news would probably be considered liberal in comparison.

[cprise]

7. I agree it could fail

..but for a different reason:

How does a private network become a tool to attack overreaching corporate power, and to champion the value of the public sector? How long will it be before the owners start tilting economic coverage to the Right?

What we need in this country is strong public broadcasting (instead of the politicized corporate charity that is PBS).

[Terwilliger]

9. I agree with that

if there's a liberal network, there's no question that GE (and the like) will be a major commercial sponsor

[cprise]

35. I keep pushing the BBC as an example

With a network like that, you get a populist point of view which is invaluable to the Left as far as economics is concerned. They are highly insulated from political and commercial influence, since they are neither ads-based, nor are they run as a charity.

[Brian Sweat]

14. Government financed news cannot be trusted either.

I think it would be best if they just ran it as a non-profit with no commercials. The problem with that is that they would need money. I wouldn't want to see them doing PBS style beg-a-thons. Maybe Soros and some other rich Democrats can setup a foundation.

[cprise]

38. Please see above comment

...about the BBC.

Most public broadcasting is non-governmental, and does not have to beg. They are chartered as public corporations with the right to collect a license fee for each radio and/or television sold. They are naturally populist, do not constitute a monopoly, and largely independant from politics and governing politicians.

PBS is just pathetic. Very politically vulnerable and a corporate-money charity to boot (esp. when citizens are strapped and the rich are gorging/hoarding). They even advertise.

[sushi]

32. What you want is

an American BBC, which just reports the truth and, by law, must be even-handed. People can then make up their own minds.

[LSdemocrat]

19. A lot of liberal people read The Guardian

which has a left-wing take on current events.

I don't see how a liberal network would be any different.

[cprise]

37. The Guardian exists in a different environment

They serve a public which funds the world's largest news organization (the BBC) as a principle of public service.

Without the British attitudes toward public institutions that make the BBC possible, there would be little market for a Leftist paper like the Guardian.

The Left in this country refuses to even espouse the intrinsic value of public enterprise, much less admit its ties to socialism. They keep trying to throw wealthy corporatists at the media problem.

Hello??

A popular political movement must emerge to remake public broadcasting as a strong, necessary voice, much the way it addressed tobacco companies and campaign finance.

[janekat]

23. Can't disagree with you MORE

we and our candidates cannot continue to be "slapped around" like we did in Gore vs. Bush anymore. The right-wing media lost Gore that election and he knows it better than anyone.

[DemCam]

34. Can't agree with you more.

I had thought Gore would focus all of his determination on running for President...correcting the mistakes that were made in his campaign.

But no...he's focusing his attention on the media bias. And that is the biggest problem that liberals and progressives have...as we have lamented for three years now.

What I can't understand is all the negativity around the possibility of relaiming a small niche to counter the right-wing propaganda takeover.

What?

[NewYorkerfromMass]

40. slight correction: it was BUSH v. GORE (not vice versa)

Bush is the one who couldn't sit back and let the democratic process run out its natural course. It was that toxic Texan Bush who took Gore to court, not Gore.

[hang a left]

3. Yes, I would settle for a little truth on TV

[goforit]

10. OMG!!!!..........He always knew what had to be done first!!! Take back the

MEDIA!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Gore will always be close to my heart!!!!

I salute the real president of the US!!!!!!!

:bounce: Go Gore!!!! :bounce:

LOL!!!!! :toast:

[spindoctor]

11. Preaching to the choir?

Gore, Franken, and a handful of other "liberals" have decided that it is time to fight fire with fire. If FOX can do it for the right, then it must be possible to do it for the left and at a minimum regain balance in TV-land.

The question is whether or not there will be a sufficiently large audience for this channel, or rather, if such an audience can be found.
Considering the fact that the cable news-watching masses have a fairly stable number, they will have to drag their audience away from FOX and the likes.
Do you really think the O'Reilly viewers will switch to the Al Franken show?

I dunno. Kudos for trying though.

[wyldwolf]

12. I would switch to the Al Franken show

...I watch the MSNBC and FOX line-ups from 6-10 a few nights a week (yeah, I know... pukefest... but know thy enemy and all...)

But I think Franken or a host of other liberals could pry me away.

[Brian Sweat]

15. If they program the network properly, the can create a new audience

instead of taking viewers away form Faux. Most of the people who watch Faux are not going to be swayed by the truth anyway.

If they try to make it a liberal version of Faux, I know that I will not watch it. I don't want to be subjected to liberal spin and propoganda anymore than I want to be subjected to right win spin and propoganda.

What I want is a network that will report the truth in an indepth manner the way that NRP used to do.

[bushclipper]

17. "... know that I will not watch it..."

Yeah you would! We'd all be on DU talking about it and you would finally give in...but not admit it for a long time. Like Menudu fans...

[calimary]

24. Know that I WILL watch it.

There comes a point where you just have to make an adjustment. It's actually a very liberal thing to do - adjust the playing field to promote more fairness, when you've identified it and verified it as being ridiculously lop-sided.

The problem with trying to add liberals and moderates to existing shows, I think, can be summed up in three words: "Hannity and Colmes."

Programming executives have tried to mix things and found it rather a failure. Out here, they made a half-hearted attempt at it at a radio station called KABC-AM. It was pretty much wall-to-wall talk, except for a daily interruption for a couple of hours of Gloria Allred. She was sandwiched in between two very conservative talk shows. She didn't do well - because by then the station had set up a VERY strong identity with conservative listeners, and they weren't about to support her. Plus, any liberal listeners had been driven away by the non-stop conservative crap-spew. They found it difficult to come back when they had to pick through hours of programming to find one small nugget of relief. Seeing that this didn't work, management made a change. Paired Gloria Allred with - hey! Guess what? A CONSERVATIVE partner! HEY, THAT'LL DRAW 'EM! It failed, too. For the same reasons I just explained above.

I still have lots of friends in programming and they point out two things: that if liberals had somebody entertaining and funny (read: someone like, maybe Al Franken?), people would definitely be drawn in. They still point to Rash Lamebrain, embracing his hypocritical mantra about being "an entertainer." I can't tell you how many programmer friends of mine have said this. Furthermore, they also say that you can't mix-n-match this stuff. If you establish programming that appeals to a conservative audience, you're not going to win liberals by throwing them a bone amidst all that. The liberals will stay away either because they're boycotting, or they value their blood pressure. And, of course, conservatives won't be interested in being educated for the brief time the liberals get a shot at the mike.

In the case of Hannity, it's my understanding that he was allowed to choose his partner. So... if you have designs on being the new right-wing star, positioning yourself to take over the mantle from Limbaugh, and you want to make sure your position's secured and you'll always look good, pick yourself a sparring partner who's a wimp. You can't help but win every time. Alan Colmes was a comedian before he had a "liberal" talk show on some small New York-area radio station. Hannity picked him because he knew Colmes wouldn't be much of an opponent and he could always maintain the stronger point. And ol Alan hardly even raises his voice. Hannity decided to take the chicken-shit way out and stack the deck, instead of picking a worthy opponent that might actually put him at risk of losing a point here and there.

It seems to me until and unless you see owners and mega-corporations deciding there's no more money in right-wing programming, liberals are going to have to go outside the box and produce their own. That time also may be coming. I've read that some programmers and syndicators are starting to think that maybe they've almost saturated the market with the right wing, and the ratings aren't really mushrooming as they'd like.

Frankly, I see nothing wrong with it, and considering how everything is SO unbearably over-weighted toward the right, I think it's an idea whose time has come. Even if it's maybe 5 or 6 years late. Better late than never. It's a smart idea and certainly does cater to an increasingly large and EXTREMELY under-fed market.

It depends on how they do it. If they get funny people on, and nice-looking ones who are quick-witted, and stir up some fuss, they could really have a winner. One thing no one denies is that there is a HUGE untapped audience out there, waiting to be served, and isn't getting what it wants from right-wing broadcasters.

At the same time, it can't be NPR on TV. Every programming and consulting person I know out there points out that NPR is too deadly serious, which is why it occupies this little ghetto over on the side in the radio universe. And even NPR can't always be trusted anymore...

[Brian Sweat]

25. Everyone talks about Faux, but I do not watch it.

The format of the news networks turns me off. If they have shows like Crossfire, Oh'Really, Hanity and Colms, Screamer Chris and stuff like that, I will not watch.

I want news that really gets to the heart of the story. Not lots of people arguing.

[ignatius]

16. I believe that anything Al Gore is involeved in will be first-rate, fair,

intelligent and based on facts and integrity.

Hooray...

[FlaGranny]

21. Al Gore could create

the most balanced, truthful, and logical network in the world. It will STILL look like liberal propaganda to the "foxies." But I'll watch it. I already watch that network for news and it is already the most "fair and balanced" we can get here. Not very many changes would need to be made, except it probably would have to be jazzed up a bit to appeal to most Americans.

[janekat]

22. Why can't moveon.org and other groups help raise money ?

This is an important cause IMO. This might even be more important than a politcal campaign.

[Sephirstein]

27. kick

:kick:

[KharmaTrain]

28. I Have NWI...A Good Start

What the article really doesn't mention for DU'ers is that NWI is predominately programming from Canada's CBC...including their excellent nightly newshour called "The National". They also air newscasts, in English, from RFI (France), BBC, DW (Germany), Russia, China and assorted other interesting countries.

Our cable company, Comcast, includes it in their Digital cable package (so some folks may already have it and not know it)...and it would be great to have an alternative to all the hate and spin that's out there.

[welshTerrier2]

30. Direct TV carries this channel

it's on channel 366 ...

this if GREAT NEWS ... i really don't understand some of the more pessimistic posts in this thread ... i'm confident the intent of this new venture will not be to become the "opposite of FAUX" ...

the left needs a real voice ... not a bunch of whining idiots ... owning a network presents the left with an opportunity to be heard ...

in a recent interview, Al Franken said that the right tunes in to the media for ammunition ... the left tunes in for information ...

if NWI is "done right", the broad spectrum of thought on the left will be available to more americans ... it will no longer be edited and filtered by those who own the mass media today ... you can't expect people to support you when they can't hear your message ...

GO, Al, Go ...

[ElementaryPenguin]

29. A more significant contribution than anything Gore could do as Prez!!

This nation of couch potatos is ruled by television - period!!!

[SaveElmer]

31. The ONLY way this is gonna work

Is for the investors to stick with it no matter how much money it loses. That is how Rupert Murdoch built up the Fox empire, that is how the Washington Times stays in business, and that is how the right wing mags stay in business. Murdoch and the rest of the rw'ers are committed to getting their agenda out there, not necessarily making money. If the investors cut and run when they realize they are gonna lose alot of money for several years, it won't work. If they stick though, no matter how much money they lose, they will eventually become relevent, and perhaps even prosper.

[PROGRESSIVE1]

39. Bingo!!!!

.

[West Coast Democrat]

33. I Watch NWI Occasionally

They show CBC News, which I enjoy.

[Cheswick2.0]

36. Al Gore always knows what needs to be done and he does what he can

I couldn't admire the man more. He doesn't sit on the side lines and bitch. He doesn't base all his decissions on how much he will make out of it. It seems to me that even when I disagree with him, he is sincerely doing what he feels is best for the people and thus the country.

[Unknown Known]

41. And Donovan was the high-rated show on MSNBC

and it was cancelled. Does this make business sense? No, but pressure from WH was put on the owners to get rid of DISSENTING voices.

Speaking of which, Olberman was not on last night - maybe they got him for running those pieces Mon. night that we all enjoyed so much.

[Liberator_Rev]

43. "Donovan" or "Phil Donahue" ?

[Unknown Known]

47. Sorry, meant Phil Donahue

:think:

[Liberator_Rev]

42. Here's how an outright "Liberal" channel could WIN:

Keep a running display of stories as told by THEM vs.. the LIES told by the mainstream media and FOX "fair and balanced", and let the public see as time goes on WHICH version has proven correct.
Didn't we predict most everything that the Bush administration has screwed up BEFORE they screwed it up?
Just imagine if people could see what the Liberal media said about the outcome of the Iraq debacle,vs. what Fox said about it.

As time went on, the public would have more and more reason NOT to buy the Conservative lies. See

http://www.LiberalsLikeChrist.Org/Liberals
and/or
http://www.LiberalsLikeChrist.Org/DemvsGOP
for reasons you can give your friends to join you as a Liberal and a Democrat.

[SaintLouisBlues]

44. Rev, I like the way you think

And hopefully we can use Fox as an example of why cable and dish companies should add a "liberal"
news show to their lineup.

[Liberator_Rev]

48. You're a genius, too, St. Louis !

Are you from St. Louis? If so, do you know any of the many Dubuque's there?

[Former Republican]

45. News is supposed to be liberal.

News is supposed to expose existing injustices and advocate progressivism. That's what it does for the most part in Europe.

Liberal news = news
Conservative news = propaganda

I felt that way even back when I was a Republican. Fact is, FOX News disgusted me so much that it was part of what made me switch my loyalties.

[Liberator_Rev]

50. Good for you on all counts, Former Republican (the best kind!)

[FlaGranny]

46. Bless Al Gore -

he probably thought he could do more for the country with a network than he could as president. Unfortunately, I agree. Maybe this is why he declined to run for president. We may even get to hear Democratic press conferences!!

[proud patriot]

49. Wooooooo Hooooooooo

:bounce: