Ted Turner tells the truth about the regime and its propaganda arm, FOX TV

[RaulVB]

TURNER WAS GREAT ON HIS INTERVENTION CALLING "FOX" a neo-nazi propaganda tool, drawing the "proper" response from FOX "people", nazi-like!

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/CA499014.html

Important to make this point again and again. Democrats CAN'T WIN WITHOUT THEIR OWN TV NETWORK ON THE AIR.

[mindfulNJ]

1. Hey Ted...

how about starting a new network?:)

[ixion]

2. creating a 'democrat' version of FAUX is not the answer, IMO

Rather, there simply should be accountability for any station that refers to itself as a 'news' station.

There ought to be oversight, and stations which violate the rules consistently should have their license revoked.

That said, I sure would like to see the Guardian open a broadcast news outlet. :-)

[RaulVB]

4. Disagree

THE REPUBLICANS OWN MEDIA OUTLETS.

You need to fight them on their own field. Without giving them A SINGLE INCH OF ROOM.

[ixion]

10. You fight them by

forcing to tell the truth, by holding them to some sort of accountability. Lowering progressive standards to their sleazy reptillian levels will not solve the issue, and in fact will only make it worse.

[RaulVB]

12. Would you agree on that they are PATHOLOGICAL LIARS?

How would you "force them" to tell the truth?

[ixion]

14. absolutely I agree...

Currently, it is LEGAL for the media to lie. They can say whatever they want, with little to no REAL accountability. The CBS fiasco was not an example of media accountability, it was a reverse smear campaign that only succeeded because there is no accountability. FAUX and CNN, et. al. gleefully hopped on the Dan Rather bashing bandwagon, rather than look at the actual merits of the story. This is precisely the type of bogus, blatantly obvious character assassination tactics and biased reporting that I'm talking about. In this instance, Dan Rather was not the culprit, but the victim.

It used to be that news outlets audited themselves out of the pride of wanting to produce quality journalism. Well, as with so much else, pride has gone out the door. Now, tabloid style news is the status quo. This is what must end. News stations should be audited, and should be responsible for what they print/broadcast. The shameful reporting of Judith Miller in the NYTimes is a prime example. How that woman managed to stay out of jail is indicative of the issue. Here is a person who LIED outright, and yet she still has a job, despite the fact that her lies were parroted by the WH, hence giving credibility to the illegal invasion of Iraq.

Creating a specifically biased 'liberal' news station will only serve the interests of the status quo, and will ultimately become a leviathan that works against our cause(s) rather than severing them.

In short, two wrongs don't make a right.

And personally, I would be embarrassed to support a station with acted like the progressive counterpart to FAUX. ;-)


How would I force them to tell the truth?

Simple. If they consistently report lies and propaganda, as is so evident with FAUX, documented by the 'Outfoxed' video, I'd pull their license.

Take away their money, and you'll see results, I swear.

[RaulVB]

15. In Great Britain is ILLEGAL to lie on a TV News network

John Gibson (FOX TV) lied about the BBC, it was seen on England and he was going to be made legally responsible for his "comments."

The British law exists, how are you going to make the Republicans here to "control themselves" and their own media?

Impossible, IMO

Now, is not about creating a "copy" of FOX. Is about having a TV network on the air working to point out THE DAILY LIES TOLD BY THIS REGIME.

That's fundamental. The people is not getting the information THEY NEED.

[ixion]

17. as it should be illegal here...

NPR used to be a really fantastic news broadcast. The McNeil-Lehrer news hour was informative and investigative. They reported the facts, just the facts, and only the facts. However, as they grew, their allegance moved away from ethical journalism to support of the status quo, thanks to the likes of Cokie Roberts, who at one time was a respected journalist until she drank the Kool-Aid®.

I guess what I would like to see is a station that simply reported the facts a.k.a the 'news' and saved the editorializing for the op-ed section, and saved the glossy pictures and theme music for the tabloid shows.

But alas, I fear those days are behind us now. :cry:

[ginnyinWI]

20. We already have a pretty good one: Cspan

Washington Journal--they read news articles from major papers, but don't comment. They take calls from viewers. They have guests on who have intelligent things to say. Check it out, every morning seven days a week, Cspan 1 (record or tape it if it's too early for ya) 7-10 a.m. Eastern. They have both right and left leaning guests.

[katinmn]

3. great article. Thanks.

Wish I could have heard the speech.

[Amy6627]

5. I thought Al Gore was going to start his own network? n/t

[RaulVB]

6. At Gore's "speed," I guess (n/t)

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

7. We need Ted back in the biz. Meanwhile, his own CNN has been a disgrace.

[Miami Liberal]

8. Wasn't CNN actually left leaning when Ted was the owner?

Maybe he should buy CNN back and make it what it used to be.

[RaulVB]

9. Yes, true

Also, they USED TO TELL THE TRUTH.

[anaxarchos]

16. Left-leaning is a little strong....

...but it was giving the BBC World Service a run for its money as the world's source for news. No more.

[Amy6627]

18. It's funny how something is "left leaning" when they are just

telling it like it is. I don't think CNN was leaning towards the left, I think they WERE (certainly not anymore) just reporting the news good or bad for the both parties. And isn't that what we really need. I don't want to hear great things about the Dems if they really aren't going great things. I think FOX news and an exact opposite of Fox new (pro-dems) does everyone a dis-service. We need to hear the truth about what is happening period.

[demodonkey]

11. Anybody notice that Turner Classic Movie Channel has been showing...

films by blacklisted Hollywood peeps from the McCarthy era?

INTERESTING timing of this "film festival".

[Hardrada]

13. Also at the time of the Shrub Inaugural II

They were showing a lot of movies about prisons and mobsters!! And various other evildoers!

[skids]

19. I wouldn't look for a fix in "news bias" anytime soon.

Or for that matter, ever.

Look -- whether you think it's left biased, right biased, establishmentarian, or whatever, here's the simple truth:

You read/watch news to get information about the world. That means you are trusting some other entity to form your impression of what the facts are and their likely consequences for the future. This is true even if you know the source is biased, and attempt to see through the bias. In either case, you are trusting them to talk about something pertinant, or at the bare minimum, you think that they are an opinion maker and whatever they talk about becomes important.

Answer this question, then -- who would you trust the least:

A) A member of my family
B) A cooworker
C) A personal friend
D) A large corporation
E) A complete stranger

And, answer this one -- who do you trust least:

A) A person who gets payed to go around telling the same information to a lot of people.
B) A person who just goes around telling the same information to a lot of people, for free (supposing you know this to be true.)
C) A person who always likes to be asked lots of questions and always has opinions.
D) A person who you have to pester a bit for their information or opinions.

My guess is most people answer D to the first question and A to the second question. Guess which categories the major news networks fall into. So why is it that so many of us from all sides of every issue turn to the people we say we would trust the least, and at the same time, hardly ever consult those we would trust the most? Heck, even a complete stranger is better, so why has noone ever, just out of the blue while standing in line at a grocery store or whatever, asked me "Hey what do you think of..."? Whatever happened to TALKING TO PEOPLE in this country?

One argument might be that we can't get everything through the grapevine because it gets distorted. That the extra resources that newsmakers can call to bear in turning over rocks make the payed media more reliable. Well, we can clearly see that, at least at the moment, investigative journalism is all but dead. So why keep a lame dog?

(In fact, if you know anything about neural networks you know that since the advent of the Internet the "grapevine" no longer has to be a vine, but with geography removed, can be more like a moss. All that would be required is a little effort on the part of everyone to reach out to people who you do not normally talk to -- to break through the wall of your self-imposed social bubble -- and the old problems with distortion go away through a process called convergence.)

My inclination: if people want to get paid for news, we should take a hint from "reality TV" and just strap a camera on their head and pay them to walk around someplace interesting, inaccessible, or dangerous. Sure there will be standouts that actually do what reporters are supposed to, but for the most part, most of the stuff on TV and even a good share of what is on the web these days they should be paying YOU to watch, because to them it is nothing more than a chance to alter your view of the world in a way that benefits the highest bidder, themselves, or their most fanatically beloved meme.