Gore Eyeing Liberal Cable Network, Magazine Says

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

Naw, one is cable and one was radio.

[Guest The Czech Republic]

I tihnk the fundamental error in liberal-oriented broadcasting is they don't draw in people because they can't piss people off as well as conservatives. Rush and Hannity attract the conservatives, but they get the liberals to listen because you know they won't like what they hear, and they'll call in to say something about it. Most liberals just can't get the right's panties in a knot enough to appeal to both sides the way conservative talk radio does. That's why Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity are top syndicated programs, and NPR struggles to stay afloat.

[Guest Vyce]

Yes. The media is very liberal.

I'm glad we finally agree on something.

 

Notice there is no sarcasm in my tone.

 

Oh, and to any liberals out there: of COURSE you don't see any bias in CNN.

[Guest JMA]

Oh, and to any liberals out there: of COURSE you don't see any bias in CNN.

DrTom, a consevative (mre or less) has said that CNN is more moderate now. Just try comparing Crossfire to Hannity and Colmes. CNN IS more moderate than Fox News. h, and anoher reason people lke Rush and Hannity get so many viewers is because they're so over the top and crazy. That and they suck up to the blue-collar part of America with "good ol' family values." Ugh.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

The liberal media myth is one of the most absurd notions in all of politics. Stations are out to get ratings, not push their political agenda...

 

Not to mention the scandal politics following Clinton, as contrasted to the lack of any rampant calls for impeachment due to any of Bush's wrongdoings (i.e. Harken).

[Guest Vern Gagne]

DrTom, a consevative (mre or less) has said that CNN is more moderate now. Just try comparing Crossfire to Hannity and Colmes. CNN IS more moderate than Fox News.

More moderate doesn't mean they still don't have a bias at times.

 

What about Crossfire. Are we supposed to believe that it's some moderate show?

 

A liberal bias does exist. The network news (especially ABC), CNN, The New York Times, LA Times, and NPR which reaches more listeners for a longer period than Rush or Hannity. When 90% of people in the media say they voted Democrat, it's almost inpossible not to have a bias.

[Guest JMA]

More moderate doesn't mean they still don't have a bias at times.

 

What about Crossfire. Are we supposed to believe that it's some moderate show?

 

A liberal bias does exist. The network news (especially ABC), CNN, The New York Times, LA Times, and NPR which reaches more listeners for a longer period than Rush or Hannity. When 90% of people in the media say they voted Democrat, it's almost inpossible not to have a bias.

Crossfire IS a moderate show. It's completly equal. I still don't buy into the "liberal bias" BS. People have built stereotypes around liberals and thus people believe there is a bias. For example, if you are accepting of homosexually you will sometimes be called a "godless liberal." But many conservatives also are accepting of homosexually. And BTW, having a Democratic bias is not the same as having a liberal bias.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

I've heard this same "90% of the reporters are registered Democrats" bull too damned much. That doesn't mean they're all ideologues, or even that they KNOW A DAMNED THING about politics. That just means they vote (or don't; I sincerely doubt most of them do) Democrat or even have an agenda.

[Guest MrRant]

We all know that liberal reporters have an agenda.

 

They are liberals... that's what they do.

Edited June 22, 2003 by MrRant

[Guest JMA]

We all know that this liberal reporters have an agenda.

 

Their liberals... that's what they do.

"They're" not "their."

 

We're also very good at correcting conservatives on their mistakes.

[Guest MrRant]

I'm not a conservative.

 

[Guest JMA]

I'm not a conservative.

 

I never said you were (although I may have implied it).

 

[Guest MrRant]

Liberals and their race to judgement.

[Guest JMA]

Liberals and their race to judgement.

Closeted conservatives...

[Guest Hogan Made Wrestling]

Honestly, everyone I know in Canada thinks CNN is conservative rah-rah-USA propoganda. The only people I ever hear calling it liberal are conservatives in the US. Personally I think it's a pretty objective station and a hell of a lot better than most coverage in both the US and Canada.

[Guest MrRant]

Speaking of Canada... I occasionally watch the Canada Now broadcasts on CBUT and it seems like half of the news is US news. Does nothing happen in Canada to fill up a half hour?

[Guest treble charged]

Canadian news broadcasts tend to feature a lot of international news, and, well, a lot of international news takes place in or involves the US.

[Guest Hogan Made Wrestling]

Speaking of Canada... I occasionally watch the Canada Now broadcasts on CBUT and it seems like half of the news is US news. Does nothing happen in Canada to fill up a half hour?

Not enough stuff to fill up an informative news broadcast. They could start loading it up with personal interest stories and other garbage, but there's no way I'd watch that and I'm sure many others wouldn't either. It's bad enough that the Canadian media always have to try and add some sort of "Canadian" content to the story. I watch US news channels for news because it comes faster and features less fluff to fill the time.

[Guest kkktookmybabyaway]

It's bad enough that the Canadian media always have to try and add some sort of "Canadian" content to the story.

That's one of the first things they teach you in Journalism school -- localize any story when possible. Personally, I think this rule is dumb myself. Instead of writing a story you have to think of some way it affects your local community (or country, as the case may be)...

[Guest The Czech Republic]

It's bad enough that the Canadian media always have to try and add some sort of "Canadian" content to the story.

Does Canada's equivalent of our FCC require at least one Canadian citizen on camera for a broadcast, and a certain minimum of "exclusive Canadian content" within a program? I know that this applies when American companies are cheap and film/videotape programs in Toronto or Vancouver. I remember Let's Make A Deal reruns on the Family Channel that were taped in those cities, but since Monty Hall was host and he's from Canada, the program was okay to be produced there while still broadcasted here.

[Guest TheMikeSC]

Not to spam the thread, but let's not forget the utter lack of coverage about the FCC's consolidation efforts. That's a huge liberal issue right now, and how much airtime did it get?

 

Uh, none.

 

How much air time have ANY of the democratic candidates recieved on the so-called "mainstream media" outlets?

 

None.

Well, FCC consolidation got little play because, believe it or not, MOST PEOPLE DO NOT CARE ONE IOTA.

 

And how many Dem candidates get serious air time?

 

Why, about as much as Repub candidates got in 96 and 2000 before the primaries.

-=Mike

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

Well, FCC consolidation got little play because, believe it or not, MOST PEOPLE DO NOT CARE ONE IOTA.

 

And I'm sure they'd care a little more if they knew a damned thing about it. Giving it airtime might be a little better way to inform the public about it.

 

And how many Dem candidates get serious air time?

 

Why, about as much as Repub candidates got in 96 and 2000 before the primaries.

 

Hell, more people knew the candidates in those years than they know this year.

[Guest TheMikeSC]

Well, FCC consolidation got little play because, believe it or not, MOST PEOPLE DO NOT CARE ONE IOTA.

 

And I'm sure they'd care a little more if they knew a damned thing about it. Giving it airtime might be a little better way to inform the public about it.

 

And how many Dem candidates get serious air time?

 

Why, about as much as Repub candidates got in 96 and 2000 before the primaries.

 

Hell, more people knew the candidates in those years than they know this year.

1) Giving air time isn't going to make a soul care one little bit. People didn't care when AOL and T-W merged and that was, I believe, the biggest media merger in history. People just don't care about this stuff, sorry to burst your bubble.

 

2) There were, I think, 7 Repub candidates in both 1996 and 2000. I doubt I could name more than 3 of them --- and I am a conservative. I think Lamar Alexander and Alan Keyes were in both. Throw in Bob Dole and George Bush for their respective years and I'm really not sure I can name one other person in those races.

 

Ineffective primary candidates --- which the Dem field is LADEN with --- don't get much press coverage --- just as the GOP didn't in '96 or 2000.

-=Mike

[Guest TheMikeSC]

More moderate doesn't mean they still don't have a bias at times.

 

What about Crossfire. Are we supposed to believe that it's some moderate show?

 

A liberal bias does exist. The network news (especially ABC), CNN, The New York Times, LA Times, and NPR which reaches more listeners for a longer period than Rush or Hannity. When 90% of people in the media say they voted Democrat, it's almost inpossible not to have a bias.

Crossfire IS a moderate show. It's completly equal. I still don't buy into the "liberal bias" BS. People have built stereotypes around liberals and thus people believe there is a bias. For example, if you are accepting of homosexually you will sometimes be called a "godless liberal." But many conservatives also are accepting of homosexually. And BTW, having a Democratic bias is not the same as having a liberal bias.

So, "Crossfire" is "moderate" --- but Hannity and Colmes and O'Reilly Factor --- both of which feature basically the identical format --- are not?

 

Interesting.

 

There is a difference between "accepting" something and APPROVING of it.

-=Mike

[Guest JMA]

So, "Crossfire" is "moderate" --- but Hannity and Colmes and O'Reilly Factor --- both of which feature basically the identical format --- are not?

 

Interesting.

 

There is a difference between "accepting" something and APPROVING of it.

Hannity and Colmes was Sean's show from the start. Before Colmes was chosen (by Hannity, no joke) the show was called Hannity and Liberal to be named later. Bill O'Reilly is simply a conservative who tries to have it both ways. Watch Crossfire and H and C and TELL ME you don't see a differance.

[Guest TheMikeSC]

So, "Crossfire" is "moderate" --- but Hannity and Colmes and O'Reilly Factor --- both of which feature basically the identical format --- are not?

 

Interesting.

 

There is a difference between "accepting" something and APPROVING of it.

Hannity and Colmes was Sean's show from the start. Before Colmes was chosen (by Hannity, no joke) the show was called Hannity and Liberal to be named later. Bill O'Reilly is simply a conservative who tries to have it both ways. Watch Crossfire and H and C and TELL ME you don't see a differance.

I see no difference. No difference exists.

 

Verbal masturbation is verbal masturbation.

-=Mike

[Guest JMA]

I see no difference. No difference exists.

 

Verbal masturbation is verbal masturbation.

-=Mike

The difference is HANNITY and Colmes, The O'Reilly Factor, and pretty much all Fox News shows are geered towards conservative Republicans. While Crossfire may engage in A LOT of spin, it is far more moderate than Hannity and Colmes. CNN in particular is moderate (although it wasn't always). I can honestly say that I would prefer a moderate channel over a liberal one.

[Guest TheMikeSC]

I see no difference. No difference exists.

 

Verbal masturbation is verbal masturbation.

                          -=Mike

The difference is HANNITY and Colmes, The O'Reilly Factor, and pretty much all Fox News shows are geered towards conservative Republicans. While Crossfire may engage in A LOT of spin, it is far more moderate than Hannity and Colmes. CNN in particular is moderate (although it wasn't always). I can honestly say that I would prefer a moderate channel over a liberal one.

They have voices for one side, voices for the other side, and let them spank their verbal monkeys. Neither one is "better" than the other.

=Mike

[Guest Vern Gagne]

I see no difference. No difference exists.

 

Verbal masturbation is verbal masturbation.

                           -=Mike

The difference is HANNITY and Colmes, The O'Reilly Factor, and pretty much all Fox News shows are geered towards conservative Republicans. While Crossfire may engage in A LOT of spin, it is far more moderate than Hannity and Colmes. CNN in particular is moderate (although it wasn't always). I can honestly say that I would prefer a moderate channel over a liberal one.

They have voices for one side, voices for the other side, and let them spank their verbal monkeys. Neither one is "better" than the other.

=Mike

All those cable new shows do nothing for me. Like Mike said, it's just 2 people who opposing sides. Telling everyone how much the other side sucks. Where does that really get us?

[Guest Hogan Made Wrestling]

Republican candidates from the last two elections aside from the ones already mentioned, off the top of my head:

 

Candidates from 1996: Steve Forbes, Pat Buchanan.

 

Candidates from 2000: Gary Bauer, Orin Hatch.

 

If you want something amusing, get one of the really early republican debates from 2000. Gary Bauer goes on a rant against George W. Bush accusing him of having the same platform as Clinton with regards to China and how the republicans are Reagan's party and should never have a soft position on China. It's pretty funny in hindsight.