Would a Liberal "Fox type " Network be a good thing?

[sellitman]

Poll question: Would a Liberal "Fox type " Network be a good thing?

Many here and on the left have bitterly complained that Fox News is TOTALLY biased toward the right. (And rightfully so, pardon the pun) To balance that bias should we work toward a Network channel like Fox but with a definitive left lean? Not a channel like Gore's "Current TV" but a whole Network like Fox.

[No DUplicitous DUpe]

1. No... 2 wrongs don't make a right.

Y'a know

[sellitman]

2. So how do you combat Fox?

Wouldn't you fight fire with fire?

[No DUplicitous DUpe]

11. Well, #1 tell people to get their news right here (LBN)...And make

constant fun of their pompous liars (Hannity, Hume, Wallace, O'Reilly, etc.) They have told too many lies to be believable anymore.

[porphyrian]

32. The problem with creating a liberal "fox" network is...

...that you'd actually be helping "fox" stay in business by validating their methods and providing a constant source of "news" to contradict, thereby keeping them from even having to write their own bullshit material. If you really want to counter them, create a real news source with actual journalistic integrity, then figure out a way to bait viewers who wouldn't seek it out on their own other than by selling out to corporate and political influences.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

3. NDD is exactly right. I mean, correct. a liberal faux news program

would do no one any good. It would only lube that already slippery slope of idiocy and ignorance.

When the daily show and Bill Maher offer more news and reliability than FOX or MSNBC, that tells you something.

[Warren Stupidity]

5. Daily Show and Maher

reach almost nobody. And neither is consistently progressive, and both of them are entertainment shows not news shows, even if they both manage to deliver more news than what most people see on the TV.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

12. that's my point (unclear, I agree) but when comedy is better than a

news program, the answer is not to make a mirror image of a propaganda station but to simply change yes to no and black to white. the better response is to improve IMPROVE the quality and quantity of news.

[Warren Stupidity]

14. But 'THEY' own all the major cable and broadcast outlets.

So there is no way to 'improve the quality' without creating independent competition in the air america radio or current tv model. That is how I interpreted the question. I don't want something as awful as faux or as content free (missing white woman 24/7) as the broadcast news, I want an independent voice on cable and broadcast (with a good signal unlike AAR) putting out quality news with a progressive viewpoint.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

18. I think we are arguing the same point, just in clightly differing terms

Which brings to mind the horrific impact the FCC has had on our news industry. Mike Powell did his worst, didn't he?

But he was not the only one. conglomeration, merger, corporate buy out - and pooof, no more indie, honest news. Today's sad reality.

[Warren Stupidity]

6. No actually I don't know.

So you are a complete pacifist?

[HereSince1628]

7. But then it's not about right and wrong. Is it?

It's about control of what is on the minds of Americans.

[No DUplicitous DUpe]

26. Well Fox lies and that is wrong...I've never herd Phil or Randy

lie. they are not 'liberal' they are honest in my view. I just meant that I would prefer honest news, sometimes making honest mistakes and
reporting on those, as well.

Lies + Lies = Truth? I don't think so.

[Native]

13. It is not a wrong, it's a view point, and

it makes perfect sense to have a counterpoint. By your logic we should also end all liberal radio shows?

[Warren Stupidity]

4. Media always has a bias.

It is just that faux doesn't bother to hide it, other than their ironic 'fair and balanced' logo.

Given that The Cabal has a near monopoly on broadcast and print media, that the 'newz' reaching into the homes of most americans would make Pravda proud, of course a progressive leftist TV news network would be a good thing. It would introduce some balance and make the playing field a bit more fair.

[in_cog_ni_to]

8. Yes with Phil Donahue, Randi Rhodes, Mike Malloy, Thom Hartmann

Keith Olbermann, ect....as the hosts. TRUTH TELLING NETWORK (TTN ;)) 24/7. The ratings would go through the roof!

[Native]

16. TTN - What a fantastic suggestion!

[C_U_L8R]

9. I'd rather see the "fairness doctrine" return

and tougher libel laws.

I simply wish for a network
that's honest. and truthful.

There's no reason that people
like the "swift boaters" and Faux Newz
get away with all their lies corruption.
I'd like to see big fines and jail time.

[KharmaTrain]

21. Fairness Never Had Anything To Do With Opinions

It strictly made sure candidates could get cheap broadcast time for their commercials and only came into play during election campaigns so that Candidate A who didn't have the money Candidate B did could still buy commercials and get on the air...albeit fewer commercials as there was no requirement on balancing...but at least the station was required to sell them air time and to do so at the lowest possible rate.

Fairness doctrine never covered talk radio...which is defined as "entertainment"...not political. It didn't cover News as that also was exempt as it would have made news gathering/reporting all but impossible if every time you did a story on Candidate A, you had to offer rebuttal time to Candidate B.

I worked with the doctrine in the 80's and not only was it a pain in the ass, but I was glad to see it gone.

[Road Scholar]

10. The problem with Fox News is that it IS NOT news and most of

those morans don't understand that. They say that's where they get their "news" . Fox shouldn't be able to present themselves to the public as news, but rather "political entertainment for morans".
If any media presents itself as news, then it should be closely scrutinized by an unbiased FCC as unbiased news or at least both sides presented.
It's true that Fox is killing us and what I can't understand is why some find this hard to understand.:shrug: :shrug: :shrug: :shrug: :shrug: :shrug: :shrug: :shrug:

[kywildcat]

15. Combat fox with the truth

the Truth always prevails. Always. When we stoop to propaganda, we lose the edge of truth that cuts through the lies.
When questioned or presented with 'well fox says' or any variation of this we respond with the truth 'that is nazi propaganda and has no place in civil discourse' and 'that is nazi propaganda, you diminish your argument using nazi propaganda'
call fox what it is. part of the propaganda machine that has led us to this state. Do not explain or justify. When the truth is spoken to those who refuse to see it, it creates a need to defend or justify. Do not be a part of it. Just repeat as necessary ' that is nazi propaganda....'

[No DUplicitous DUpe]

25. Agreed. Combat fox with the truth....

Maybe we could get a highly respected university (Yale?) to not allow
FoxNews as a source or reference for studies.

Start teaching the young adults the truth...the 30% of Americans
who trust FoxNews are a lost cause....But it's only 30%.

[LSdemocrat]

34. Agreed. Report the truth, even if it is biased.

All too often US media just reports what both sides say about something without giving a second thought to whether or not either side's statement was at all truthful.

Telling the truth is often different from being balanced.

[B Calm]

17. Only then would the right know what a liberal news is..

[patricia92243]

19. Won't hurt to at least try. All we could do is fall on our face - or find

out that this fills a void and should have been done years ago.

[Generarth]

20. ummmm but then you have to find

millions of dollars of advertising from firms that think like us. I hate to be a party poop er (eh Peter) but they don't exist or if they do they're too scared to put money where the brain is. I vote - other.

[G_j]

22. spreading lies is a lot worse than just being "bias"

and that is what FOX does.

so...NO

[Solon]

23. Yes, with one key difference...

no pretenses of objectivity. Hell I think most people would like to have a network that is HONEST for a change, like have a motto saying, "This is what the real LIBERAL media is like" or something catchier. :)

[cornermouse]

24. Fox is already discreditable so we should become

discreditable as well? Hello?

[Walt Starr]

27. If you showed the people what a truly liberal biased news channel was

they would see all the existing news channels as the rightwing whores they are.

[Douglas Carpenter]

28. Uncompromising journalism or just more spin: article from IWT

Independent World Television is building the world’s first global independent news network. Online and on TV, IWTnews will deliver independent news and real debate from professional and citizen journalists -– without funding from governments, corporations or commercial advertising.

http://www.iwtnews.com/



Paul Jay - IWTnews on Jul 26, 4:10pm.

link:

http://www.iwtnews.com/node/1291

"There have been a lot of questions on our blog and elsewhere about whether IWTnews is a “left-wing CNN.” In response to our recent Globe and Mail coverage, for example, one commenter wrote:

I'm seeing some contradictions here. This piece in the Globe seems to say you are left and happy about it. "Left-leaning non corporate antidote." Were you taken out of context? Yet throughout the BLOG you are claiming it is only the facts you are interested in.

In every interview I’ve given, I've made it clear that we are about uncompromising journalism.

We are not building Independent World Television to spin facts from the other direction.

We will not put any political agenda ahead of an honest inquiry into the facts. If we are to succeed in building a movement for democracy, then we need journalism that says "here's what our investigations have uncovered," and reports those findings regardless of whom it helps and hurts politically. That is the only way to build credibility.

We do have interests, principles, and beliefs. We state in our documents that we are for social justice and diversity of opinion. We believe the struggle for democracy must include the recognition that rights and equality are indivisible from an informed people.

We believe that people on many points of the political spectrum can support these aims.

To implement these objectives, we must report based on the facts as we know them. For example, in coverage of the recent bombings in London, IWTnews would have explored many facets of the story, starting from the following:

- Most experts agree that Al Qaeda is a religious movement with political objectives. Al Qaeda’s recent statements refer to specific political demands, key among those are ending the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan. They also refer to Anglo-American support for Arab regimes they consider anti-Muslim. Pre 9/11 statements from Al Qaeda referred to sanctions against Iraq that may have led to the death of more than half a million people.

Is there evidence that the London attacks were waged because of a hatred for Western values and society? Did British and American foreign policy motivate or contribute to them?

- Al Qaeda and Bin Laden say they fight for the freedom of Muslims. They considered the Taliban regime in Afghanistan to be a model Muslim state. Freedom in this case is defined as the right to treat women and others according to an extreme form of medieval Sharia law. Al Qaeda hopes to establish Taliban-like states throughout the Muslim world.

Does Al Qaeda fight primarily to defend Muslims, or for political power to enforce its own values and laws in Muslim countries?

- Al Qaeda’s attacks deliberately target civilians. Their documents defend these killings as “collateral damage” in a struggle against an aggressor. International law defines such attacks as war crimes and crimes against humanity.

How does Muslim public opinion react to these attacks?

- Did the invasion of Iraq create the conditions for Al Qaeda to unleash a wave of terror on the Iraqi people?

- After the Soviet Union’s invasion, it was President Carter who first armed religious extremists in Afghanistan and President Reagan who developed the policy further. President Clinton at first cooperated with and then did little to oppose the Taliban and Al Qaeda’s hold on that country. As far as we know, the current President Bush took no action against the Taliban or Al Qaeda before 9/11.

To promote “the war on drugs,” the Bush administration gave the Taliban $43 million in the spring of 2001. This was at a time when the US had been demanding the arrest and extradition of Bin Laden for the attacks on American embassies in Africa in 1998.

Why was US policy pre 9/11 not more directed at weakening the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan?

- The war in Iraq has been defined by Kofi Annan, General Secretary of the U.N., as illegal. What does this say about the legality of civillian deaths in this war?

Of course, to fully understand the London bombings, there are many other avenues of inquiry that must be pursued. The point is, would this kind of reporting be considered “left leaning?” Or just uncompromising journalism?

One can debate why these events happened, and people with different political interests and opinions will differ on this. But there are such things as facts.

We may not have a full understanding of a situation, and we may find what we thought were facts today, turn out not to be as true tomorrow. So we must keep an open mind, and allow investigated information to flow. This is why IWT will feature a great deal of debate between people who have a diversity of political views.

But the sun does not rotate around the earth, and when observation and inquiry lead to certain conclusions, we will have the courage and independence to say so.

Whatever the political leaning of those involved, IWT believes that facts trump preconceived ideas. We hope and intend to include in IWT all people who support these objectives."

Let’s just agree to pursue uncompromising journalism, and let the chips fall where they may.

Paul Jay
Chair, IWTnews




http://www.iwtnews.com/

[ContraBass Black]

29. No.

Lying and mindless drumbeating won't serve us.

[WritingIsMyReligion]

30. If we're going to complain about their bias, we'd better make sure

we don't have a biased news source of our own. 'Tis pure hypocrisy to do otherwise.

Lead by example.

[annabanana]

31. There is no such thing

Liberals don't broadcast lies

[sellitman]

33. Who said we would have too?

I believe a news network that was 100% truthful would be found to be Liberal in essence.