The numbers for the cable news networks are tiny. I think that needs to be understood. ie, O'Reilly has a very small share. I wouldn't want to claim there isn't  a machine there that doesn't influence other  media outlets. I just want to point out what you maybe seeing are magnifiers of an entire system rather than one cable channel.  I guess this obvious, but the question becomes how does one combat an entire aparatus and whether a single liberal leaning network can overcome 30 years of ground work by the Republicans- to not only have a Fox but also AM radio, newspapers, and their influence over MSM such that MSM is so in need of seeming objective that it will accept any old lie from the right or fear being called "liberal." I am not sure capital is a enough to overcome the entrenched forces at play.

Is why every time there's any hint of an issue, the GOP has 17 people on every talk show all on point, making their points quickly, with good on-camera presence. Meanwhile, Dems have few on the talkshows, and the ones on are all over the place on message, and  I and half the Blogosphere could make their arguments better. The GOP must be putting resources into media training and staffing a rapid response for cable news that we aren't. My question is why?

Also, I never thought I'd miss Tweety, but man, that Nora O'Donnel lady belongs on Fox. No agenda there...

Where is George Soros when we need him?  I think a progressive news network would do really well, since all 3 of the existing ones are trying to outFox each other.  CNN will continue to crumble following this ill-advised strategy.  

he lays out quite a compelling argument for media as the driving force in voter's decisions.

So, who's for starting the Anti-Fox?

I wrote after the 2004 election that Fox News was the winner of that election, too.
http://www.makethemaccountable.com/artic les/And_the_winner_is.htm

And I've been saying for five years that we need a progressive media strategy.  I wrote a proposal for MoveOn.org last year that went nowhere.
http://makethemaccountable.com/caro/Prog ressive_Media_Strategy.pdf

Carolyn Kay
MakeThemAccountable.com

There is a reason Air America isn't booming, most liberals don't want thier news digested for them...

I use Reuters, C-SPAN, the AP-wire, and then check magazines online like washingtonpost, nytimes...to get a sense of the community I check blogs like dailykos, mydd, etc

I don't need or want anything else, I already know everything about the issues I want to know, conservatives can stand to sit there in their cars and listen to Rush say the same thing over and over...I can't, when i hear Franken talk about Iraq problems for the 1000th time, I don't want to hear it anymore I already read the daily Iraq report off the wire, nothing else happened and I don't need their opinion...if a story is going unreported, ill check the blogs for it, I don't need some guy on the radio to tell me for 3 hours about it, and I sure as hell don't need to sit infront of a television and listen to Paul Begala tell me what I already know...thats why I couldn't stand Crossfire

My TV is also my computer--the video card has a TV tuner built into it. Over a year ago I deleted Fox from the channel line-up, so I don't "accidentally" have to see it while channel surfing. I can still select it manually, by punching in its number, but I do that only every couple of months, to remind myself of why I deleted it. It only takes a minute or less to find out why.

Yes, we need our own version of Fox, from a progressive and--more to the point--competent, substantial and honest perspective. The other news outlets are hardly that these days. Even PBS's News HOur (which few people watch) has slanted rightward in recent years, inviting far more right-wing than left-wing guests.

This would obviously require a TV channel and lots of investment capital. George Soros, are you reading this? However, I'm guessing that quite a few progressives would be willing to invest in it if enough seed capital was provided by someone like him. And it could easily steal talent from the other news outlets. There are still a few decent journalists out there languishing in the land of fluff news.

And, at this point, I also suspect that it would have quite a few viewers. Even the mainstream public is starting to realize that it's being lied to and wants something closer to the truth at this point. If it made sure to be genuinely "fair and balanced" and have real (i.e. honest) conservatives on in addition to real (i.e. courageous) liberals on, I think it could even attract viewers from the middle and right.

It's about the content, stupid.

I have felt this way for a long time.  

The bigger question is what can we do to make this happen?

"...especially if you have children of impressionable age"

HAHHAHAHAHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

So funny, so sad, so true.

I wrote about this question the day after the 2004 election.  See PressThink,  Are We Headed for an Opposition Press?

At some point between now and 2008, either MSNBC or CNN may break off from the pack and decide to become the liberal alternative to Fox, thus freeing Fox to find a more frankly ideological formula, as well. During the conventions the logic of this move became evident. The single most shocking moment for television news people came in late summer when Fox won the ratings for the Republican convention, the first time a cable channel had defeated the broadcast networks in that competition. Everyone realized at once the power of GOP-TV and how much sense that system--the more partisan system--made. (Like a political party, FOX has a base and it reaches out for other viewers, knowing it cannot alienate the base.) If one of the other cable channels goes left, will the remaining networks that are "unaligned" stand pat, go left, or hook right? Big question.

The logic was self-evident, but it was important for mainstream journalists to deny it, and to put the idea down.  (I believe they would do the same today.)  David Shaw, media critic for the LA Times, wrote a column arguing against me.  See Two Replies to David Shaw...:

"Both the American in me and the journalist in me hope Rosen is dead wrong." Shaw argues against having a liberal news network that would compete with Fox. He says my suggestions to that effect would be terrible for journalism and democracy. MSNBC and CNN agree: terrible!

It's important to realize that Shaw (he died this year) was a liberal, and he hated the idea.  And he got juicy quotes from cable news execs who hated it too.

Finally, I discussed this whole subject just yesterday on Young Turks with Cenk Uygur and Ben Mankiewicz.  (Listen here; it's about halfway through the mp3.)

Excuse me Calude, but this website his not a vehicle for anti-semitism, please take your crap elsewhere, thanks.

Yes, we need to build up our own media infrastructure, but we also need an explicit program to change the way the media in general works in this country.

Here's an example to chew on:

"If all we do is fight defensive battles, the best we'll ever be able to hope for is that things won't get any worse. But that's not enough," says Sanders. "What we need is an agenda to make things better."

What are the pieces of that agenda?

They suggest:

1. A renewed look at antitrust initiatives;

2. Caps on media ownership that are considered appropriate for a democracy, including rolling back the number of radio stations a single firm can own and prohibiting media cross-ownership and vertical integration.

3. Reinvigorate the regulatory process through increased citizen challenges of the licenses of local broadcast outlets on grounds of lack of local coverage, a lack of diversity, excessive indecency and violence, or for other concerns important to the community.

4. Expansion of access by not-for-profit groups to low-power FM radio-station licenses, and tax incentives for development of new, community-based, noncommercial broadcasting outlets.

5. Funding for public broadcasting must expand dramatically to provide a model of quality journalism and diversified cultural programming.

7. Broadcasters must be forced to give candidates free air time.

8. Media conglomerates must not be allowed to impose their will on the United States and other countries via international trade deals that undermine the ability of Congress to aid public broadcasting and protect media diversity and competition.

9. Media reformers must support the struggle to expand access to the airwaves and to assure that independent and innovative journalists, writers and filmmakers have the resources to create media that reflect all of America.

I would add:

10. Bring back the fairness doctrine

These kinds of reforms are unquestionably in the public interest. Not only that, they help further progressive politics by making it much more difficult if not impossible for the kind of right-wing biased programming we have seen from Fox News, Sinclair Broadcasting Company, and Clear Channel Radio to continue unchecked.

Just as the cry of right-wing activists used to be "de-fund the left," we need to use the regulatory power of the state to "de-program the right."

This should be a fundamental part of our agenda, both short-term and long-term, right alongside raising the minimum wage, campaign finance reform, and the rest of it.

Claude, are your comments a joke?

The solution to pursuing a progressive agenda is not communism. We need real strategy, not nut jobbery.

1. The part of the study cited demonstrates correlation, but not cause and effect. It would be great if Jonathan or someone could post a link to the full study. The Fox folks would argue that their views mirror the American public's and not the other way around (i.e. does Fox immitate life, or life immitates Fox.) My intuition says that Fox probably does indeed push its viewers to the right, but I would like to see if the data actually proves this.
2. Implementing a progressive news network presents a Catch-22. Being a good progressive involves doing the right thing. So, if you put one of us in charge of a news network we would feel obligated to present all sides of a story. Especially since real progressive don't like other people digesting the news for them (I think someone else said this above.) What we would end up with would probably resemble the news on PBS or NPR; high quality journalism with a tiny audience.
3. Most people watching Fox News don't even recognize the right-wing bias. They're too distracted by the zippy graphics and easy to understand language. Essentially, the production quality of Fox news is more appealing than the other networks. It's just too bad that CNN and the others don't realize that they could emulate Fox's slick production quality without copying its conservative rhetoric. Kind of reminds me of Democrats that are so jealous of the recent Republican success, they think the answer is to be more like Republicans.
4. The progressive movement does have its own media outlet. It's called the Internet. We're just a few years ahead of our time. Everyone I know under age 30 gets 90% of their news from the net and not MSM. We're probably better off promoting CommonDreams than starting another TV network.