Posted on 11/19/2003 10:18:07 AM PST by happykidjill
Rich has the discussion been about an Al Gore television station or a Shelden Drobny backed – all liberal, all the time – radio station. While it is obvious that these individuals have the financial power and connections to make such endeavors feasible, I cannot help but believe that their programming will ultimately emulate Gremlins and Citations from the 1970's and be neither seen nor heard from in the years to come. The bottom line is that leftist politics (which often maliciously cloaks itself as "liberalism") cannot thrive under the public's attention and focus.
The great successes of the left have come from disguising their ideology as news or objective journalism. If a station identified itself as being "liberal" it would immediately negate their heavy-handed advantage. It could jeopardize all their attainments of the last fifty years as, sooner or later, those who tuned in would notice that the channel's spin on the issues was exactly the same as the "news" offered by Dan Rather, Peter Jennings, and Tom Brokaw. The mansion of deception that the left has constructed, also known as the network news, would lose whatever legitimacy it still retains in that portion of the electorate known as Independents.
Yet, the most glaring reason why liberal radio or television would fail, is that 24 hours on the air would subvert their modus operandi; which is to, at all costs, prevent conservative viewpoints from being heard. Much of current leftist behavior is steeped in not letting your opponents speak. This strategy stems from Herbert Marcuse's idea of repressive tolerance, which is another of the many ideas our culture has been contaminated with since the sixties.
This phony tolerance is the basis of what now hides behind the banner of "Diversity." Roger Kimball cleverly elucidates: "Marcuse came up with several names for the idea that freedom is a form of tyranny...'Liberating tolerance,' he wrote, 'would mean intolerance against movements from the Left.' In other words, 'liberating tolerance' means acceptance of the ideas you agree with and rejection of those you disagree with. The usual name for this sort of attitude, of course, is intolerance, but no doubt it would be terribly intolerant to insist on such a repressive if not elementary point." — The Long March: How the Cultural Revolution of the 1960s Changed America , p.170
With what we know about college campuses today, it is evident that Marcuse's theory, along with its ensuing political correctness, is a lynchpin of contemporary leftist thought. This is another justification why liberal radio or television will establish no connection with anyone who dares to disagree with them because those who are most likely to disagree with them are often referred to as "the American people."
Yes, we all know that liberals constantly spew the mantra that they speak for the majority of our citizenry, but their station could have the unpleasant side effect of broadcasting non-elitist voices; which would shatter the widespread misperception that Democrats even remotely care about "the little guy."
If liberal hosts allow, ala Rush Limbaugh, random callers to interact with their on air personalities, the entire nation quickly will see how little these espressoites have in common with them. It will come across on show after show, hour after hour. Social Security reform is a perfect example. A majority of voters agree with privatizing social security accounts, but you'd never know it from the rhetoric of the liberals. Taxes and national defense are other areas that "the people" stand starboard of the Democrat Party.
However, part of me really wants "Gore TV" to go into production. It would be pure delight to see someone like Al Franken being confronted by two or three callers or audience members who disagree with him. I'm sure Franken would be quite nasty with these callers, and then the public could observe the rabid hate that is an eternal feature of today's left.
My working days are spent with liberals, and, unfortunately, much of my social life is as well. "It's bad you know," is a lyric by R.L. Burnside and it's strangely fitting when describing the intensity of their anger towards our President and conservatives in general (and to disguise the reality of the situation, they constantly accuse us of being the ones who are mean-spirited).
Even though I have become rather numb to it, I am occasionally confounded by the depth of their hostility. Three or four times a week, I get besieged by those who attack Bush as often as they roll through stop signs. I hear the President called a drug addict, a hypocrite, a thief, a warmonger, a slave to Israel, the laughingstock of Europe, and the pawn of companies like Halliburton and Enron.
I take it all with a yawn, and as I've been cursed with being the kind of person who feels the compulsion to respond, I refute their soundbyte accusations point by point. I can only jealously admire those of you Toogooders who do not have to deal with people like these. On the bright side though, 24 hours of constant conspiracy theories about Boeing and the CIA should do the work of 20,000 grassroots organizers of the Republican Party, but, however much it would help to enthuse the GOP's base, it is yet another reason why a liberal station would fail.
Another rationale for why their efforts will result in disaster can be found in what happened to CNN. Their decline in viewership suggests that in order for a liberal station to get high ratings it would have to be fair, or if not objectively fair, then it would at least have to acknowledge that people on the right exist. Think of Al Franken's latest book, which is reported to be a sustained attack on the credibility of FOX News, when considering what FOX's mirror image would look like.
Does anyone really think that a liberal television station would be less biased than FOX News? Of course not, their station would follow the CNN model with solo liberals like Bill Schneider or Jeff Greenfield giving their take and presenting no one else to question their slant. Repeating the CNN model would prevent them from attracting a crossover audience, and this would render the venture economically unviable.
With what I've already mentioned about the left, I foresee their station only going in one of two directions: they can pretend their antennae are PA's in concentration camps and bellow propaganda at their audience for 24 hours a day in fine North Korean fashion or they can imitate Hannity and Colmes and interview guests from both sides of the political spectrum.
Yet, we all know that there's no way liberal television or radio would follow a balanced doctrine. They'd refuse to emulate Brit Hume's habit of placing formidable members of the opposition, like Juan Williams and Maura Liasson, on stage with them. Do you think Al Gore would want anything to do with Bill Gertz or Fred Barnes?
Just like the worms we found under logs in childhood, liberals and their politics thrive under dank, unlit conditions – which is the exact opposite of presenting a 24/7 boisterous target. If they truly attempted to follow a conservative format for their talk radio or television, then they'd have to risk flesh and blood rightists questioning their tactics and ideology. The reason why this cannot happen is that, in the course of these discussions, the left's disdain for our republic and their countrymen will become readily apparent to all who watch the proceedings.
The left could never tolerate the diversity that is FOX News. If anything, their only concession to balance would be to have one or two soft-spoken conservatives on air a couple of times a week, which is exactly what The New York Times editorial board does currently.
No, in the end, in order to be loved by their core constituency, our imaginary station will have to be run by a Dr. Goebbels type to prevent conservative beliefs from ever being annunciated, and, although there are many leftists who could easily play the role of a Minister of Propaganda, there is no way that the general public will choose to watch such a media outlet.
Propaganda is viewed only through state coercion and lack of choice, and cable television today, with its hundreds of channels, displays an ocean of choice. My opinion is that "Liberal TV" could not last more than a year before advertisers realize that they've been conned, and then it'll be back to the leftist fortress of the universities for the likes of Al Gore. In the colleges, there will be no one with the power to ever question them and every textbook they open will confirm their political prejudices. There they can win awards for research on the pathology of conservatism, and that Marxism, in its "purest form", has never before been implemented.
To comment on this article or express your opinion directly to the author, you are invited to e-mail Bernard at bchapafl@hotmail.com .
Especially in this context this is soooo true.
They had quite a few shows on WABC. They couldn't keep an audience...and Ed Koch was at least listenable to. Joan Behar was just a loon.
This can be easily illustrated by examining all the Hillary! appearances on Hannity and Combes. Every interview Hillary! has given has been with Colmbes only, Hannity is not invited to attend. Heaven forbid that her heinious actually be asked questions that expose her true self.
I've also noticed that there's never a mirror on the set when she's around, but that could be coincedence....hmmmmm
Liberals are great speech makers. But when you have to answer phone calls and get feedback and have to defend your position, the leftists will wilt. -Tom
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.