Can the Dems Ape FOX?

Section of newsletter from opinionjournal.com ^ | 1/2/03 | James Taranto

[BunnySlippers]

Can the Dems Ape Fox?

Democrats "are scouring the nation for a liberal answer to Rush Limbaugh and the many others on the deep bench of Republican friends," the New York Times reports. "They say their concerns have taken on a new urgency because of the rise to the top of the cable news ratings by the Fox News Channel, considered by many to have a conservative slant," adds the Times, considered by many to have a liberal slant.

One group of well-heeled Democrats "is toying with the idea of starting a liberal cable network." John Podesta, who served as Bill Clinton's chief of staff, "is discussing . . . the creation of a liberal version of the Heritage Foundation." Other Democrats and liberals are trying "to foster national liberal radio personalities" to counter the likes of Rush Limbaugh.

Well for crying out loud, guys, why not dare to dream big? American liberalism is pretty pathetic if its highest aspiration is to mimic Fox, Heritage and Rush. Here's a much more ambitious goal: Why not counter the vast right-wing conspiracy by taking over the "mainstream" media? And if it's research you want, maybe you should set your sights on America's system of higher education. If you could get liberals onto college and university faculties, they would have the opportunity to mold young minds as well as influence the political debate.

Imagine a world in which more than 80% of journalists vote Democratic, and in which left-liberal scholars vastly outnumber conservatives at colleges and universities across the country. It'd be a liberal dream, right?

Savvy readers will note that we are describing the world as it is, rather than as it might be. (And we haven't even mentioned Hollywood.) Fox, Rush and Heritage have been successful, and partly it is because they have set themselves apart from the liberal "mainstream." Similar liberal efforts are doomed to fail because they will not be able to set themselves apart.

Maybe there are people who would prefer to get their news from a network that openly acknowledges its liberal bias. But where would such a network find talent? Fox's success isn't just a matter of its alleged conservative slant; it also has an excellent lineup of anchormen, hosts and commentators. Talented right-leaning broadcast journalists--the Brit Humes, Tony Snows and David Asmans of the world--are, we'd venture, more comfortable working for Fox than in a newsroom where most colleagues view their political outlook with disdain.

In contrast, talented liberal broadcast journalists are right at home at CNN, PBS, NPR and what used to be called the three major networks. Why would they want to leave for a network that (unlike Fox) is openly partisan? Similarly, why would a talented scholar want to work for a left-wing Heritage clone rather than get a tenured position at a college somewhere?

Liberals find themselves in a tough situation. They no longer control any branch of government, and while they still predominate in journalism, entertainment and academia, these are not necessarily politically effective institutions. The news media must maintain at least an aura of objectivity. (This applies to "fair and balanced" Fox too, and its news coverage is no more biased than the New York Times' or CNN's.) Hollywood and the academy are insulated from any political accountability by great wealth and tenure, respectively; and the likes of Barbra Streisand and Noam Chomsky do more to discredit the liberal cause than all the Rush Limbaughs put together.

Is there a way forward for American liberals? Probably, but we can't imagine what it might be.

Article also accesses:
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/01/politics/01DEMS.html?pagewanted=all&position=top

[bmwcyle]

It is all about ratings not feelings. They just don't get it. As reality TV grows and dies, Rush lives on and on. The Dems will never see the light.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

The reason conservative radio and cable news is on the upswing is simple: conservatives are actively concerned about politics and where the country is heading.

Democrat radio and cable news will never go anywhere because Democrats are slugs who don't care about anything except getting free stuff from the goobermint.

[My2Cents]

The reason that Fox has risen to the top in the cable ratings isn't because it's "conservative," but because networks with a liberal bias do not represent the mainstream of thought and attitude in the nation.

[moneyrunner]

Outstanding.

[My2Cents]

...put another way, even if they start a "liberal Fox" or find a "liberal Rush," these will fail, because liberalism is out of step with the mainstream of America.

[HamiltonJay]

A LIBERAL CABLE CHANNEL! I LOVE IT! PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE DO IT! Once you do this, there will be no more pretending you stand for american values! Once you start that ball rolling every socialist and radical is going to push to espouse even wackier and wackier crap. Please DNC, do this! I beg you! Please!

[EllaMinnow]

Great find - excellent article.
Thanks for posting it.

[Mr. Jeeves]

What, ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN and MSNBC aren't enough for them?

[YOMO]

One group of well-heeled Democrats "is toying with the idea of starting a liberal cable network."...........

Hey, are they now called NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, etc.??????

[BunnySlippers]

Also, for those who are interested, the Opinion Journal newsletter is available free by signing up on their website. It includes articles like this that are not in the paper or online.

[Lee'sGhost]

"They say their concerns have taken on a new urgency because of the rise to the top of the cable news ratings by the Fox News Channel, considered by many to have a conservative slant,"

They won't be able to bec they STILL DON'T GET IT. FOX is mostly middle of the road. Which, of course, IS to the right of what libs want to see, and is much more to the right than what conservatives are used to seeing -- but their news is mostly in the middle. It is true that conservatives LOVE FOX, but that's because in desert of liberal news, a middle of the road FOX is an oais.

[AlaskaErik]

It doesn't matter who the messenger is, or how pretty he/she is, It's The Message, Stupid! The liberals have no message. They act on emotion, not rationalization. Where is the audience for that?

[Constitutional Patriot]

"One group of well-heeled Democrats "is toying with the idea of starting a liberal cable network." "

"yes...and it shall be lead by Ted Turner and we shall call it CNN...what a wonderful idea..."

It is laughable.

[HassanBenSobar]

Yes, please! Waste all that RAT money on failed networks! Maybe the RATS look dumber than ever (and totally incapable of running a business...) Gotta love it.

And to think they're always accusing conservatives of being dumb.../irony

[Constitutional Patriot]

Seriously, it will be funny to notice the profound similarity of a liberal news network and the existing mainstream networks. What will they say when America notices that there is no difference between LNN and CNN!?!?!

[Constitutional Patriot]

I think the perfect term for their attitude is "arrogant ignorance". They consider themselves elite because they have been told they are elite by their marxist mentors. They are ignorant because they refuse to seek the truth. They are in denial of reality because it conflicts with their ideology.

Have you ever noticed the reaction you get from one of these left wingers when you confront them with indisputable facts that refute their arguments? They go deeper into denial, attack your character, attempt to ridicule you as being a "right wing extremist" or worse, but whatever they do, they always get extremely irrational.

[Excuse_My_Bellicosity]

The liberal media is crashing and burning because they have no message. They're the great defenders of the status quo. The principal message that they put across is how terrible, racist, and evil the opposition is. They offer freebies, scare people into thinking that the opposition is only interested in taking away their benefits, and package their socialist agenda to look appealing.

[Kay Soze]

Investors first question:

How will starting yet another liberal media cable outlet be successful when the current ones are not?

( he he he he ! :) )

[HamiltonJay]

No, actually if you let unwashed liberals have their own network, CNN WOULD LOOK CONSERVATIVE! Everyone with eyes knows the mainstream media is tilted left for the most part... but you see that tilt is always guised in the black wool of being "unbiased"... So they rarely go all out, because they know if they push too far, they can't make that claim.

Let an openly Liberal channel on TV and you are going to see every freak and fruitcake cause paraded around like it was the end of the world. With not even a token attempt to pull back, or at least wear the wool, america will see the left naked as a jay bird and you'll see people voting democratic go down to 20% or less. Because the left in america today is not about "Liberty" its about lunacy. Transgender right, radical animal rights, radical vegitarianism, NAMBLA, etc etc etc.... The left today is made up of not a large group of people with a common cause (well other than hating america for the most part)... it is made up of a coalition of lots of little groups with radical causes. They have no real unifying argument other than they know the mainstream will never accept them, so they congregate tolerating each other in attempts to collectively silence or bully the main stream.. This sometimes works in the short run, but can never work in the long run... but that's what the Left is today. If they have a network, these small factions will fight for airtime and to get their messages out, so the wool if you will, won't stay on for long...

Democrats are no longer the party of Jefferson, in fact Jefferson would be spinning in his grave if he knew his party has fallen so far. But regardless, the left cannot ever show its true face... because america will NEVER buy it. If the mask comes off, even for a second, people bolt... Wellstone's "memorial" was a perfect example of this.