Already exists.
Here are my picks.
5 to 6 pm round table with people like Guy Benson, Jesse Watters, Tammy Bruce, Mollie Hemingway, Gianno Caldwell, Kevin Jackson, Lisa Boothe, Eric Bolling (yes, Eric Bolling), ok we'll let Greg Gutfeld too. 6 to 7 pm Tucker Carlson 7 to 8 pm Lou Dobbs 8 to 9 pm Hannity 9 to 10 pm Laura Ingraham 10 to 11 pm Shannon Bream
Guest hosts of weekend specials would include people like Marc Levin, David Asman, Maria Bartiromo, and others like Victor David Hanson et al.
Maybe after he leaves office.
Randy Quaid reading President Trump tweets.
That’s FOX News
I’d subscribe to cable for the first time in my life for a channel like this.
Make it Happen!
I thought that’s what ABCNNBCBS was.................
Take Breitbart, make it audatious like WWE, then put pace, graphics, and sounds on steroid overload. That’s how I visualize Trump News Channel.
Already exists.
Sure, but I’d also enjoy watching a straight up news channel without any bias...liberal or conservative. Like we haven’t had since...well probably forever...but maybe Edward R. Murrow or Hugh Downs?
There is a need for some programs like Tucker Carlson Tonight or the old Bill O’Reilly show which pit liberal vs. conservative because they do a good job of exposing fallacious arguments and spin. But the “guests” should be rotated frequently rather than relying on the same “go-to” spokespersons for both side. I cannot tell you how many good segment of Tucker I have inadvertently missed because I’ve stabbed the MUTE button the instant the execrable Richard Goodstein’s mug appears. Not only does he recite DNC talking points ad nauseum, but having the same people every night gets boring.
The FEC allowed uber-liberal Disney to gobble up Fox News,
...but at the same time, would not allow conservative Sinclair Broadcasting to increase its number of stations by purchasing Tribune.
The censorship continues!
Work Dan Bongino in there somewhere.
a couple of thoughts. There are a group of young people that followed the trump rallies on you tube live streaming. They went by RSBN” or something ( Help me ere) any way I watched that all the time. IO have amazon firestick for my big TV and sound system. You can access Foxfire as an AOO. Then you gou to YOUTUBE and get anything on big screen. That group was largely ignored by Trump but they worked on donations and dids a great job. They had a news talk guy but it flopped. They could handle what you are talking about . All it takes is money.
My second thought is the ONE AMERICA NEWS NETWORK, They are wonderful on straight news but they are missing the Talk end of it and the celebrity end of it. I don’t understand the financial dynamics here but they should have Bill O’ Reilly and Gretta already over there to draw crowds and guests. They are so boring and just run loops now with what looks like journalism students getting minimum wage./= It is all about money but some one can make millions my remaking that boring channel. Anyway ,I agree with your premise,
Why “not for profit”? There is nothing wrong with making a profit. My 4 principles of Capitalism are 1. Customer Service. 2. Make a profit. 3. Cut your losses. 4 Embrace the cost of doing business.
If founded by and under the name of one of his sons, and completely unaffiliated with him so long as he holds office, I can’t think of why it wouldn’t be completely legal and hugely successful. Plus, it would drive the established media even further off the edge and deeper into their shrieking death spiral.
No. I think all ex presidents, ALL, should retire from politics as well as retire from interferring with them, regardless of party.
The thing to understand is that “No news is good news” because good news “isn’t news. All commercial general-interest journalism follows the “If it bleeds, it leads” formula. And that implies that all journalists know that journalism is negative.Once understand that “objective journalism” inevitably promotes socialism, and you understand why “liberal talk radio” does not have nearly the size of niche that conservative talk radio has. “Liberal talk radio” is in direct competition with “objective news” - and cynicism and naiveté sell much better in the “objective news” format than in the thoughtful context of what Rush Limbaugh calls “the long form.” The ancient Greeks had a similar issue: “sophists” used claims of superior wisdom to formulate facile arguments. Precisely as “objective journalists” do now. “Philosophers” arose in Greece to contest the sophists’ arguments, and they had to insist on facts and logic rather than emotion and facile argumentation. Talk radio hosts take on all comers who call in, and if they appeal to authority rather than to logic, they fail. So “liberal” hosts do poorly in the format.And yet all journalists claim that journalists are objective. Well, they would:
The man whom we believe is necessarily, in the things concerning which we believe him, our leader and director, and we look up to him with a certain degree of esteem and respect. But as from admiring other people we come to wish to be admired ourselves; so from being led and directed by other people we learn to wish to become ourselves leaders and directors . . . The desire of being believed, the desire of persuading, of leading and directing other people, seems to be one of the strongest of all our natural desires. - Adam Smith, Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759)Journalists have a deep desire to be believed, and to be our "leaders and directors,” as Smith put it. So naturally journalists claim to be objective; the only question is why anyone would accept that thesis. There are two objections to that “thesis”:“Objective” journalism is cynical about society and consequently naive about government (since government’s raison d'être is to limit the effect of shortcomings of society, being cynical about society implies the promotion of more government and the diminution of freedom).
- Nobody can know that they themselves are objective - and having friends who swear that you are objective is no answer to that conundrum; they can’t know that they are objective about that, either. So it is a fundamentally vacant claim. Even worse, the implication of the claim actually to be objective is that you don’t even have to try to be objective - and that you are not even trying to be objective.
- Journalists know that they are negative, yet claim to be objective - which amounts to a claim that “negativity is objectivity.” But that claim is a perfect definition of “cynicism."
It follows that conservative journalism would be distinctly less absorbed with bad news about society than conventional journalism is - and since the “If it bleeds, it leads,” rule is predicated on making journalism interesting to the public (not “in the public interest,” which is an entirely different concept), conservative journalism would have difficulty in the marketplace.
It is my settled opinion that “conservative news” is what talk radio is. Talk radio is “news about 'the news’.” That is, conservative commentary. “Objective News” is about the failings of society and the need for more government. Conservative commentary argues that the failings of society are easily exaggerated, and that government has a powerful tendency to do more harm than good:
SOME writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins.Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness;the former promotes our happiness POSITIVELY by uniting our affections, the latter NEGATIVELY by restraining our vices.
The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last a punisher.
Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil . . . - Thomas Paine, Common Sense (1776)
In actuality “objective journalism” promotes socialism, and talk radio is “conservative news.”The way to attack “objective journalism” is via the Sherman Anti-Trust Act (1890) - Free Republic (which is basically a one-page law and doesn’t go into detail about defining “trusts.”). I refer you to Adam Smith:
People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. - Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations (1776)Since the Associated Press and its membership are, via the AP “wire," in a continuous virtual meeting - and have been since before the Civil War - only extreme naiveté would cause anyone to expect that they would not long since have found common cause among themselves which is distinct from the public interest. The Associated Press - all wire services, they all have similar homogenizing influence on national news - should be sued into oblivion for the “conspiracy against the public” which is the systematic promotion of socialism by “the media.”The AP was successfully sued under Sherman back in 1945 - but that was by another wire service, and it long predated the advent of satellite and laser/fiber-optic revolution which enables the Internet. Back then, scarcity and high expense of telegraphy bandwidth was a thing. Now, "conservation of bandwidth in the propagation of news" is an anachronistic mission.
Down with the AP!
Why not for profit? Isn't Trump entitled to make money?
YES