If CNN is trying to pander to get ratings, why don't they pander LEFT?

[MallRat]

As the events of the past couple of years have shown, there's big money to be made on the left side of the political spectrum.

So, if CNN/Time Warner/AOL's major objective is the bottom line and advertising revenue, why are they trying to out-fox Fox itself?

Isn't there HUGE money to be made by pandering to the left?

-MR

[doctorbombeigh]

1. They're corporate - there is no left.

[LiberalTechie1337]

20. there is no left for them?

sure there is... they consider the left to be people like John McCain and Zell Miller

[GOPisEvil]

2. We're not in power. Yet.

News people crave access to those in power. Simply put, there are more of them in power than there are of us. For now.

[Walt Starr]

They are pandering to their corporate stockholders

The Saudis.

[underpants]

3. Yes and I don't know why they wouldn't

There obviously is an unserved market out there for liberals.

[StClone]

4. I can't figure that out either

Unless the owners are rabid wingers.

[Walt Starr]

6. The owners are SAUDIS

Kinda explains the shit now, huh?

[Caution]

9. link?

first time i have ever heard this...please give more info.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

5. They aren't trying to pander to get ratings.

They are trying to use rightwing propaganda to influence the election.

[Junkdrawer]

18. Look at what they pay Limbaugh vs. what his show makes...

That should tell you something.

[tom_paine]

7. The Virtual Reality created by Goebbels v2.0 discourages them

from doing that. I cannot say I understand the specifics of it, but anyone who understands Corporate Lines of Influence can easily envision it.

Simply put, the option you mention is likely DISALLOWED, from the Corproate Heads who would rather DIE than provide such a forum (yet have no problem providing the Lying Deceptive Bushevik Pravda they already do), to the Sea Changes in Polling, Jopurnalistsic "Ethics" and regulations that make it unprofitable to spend more time getting the facts right vs. the Lazy Blastfax-Repeating and Story Clusterfucking that allows for Rapid Response and Cheap Turnover.

[pop goes the weasel]

8. I've been talking to friends about this

And we've concluded that advertisers think the Left isn't as easy a marketing target as the Right. They want to appeal to consumers based solely on crass materialism and Pavlovian reflex, and they apparently think they will find more people like that on the Right. Conservatives ought to be angry that commercial television thinks so little of them.

(edited for grammar)

[shraby]

10. Follow the money....

find out which campaign they donated to.

[Cleita]

11. Because it isn't about money. It's about power. CNN

was purchased, I believe, to act as a propaganda outlet for the PNAC and Carlyle Group. Since Australian tabloid king, Ruppert Murdoch, owns FOX it's no surprise that news is nothing more than entertainment to him and he will present it anyway it generates profit. He is also a right winger so the news will always be biased and anti-liberal on FOX.

None of these outlets have a shred of journalistic integrity left. I really wish someone would come along like the late Edward Murrow and hopefully, he would be in a powerful enough of a position to fix this mess.

[in_cog_ni_to]

12. The RW corporations own our media.

We will have leverage ONLY after Kerry is in office. It's called "Denial of Access." They will have no choice but to cover Dems FAIRLY, after November.

[hatrack]

13. Because they might lose the access they don't currently have

That, and of course it's cheaper to do press-release "journalism" than it is to actually get out and scratch around for stories.

Why cover issues in a substantive way when somewhere in the flyover states there's an attractive missing white woman (preferably pregnant) just waiting for breathless, endless coverage?

[Selwynn]

14. BECAUSE CORPORATIONS ARE NOT LEFT.

[billbuckhead]

15. You know all those free CD's AOL sends out in the mail?

For years AOL counted these free CD's on their books as an asset. The whole Time Warner AOL merger scam couldn't take a close inspection.

[rman]

16. they pander to their owners

big corporations
www.takebackthemedia.org

their objective is to be a propaganda tool for their owners
www.outfoxed.org

manufacturing consent
www.zmag.org/chomsky/mc

[DeepModem Mom]

17. Surprising political contributions by Time Warner bigwigs --

Thanks to actappan for posting information that led to this search. Record of contributions comes from www.fundrace.org .


Time Warner Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Richard Parsons: Bush, $2,000

Jeffrey L. Bewkes, Chairman, Entertainment & Networks Group, which includes CNN: Kerry, $2,000

Board members on the site:

James Barksdale: Bush, $2,000
Stephen Bollenbach: Clark, $2,000
Stephen Case: Bush, $2,000
Frank Caufield: Kerry, $2,000
Miles Gilburne: DNC, $12,500; Clark, $2,000; Dean, $2,000; Gephardt, $2,000; Kerry, $2,000
Carla Hills: Bush, $2,000
Kenneth Novack: DNC, $30,000; Kerry, $2,000
Francis T. Vincent: Bush, $2,000


Financial information about Time Warner can be found at this link, provided by actappan: http://money.cnn.com/news/companies/research/research.h ...


I have no idea what, if anything, all this tells us about CNN's recent sharp turn to the right. (It would be interesting to have a conversation with Mr. Bewkes.)

[Sparrow]

19. The SAME reason why Kerry doesn't.

nobody gives a shit about us.

[Lexingtonian]

21. They pander Right and to Southern whites

There is probably more money to be made in pandering to the dumbnut Right- prejudices and uninformedness make people easier to dupe, and senile rich people (the ultimate marks) in this country tend to be white and Rightwingers. And they get brand name hooked- liberals see/know the con game to it and don't play along as nicely. In short, playing to the Right gets you more desirable customers- the kind that has fierce prejudices but once you get past those, very easy to con.

CNN is also on a 'mission' to provide a provincialist alternative to the relatively cosmopolitan corporate news being produced in New York (the Big Three, and Fox- though Fox plays Southern too). That is nice in some ways- Lynn Russell was the Southern Belle par excellence- and horrible in others- Judy Woodruff is the toadie faux Southern Belle bleach blonde 'thing'. Those (to me) unwatchable male anchors are also kinda regional taste and character spectrum (they strike me as so transparently slimey).

[redqueen]

22. Not about ratings.

It's about cash. Not our cash that we spend ourselves, but the loot they can get by bending the laws in their favor. War is good for business, and so is lassiez faire legislation, neither of which Democrats are historically known for (despite their recent transformation).

Check http://www.takebackthemedia.com/owners.html for some links where you can see who owns the media.