Posted on 11/16/2009 5:18:10 AM PST by COUNTrecount
Thats FOX, your comments not withstanding.
It takes years to develope a brand that would have the breadth and scope and the reosurces to be a credible, conservative, visual news organization, ie on tv.
FOX paid their dues.
And it IS true that a lot of people don’t watch FOX because other media tells them not to or that they are dumb aor that they are “biased” yet more people are gravitating to them.
Their numbers appear to be up...I recall when they were touting numbers under one million. Now they are pushing 1.5 to 2 mil.
More democrats watch Fox News than watch CNN.
I wonder if the $8 million was part of the stimulus funds?
This has been said before, but nothing really comes of it. I wonder why no one else wants to develop another outlet for news.
Or put another way. CNN: we can’t give right wingers an avenue to spew their pro-American messages against our beloved and hallowed Lord and Marxist Saviour.
We all know about the connections at CNN to the current administration, vis a vis Carville and Begala’s personal, weekly phone calls with Rahmbo. I’d be interested in finding out, what if any connection exists between Obama and Dobbs forced resignation. Inquiring minds want to know, if by some slight chance their is still a journalist alive, perhaps this would make a block buster story.
Well they did kick Colmes off of Hannity's show.
You think FOX will want him? FOX is no longer a conservative network - have you seen them running any credible birth certificate stories, ever? They’re as conservative as the GOP - that is, not very,
"What they do is their business," Dobbs said yesterday. "I tried to accommodate them as best I could, but I've said for many years now that neutrality is not part of my being." [CNN boss Jonathan] Klein long believed Dobbs was at odds with CNN's desire to position itself as an opinion-free, middle-of-the-road alternative to its cable news rivals -- conservative Fox News and liberal MSNBC.
A man once, upon learning that I'm conservative, said "You probably think that journalism isn't objective." I was shocked to find myself making a weak, defensive argument, and have thought long and hard about how I "shoulda coulda woulda" responded. My conclusion is that I should have saidIMHO it would be hard to answer "No" to any of those questions - and hard to avoid the conclusion that they inexorably point to. An actual attempt at objectivity would always begin with an open consideration of the possible reasons why the writer might not be objective. And that is never seen in journalism.
- "Can we agree that I am probably subjective?"
- "Can we agree that even you might be subjective?"
- "What is subjectivity anyway? Is it anything other than a belief in one's own objectivity?"
- "Do the members of the Associated Press claim objectivity for themselves and each other?"
The most fundamental desire of journalism is to attract an attentive audience, and to be able to exploit that ability for fun and profit. The linchpin of the influence of AP journalism being perishable news - news that will soon no longer be new - journalism inexorably presses upon the public the idea that the news is important. The more important you think the news is, the less attention you will pay to things which change less, or not at all. That is why AP journalism is inherently anti conservative. Journalism also is maximally important when there is a crisis requiring public notice and action. But of course a putative crisis "requiring" government action implies that the powers-that-be have not already taken whatever action is needed, which is why the public should attend to the journalist and influence the politician accordingly. Again that makes the journalist anti conservative.
Another way of stating the above paragraph is to note that journalism's rules include "There's nothing more worthless than yesterday's newspaper," and "If it bleeds, it leads." The former rule simply says that only what the public doesn't know yet matters, and the latter says that the bad news is most important. Journalism's rules also enjoin the editor that "Man Bites Dog" is news, and "Dog Bites Man" is not news. Which means that business-as-usual is not news, and if anything is reported in the newspaper it is probably not typical of what normally characterizes society.
Most people never, in their entire lives, commit a murder or even know anyone who did commit a murder - but you will find plentiful stories about murders, and demands for the disarming of the general public, but rarely mention of how statistically rare murder actually is or how frequently the law-abiding use or, more commonly merely threaten to use, weapons to prevent crime. Likewise if our troops suffer casualties and deaths in Iraq or Afghanistan that is news - even though the overwhelming majority of our troops return from Iraq and Afghanistan without a scratch, and also with scant if any notice by journalism. All that comports with the rules of journalism - but the rules of journalism comport with the interest of journalism. The rules of journalism purport to be about the public interest, but actually are only about interesting the public. And the two things are not only different, they are often in contradiction. So we see that journalism inherently has an embedded anti conservative agenda.
Journalism goes through the motions of "getting both sides of the story" - but as long as
Half the truth is often a great lie. - Benjamin Franklinthere can be no guarantee that the reporter can even see all sides of the story.The price of any serious attempt at objectivity is to have the humility to scrutinize one's own motives. In that respect, "objective journalism" doesn't even seriously try to be objective.
Well, if they’re not in it for the money, that’s good, because I read elsewhere that advertisers are about to stop paying premium prices to advertise on CNN ...it’s no longer prestigious to do so and certainly not to their advantage viewer-wise.
To Fox's detriment, IMHO.
Political news reporting needs yet another outlet to compete with the Obama Propaganda Networks. A lot of people won’t watch Fox News just because they are told by the government not to. They need a alternative outlet with credible conservative news.
There are dozens of political sites that report news. Right here on the internet. And they will be getting bigger and bigger. PJ meda, hot air, you name them!
Colmes was indeed booted from Hannity, but he still gets a check from Fox News, still gets to use the platform that reaches the largest cable news audience. He was a liability to their show. He was game, but not the counter point to stay up with Hannity. An acute observation about Alan on your part, but not the same as gettting the boot out the door, (albeit greased very well with $$$$$).
Communist Nutjob Network for sure now!
Dobbs should have forced CNN to fire him and then sue them.
I would say, not dangerous for CNN. but rather for BO and company.
His home is shot up and he’s offered $8 million to get off the air. I wonder if the two are related.
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.