why is there no "liberal Fox News" television network ?

[steve2470]

Liberal Fox News = left of center, honest, thorough reporting on a 24/7/365 cable news channel

Is it lack of funding ? Lack of motivation ? Opposition by the corporations who would buy advertising ? All of the above ? Is Current TV doing well (http://current.com/) ?

[bookman]

1. Consider Air America

Sponsors were warned not to advertise.

MSNBC is as close as that gets. It has more balance than Fox.

[1]

4. nope... n/t.

[garybeck]

2. M-O-N-E-Y

[1]

5. nope n/t.

[garybeck]

7. yep n/t.

[1]

8. ummm... who raised more money in this campaign? mccain or obama? fail! n/t.

[garybeck]

12. that is irrelevant and a completely illogical argument and shows

that you have no idea what you're talking about.

the amount of money that Obama has raised has nothing to do with the funding of the media. are you off your rocker?

look at the media ownership. who OWNS the media? they are a handful of very large corporations who all have an interest in the republican party maintaing power because they enact legislation that helps these corporations.

do i need to spell it out any further?

geesh.

[Tunkamerica]

3. Why would a corporation (the only entities w/enough capital

to start a nationwide network/channel) start something that would counter their goals of making the most money possible? A leftist network would have to, in the course of telling the "truth", reveal the corporatist agenda wherein workers (i.e. people) are exploited for the gain of a few. Due to the very nature of our system such a thing could not exist. It would take everyone who gave money to Obama giving just as much every year to support a station that no cable companies would carry, no advertisers would support, every other media outlet would try to undermine or outright destroy, etc. etc.

And that's just off the top of my head. It might work on a small scale until it got noticed and then infiltrated and then destroyed from within.

[1]

6. nope. n/t.

[Tunkamerica]

13. very concise and utterly devoid of meaning, way to go

any interest in explaining yourself? probably not. It's much easier to refute monosyllabically than to offer an actual argument.

[Selatius]

9. The internet appears to be filling that void. Unfortunately, not enough. nt

[ThoughtCriminal]

10. Advertisers prefer Right-Wing Audiences

Gullible, non-critical thinkers who will buy anything. Especially for products that target feelings of insecurity and inadequacy.

[Hippo_Tron]

11. MSNBC is somewhat like that, but as a reaction to FOX

Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow are in prime time for a reason. Conservatives are all watching FOX and a lot of liberals stopped watching CNN after Ted Turner left. MSNBC knows that liberals who watch cable news are up for grabs and so they do give Olbermann and Maddow prominent time slots.

But of course it isn't a liberal network by any means and that is because they can't survive with liberals alone.

What I'd really like to see more than a liberal news channel is a serious return to investigative journalism and real scrutiny of our leaders. A journalist can, for example, be intellectually in favor of going to war in Iraq but also report on the fact that the Bush Administration's case for war is shaky. Of course one has to put aside one's political views in order to do that and that isn't easy. But nobody ever said that journalism was easy. I know personally that I could not be a journalist because I am far too biased.

[LSdemocrat]

14. The whole liberal paradigm just isn't built to deliver messages from on high

It took the "conservatives" decades to get to the point where Fox News became liable, starting with then little magazines like National Review, then moving on to radio like Limbaugh, all the while refining their message delivery for the quick delivery of talking points from central media/image consultants like Frank Luntz, and eventually the wider "conservative" audience was primed into not trusting the then mainstream media to allow for the creation of the current Fox News.

[obiwan]

15. It's like this:

You can lead a man to knowledge, but you can't make him think.

[HughBeaumont]

16. Because we can't speak factoid.

Plus it's counterproductive to their 1984-ish message.

I wouldn't want a liberal news network or a conservative one. Just one that tells the damned truth objectively for once. Display protests. Show what happens in our occupations (which, conveniently, haven't been mentioned much even though they still go on and soldiers and citizens are still dying in them). Tell us the many ways corporations and the wealthy are screwing the people via Reaganomic-redux laissez-FAIL capitalism. No right-wing framing or hyperbole.

[JohnnyRingo]

17. While we were watching the Twin Towers fall

The cons moved the lines of social division so that GW was at the center.
Almost everyone is on the left side of the scale now, and when those "moderates" at Fox News look to their right, they see only grainy footage from 1942.


Buxh claims to stand "center right", but if the social scale was a football field grid, he could pull a quarterback sneak for an easy score across the far right goal line.

[fujiyama]

18. The RW plays the talking points game better than us

Most liberals might even try mouthing them at first, but would just get sick of it after a few times and realize how utterly appalling the idea is of delivering propaganda - which is exactly what Fox News is. It takes a dedicated figure to spout the nonsense they do. Oh and the Right is also incredibly good at being wrong and never being held accountable for it (witness William Kristol).

Liberals - or I should say more accurately - liberalism itself (generally) thrive on debate and open thought. This is anathema to most conservatives or at least the modern neo-conservative movement.