Suppose you could create a liberal version of Fox News.

[Eric J in MN]

If a billionaire told you he was starting a liberal version of Fox News and wanted your advice for the hosts, whom would you tell him to hire?

[Sannum]

1. Phil Donahue

I still miss his show from MSNBC. He was a voice of reason at the beginning of this terrible war.

[BrklynLiberal]

2. That was going to be my first choice!!! Now I will have to think of

someone else....

[imenja]

15. Keith Olbermann, Dan Rather

[Celeborn Skywalker]

3. Ed Shultz,

Mike Malloy,Keith Olbermann and Randi Rhodes for opinion shows, Aaron Brown as top "hard-news" anchor, and Frank Rich and Paul Krugman as top contributors.

[Sannum]

6. If only Frank Rich could get over his obsession about Mel Gibson...

It seems like every other week, his column revolves around Gibson in some way. I used to read it, but now I seem to skim and roll my eyes. I am no Gibson fan, but how long must he go on about the subject.:eyes:

[BrklynLiberal]

4. I would see if Bill Moyers would consider coming out of retirement....

and Arianna Huffington, Anna Quindlen, Ashleigh Banfield, Oriana Fallaci, Amy Goodman...just to balance all the men that are on all the other networks

[TaleWgnDg]

5. A "liberal version?" No, thanks. Nada. Nope. Zed. Zero.

A "liberal version?" No, thanks. Nada. Nope. Zed. Zero. Why do I say this? Why?

Because I want neither biased information that passes as "news" slanted toward rightwingnut nor biased toward leftie! Instead, I want news that's news. Reasonable. Rational. Objective. Non-biased. Non-discriminatory. News. Like it's supposed to be reported. As in Journalism 101. The news, news.

Who the hell wants to watch phoney so-called "news" which is laced with people's opinions, bias? Not I. Thankyouverymuch.


.

[BrklynLiberal]

7. Ain't gonna happen....altho, you would be more likely to get

a balanced view from what would be considered a liberal network than from the rightwingnut networks that exist out there now...

[TaleWgnDg]

8. "balanced view" is not what I stated nor implied . . .

A "balanced view" is not what I stated nor implied . . . because a "balanced view" means that it's two or more biased views and/or opinions presented. And that's not what I said.

Instead, what I said is that I want news that is void of all bias. Void of all opinions. Void of all discrimination. Void of everything but the facts of the event. P E R I O D.

This is what Walter Cronkite did. Cronkite did journalism 101. And this is what Jim Leher's NewsHour on PBS tries to continue. News. Meaning facts. However, whenever he presents an expanse of the news, it's then that he presents two or more sides of the events. However, Lehrer says it up front that's its the presenters views, opinions.

Sheesh. Has America devolved into ignorance? Not knowing what the hell is news (facts) and what the hell is opinion (bias, views, slanted stuff)? Yup. And thanks to 24/7s pushing crap opinions, screaming-heads, and so-called "news" passing as news and correct information.


.

[BrklynLiberal]

10. When I used the word "balanced" I truly meant "honest" since

I truly believe that we would not have to lie in our presentation of the news. The facts would speak for themselves...as they did with Walter Cronkite, and I believe that he was a "Liberal" journalist.
I do not believe that someone like Amy Goodman lies during her presentations of DemocracyNow! I do not believe that Bill Moyers lies or slants his presentations.

[TaleWgnDg]

11. Ah-ha! I see . . . what you mean now. And ty for telling me. n/t

[w4rma]

21. I think folks need to have events expained to them so that they might be

better able to understand the bigger picture. Right now there is *nowhere* on TV that someone can go to get that explanation. Most folks just want a straight explanation so they can get back to their lives. They don't want to spend hours and hours, searching through mountains of information in order to get a handle on why something happened.

[Moloch]

49. You are so right.

I like my news unbiased, which is why I read The New York Times.
They are balanced, which drives conservatives crazy.

[Paul Hood]

9. That's a tricky question,

a liberal version of something that lies ,distorts ,and manipulates.
I would tell him we don't need to be as dishonest because we have facts on our side. Then I would tell him to hire Eric Alterman to set the station up. Because he knows a lot more about media than I do.

[neweurope]

12. "liberal version of something that lies ,distorts ,and manipulates."

That's the problem in a nutshell, I think. In Germany the Left has tried to set up a number of newspapers over the years. They all failed - because they didn't lie, distort and manipulate, and because they tried to appeal to the intelligence of the readers instead of to their feelings. And even if they had tried to appeal to their feelings: The Conservatives over here appeal to the base ugly feelings like "hate strangers, get to the top of the ladder no matter what, search for scapegoats etc." - and these ugly instincts beat the good human feelings all people are capable of also every time. :cry:

[Skittles]

13. it is much, much easier to pander to ignorance than to intelligence

that's why the Greedy Old Pig party is so successful in getting people to vote against their own self-interests.

[shadowknows69]

14. I'd tell him to be unbiased and report the truth objectively

we don't need a partisan press. even if it's our side.

[imenja]

16. we do if we want to win back the white house or congress

It's crucial. The press is partisan. Either we play ball or consign ourselves to perpetual defeat. Information is power.

[shadowknows69]

19. yes it is.

but only unfiltered, non partisan skewed, "just the facts mamm", information is powerful enough. Report the news, shut up and go to the next story. I'm sick of umpteen "experts" dissecting every story for us and telling us what it means. How about giving people time to asorb the information and let their own brains work it out instead of engaging in mass media groupthink. I went to school for Journalism in 1990. Taught very pure, ethical, newsgathering/reporting by a very passionate professor who really drove home how important a free and unbiased press is to our very democracy. Today's news doesn't look or sound anything like what I learned. Ironically enough I was learning during the first Gulf War and collectively as a class I think we all realized we were watching a catalyst point for television news and possibly the death of pure journalism. Once big money realized, hey, people will watch CNN 24 hours a day given the right circumstances the corporate metamorphosis of reporting the news into presenting the news was on.

[imenja]

20. objective journalism

I agree with the sentiment of what you say, but I think you're really talking about news without a partisan, editorial bent. Objectivity is a myth. Which stories one chooses to report and which are excluded, where the story begins or ends, the language used, and many other factors are reflective of the reporter or producer's mindset, which can't help but be at least partly political in nature. I agree that truly fair and honest reporting is very important. (Balance, as you may or may not agree, can result in a distorted view of a subject by pretending both sides are equally valid). The problem is that the Right views fair news, NPR, PBS, and others, as "liberal media." Far too many people, including a member of my own family, refuse to consider anything in print on or on television (except for Fox) because they consider it liberal propaganda. I'm starting to think that since they insist the media, that I see as increasingly conservative and non-critical, are liberal, we might as well give them a truly liberal point of view. I expect the responders to this thread are speaking of something primarily entertainment-oriented (which is how I see Fox, Rush, and Air America) rather than a network designed to report hard news.

[KarenS]

17. Ha!! I agree with all the names posted above PLUS

Michael Moore to do the human interest kinds of stories



Com'on George Soros :) Let's get this ball rolling!!!



on edit:

I don't just want a "News Hour" or two I want a whole station.

I don't want lies & distortion ~ I want to see the uncomfortable stories reported ~ I want this administration and it's policies challenged.

I hate to call Air America & Ed Schultz 'Liberal' talk radio ~ because of the distortion implication.

[imenja]

18. Bill Maher and Jon Stewart

if were going for entertainment value, you can't beat them. They could also hire Darrel Hammond to do imitations. Funny how the comedic "fake news" often seems more truthful that mainstream news coverage.

[gorbal]

22. Forget about Cable

Internet is cheaper and easier anyway, and seeing as more people have internet than cable, it also has more of an audience.

If I want news, I just watch this-

http://www.democracynow.org/

(THe last episode is all Bill Moyers Talking, if you are interested)

And cspan has a searchable index on-line.

:)

[Eric J in MN]

23. The Democrats need both a cable and an internet presence.

While Bush is cutting education and planning cuts to Social Security, Fox News is distracting people with "Christmas Under Attack."

I want Paul Krugman interviewed about Social Security on cable news, not just on "Air America Radio."

Anyone know a bilionaire?

[gorbal]

32. I remember there was a poll

Somebody had a poll going earlier and they found out there were a few richies on here. Here richy richy richy.

;)

[Nay]

24. I don't want to see ANY of these liberal folks' faces on ANY

news broadcast from a new news station. I don't even want their names in the credits at the end of the show. I want them to write the news stories behind the scenes. The actual talking heads, and the news show's sets, should be glitzy, beautiful and catchy. The talking heads should be totally unknown, selected for their ability to look great and deliver lines in a totally professional manner.

The sets should be designed by people who know WTF they are doing. The talking heads should be clothed as if they are Saks models. The technology behind the production should be top-notch and state-of-the-art, and we should also hire unknown investigative reporters, photographers, and videographers to go get the news. EVERY newscast should have a hard-hitting, interesting, eye-catching story, or series of stories on the same subject, to grab people. We should grab certain attention-getting types of stories (like the story about the fundie woman who drowned her 5 poor little kids) and spin the hell out of it, slamming RW attitudes in every update. Let's not be subtle, let's not be shy. They aren't. We could have had updates about the church they went to, interviews with disaffected former members who would decry the attitudes that led to the mother not getting psych help, etc., etc. We don't go for the throat, and we are having our own throats torn out as a result.

In other words, we must actually try to appeal to the people who never pick up a book, never read an article, never saw a glittering object they didn't want, never saw a bandwagon they didn't want to jump on.

If you produce a granola/Volvo/latte version of the news, no one will watch. Your main aim should be to get people to watch, using whatever techniques work. Then, the news you deliver will actually be delivered to the audience you want to convince. If we continue to moan about how dumb and herdlike people are without simply accepting that fact and running with it, we are dead. We can educate them AFTER we get them on our side.

[Eric J in MN]

25. On Fox News, the women are good-looking, but the men aren't

(except for Sean Hannity, whom I don't usually compliment)

[Nay]

26. BOTH sexes on our station will be stunners. Equal opportunity

and all that, you know. We should encourage our talking heads of both sexes to develop groupies, give autographs, etc.

[Eric J in MN]

28. Is Keith Olbermann handsome enough, or do you mean handsomer? nt

nt

[Eric J in MN]

27. On MSNBC, Deborah Norville was getting the lowest ratings.

Keith Olbermann is handsome.

But Deborah Norville is much better looking than Chris Matthews or Joe Scarborough, who also got higher ratings.

[gorbal]

29. You have a point!

Yeah, I think you guys are right about the cable network now.

Just remember we aren't dealing with "dumb" people as much as we are appealing to busy people or old people, like the retired father of my employer. He actually liked Howard Dean because he was a straight talker, but then he voted for Bush over Kerry. "Why" You might ask? Because he had absolutely know idea what Kerry was about.

There is no point in appealing to the religious right, they have made their decision. But don't give people who are looking something real more of the same "fake". Many that voted for Bush have never heard of Amy Goodman or Bill Moyers.

[Eric J in MN]

30. John Kerry's statements were summarized by CNN instead

of their showing him delivering the speech.

That's why we need a cable news network.

[gorbal]

31. But in replying to an earlier post by (someone)

People will still watch if we have some well known liberal faces on SOME shows. You will have a guaranteed audience that way. There ARE alot of us out there.

People aren't stupid, we might as well be honest from the get go. The biased will not watch becasue they are biased from the beginning, the road to convincing them is longer. The relatively unbiased (which is most of america by the way) will watch if it is entertaining and if they feel they trust or like the people involved.

I guess I'm sick of liberals in general pretending they are republicans.

[Nay]

33. I understand your reluctance to "pretend to be republican" --

but it's my contention that the broadcast visual media, by its very nature, is more powerful and more attractive to the human being than any printed media, even printed photos. It is not an R or a D thing. This leads to certain realities that we are seeing right now -- people get nearly all their news and information from mainstream TV. Most people watch so much TV (hours a day) that they are unconsciously programmed by what they see. They unconsciously adopt the views that this powerful medium broadcasts to them every day. They vote for the person who baldly feeds back to them the platitudes they are used to hearing, and the deed is done. Because Dems are reluctant to use such blatant psyops techniques that are part and parcel of the nature of TV, we have fallen way behind the Pubs, who saw its potential immediately over 25 years ago.

Perhaps instead of saying people are "stupid" I should say that their blind spots, psychological weaknesses, and emotional vulnerabilities are easily exploited. They always have been, but never until TV has there been a medium that so completely invades the human mind, nor have we had the "benefit" of the development of advertising, propaganda, etc., as scientifically researched tools in the past.

Waiting for TV to reform itself is useless -- it cannot. It is what it is, and thinking it can be something else is foolish. Waiting for the Repubs to stop being manipulative propagandists is also useless. Why would they stop doing something that works so well? Waiting for people to wake up and start reading is useless -- most of those who can read don't like to, and even big readers watch TV. TV grabs the literate, the semiliterate, the illiterate, everyone. It establishes the baseline attitudes in our society.

So, we do have to bring the biased and complacent alike into the orbit of our new news station, by using the unique (though distasteful) attributes of TV -- and by not pretending that they don't exist.

[BrklynLiberal]

34. DAVID BROCK would be the one to counter the rightwing bullcrap.

He could be the one to come on screen every day and match them truth-for-lie...one-for-one every day...

[American Tragedy]

35. Me.

I need a job desperately, and I bitch about politics all the time for free anyway.

[Eric J in MN]

39. Do you have a nice speaking voice? (nt)

nt

[American Tragedy]

47. Good question.

Actually, upon hearing my own voice on tape, I was pretty dismayed, like "Do I really sound like that? Is that what other people hear when I talk?" But that's apparently a fairly common experience.

Maybe I could do some behind-the-scenes work.

[Arkansas Gazette]

36. If only Will Rogers could be cloned!

[newyawker99]

37. Hi Arkansas Gazette!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[Eric J in MN]

38. How about Jim Hightower?

http://www.jimhightower.com/air/

[seabeyond]

40. liberals calling repug names, lying calling it journalism.......?

why would we want a liberal fox. between fox, limbaugh and coulters of the world, we are creating a real ugly. to have a liberal version to yell at call names and tell stories, lies.............doesnt appeal to me

i would rather some sense come back in htis world where the fox isnt appealing and popular and able to make it on tv

[Eric J in MN]

41. I don't want lies. But as long as Fox News is popular

we need a pro-Democratic cable news channel to balance it.

[Flammable Materials]

42. The "Fox News" model is evil, regardless of the viewpoint plugged into it.

<eom>

[Flammable Materials]

43. On the other hand ...

We're fucked anyway with another four years of Bush, so ... what the hell.

[Eric J in MN]

45. I'm not advocating lying.

But as Fox News uses flattering video of Bush and unflattering video of Kerry,

this hypothetical channel could show unflattering video of Bush and flattering video of Kerry,

[orpupilofnature57]

44. Micheal Moore, Jon Stewart, Bill Maher, Tim Robbins, robin Williams

DUer's would be great,messenger doesn't really matter as much as a intelligent view.

[Eric J in MN]

46. Tim Robbins would be good,, along with the others you mentioned.

I could easily picture Tim Robbins as tv news show host.

[hfojvt]

48. Don't we already have CBS news?

Ha Ha Ha.
I told a funny.

[American_Liberal08]

50. haha!

Lol, your funny made me chuckle...

I would suggest someone like Al franken, he's good at one liners and zingers but he can get tiring to look at.