Where the fuck is the Progressive News Network?

[Tactical Progressive]

I mean, we've been talking about this for YEARS now. Since right after the 2000 selection. Before the 2002 mid-terms. Throughout the 2004 campaign - how much could that have made a difference? And still nothing. Nothing but vague rumors.

Who can't see the need? Who can't see the opportunity? Yet all we've got is that at some point in the future - before 2006?, do we even know that? - Al Gore is going to turn NWI into some kind of teen-TV station. WTF good is that?

This country is in dire need of a news network that isn't fully enslaved to right-wing corporate imperatives. Right now there isn't anything that comes close. The way I see it is you've got let's say 35% of the news market completely unaddressed. I really do believe that the Democratic populism in the news watching public reaches that level easily. Progressives and rational people are what has always driven news of government, international affairs, national politics and the like. Republicans congenitally don't like government. They like to bitch and moan about a cultural and societal evolution that they want to mitigate and now reverse. Perfect for the rantings of a Rush and now Fox. They don't want diverse information; they want reinforcement for their petty ideology and they want it from one safe, secure source that they don't have to think about. It's all about not having to think or reason. That's why CNN and MSNBC won't catch Fox. And yet Fox's success has led the other corporate news monopolies to reach for that one market.

But that leaves everything else open. A progressive network would get a third of news viewers immediately, by default. There's nobody else there! That's not big enough to be profitable? How can that be? The way I see it a PNN would grab a nearly untapped market, leaving Fox, CNN and MSNBC to divvy up the possible 35% market that might exist for ideologically rightwing-slanted news between them, 20-10-5. I can't see how a 35% unaddressed progressive market isn't a more viable business proposition than trying to claw a small share out of the right-wing market that is already saturated with coverage spanning plain-Republican CNN through extreme-Conservative Fox.

I'm rambling. Short version: There's an open market here. Why doesn't someone jump in?

Where the fuck are the people with money, guts, a sense of civic responsibility, or just plain business sense to address what has to be the most fertile ground in newsmedia opportunity? I do not understand.

[Wilms]

1. I was just thinking about this last night.

And how they wouldn't have to spend lot's of money on a research dept. because DU would handle most of it for them.

[concord]

2. On Comedy Central

:D

[Carolab]

3. Who is going to let them broadcast? There's a media cartel out there.

Remember?

[FreedomAngel82]

7. Right

I wonder how the ratings would be to keep the station a live though. People already believe the liberal media myth. Fox has been working on this for years to get to this point. The whole neocons have been working on taking over the country for years. Probably since FDR and they knew the perfect timing was with the Kennedy asssination and putting Nixon in.

[pretzel4gore]

4. 'truth' is so poisonous to the busheviks/mediawhores

they might as well just shoot themselves.....they're dead men if the truth ever escapes. for example, think of what it means if there were no hijackers involved on 911, not human ones anyway...hoping for a 'free' press under these circumstances is ...well it's hoping

[Eric J in MN]

5. kos of "The Daily Kos" wrote that it will be in another 2 years.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/3/10/0514/87558

[Tactical Progressive]

6. Kos doesn't say much that we don't already know.

Gore not doing it.
Somebody else maybe years from now.

My questions remain:

What is hard to understand about an untapped market?

Why isn't somebody addressing the opportunity, if not out of political awareness, then out of sheer business opportunism?

Am I missing something? Maybe the market is not that big? Maybe they think CNN isn't Republican and is already covering that market? CNN only looks centrist compared to Fox. Maybe Democrats would rather watch Fox?

Somebody help me to understand.

[tinanator]

8. free speech radio news

http://www.fsrn.org/

if you think a commercially sponsored news network can be progressive, I cant see how. Here is the best you can do under the circumstances I think. Just look at what was done to the Pacifica News department. Free speech and information are all but against the law and certainly unacceptable to Bill Clinton's administration and POV.

[Tactical Progressive]

9. What are you saying?

Why are you saying a commercial network can't be progressive?

How is free speech practically 'against the law'?

And what does the shot at the Clinton administration mean?

Can you explain some of this? Because apparently you aren't alone.

[tinanator]

10. well its all relative

It all depends on what you mean by progressive. I suspect the Al Franken crowd are quite comfortable with the VOA affiliated Clinton era attack upon Pacifica, which resulted in years of heartbreak and turmoil, yet happily was one of the great victories of the last decade. In the end I guess it was decided that Pacifica was too vulnerable to run their own news department and left much of that up to Free Speech Radio News, which does a fine job of reporting from around the globe in ways you will most likely never hear again on corporate media broadcasts. Simply the same subject matters that inflame centrist or pro-Israel occupationists in these parts would certainly be forbidden by profit driven advertisers, and there goes your progressiveness and your free speech, right out the window.
The struggle for and assault upon Pacifica is a subject that should be better understood by everyone who is interested in media reform. Corporate ambitions by Voice of America affiliated appointees and a gross power grab by certain individuals in the 90's produced some of the most disturbing changes imaginable on what is probably the only decent source of news information and community empowerment we have ever had, thanks to Lew Hill and his fellow station founders and supporters. The truth is we already have a progressive news network, and it is Pacifica. Be thankful, attentive and supportive because that precious resource has been and will be the target of both parties power barons.

[Tactical Progressive]

11. I don't know much about radio politics

I've only heard second-hand about the disillusioning 'assault on Pacifica' radio. I don't doubt that the example in radio would be instructive for TV, but radio isn't televison. Besides which AAR has risen up so it's not as if there is no way to have 'free speech' even on radio.

I also don't see how a non pro-Israel position just automatically dooms a network, besides which who says a progressive network would have to take a stark position on the Palestinian conflict one way or another.

You are obviously very disappointed about the Pacifica incident, but I don't see how that even comes close to weighing against the viability of a progressive television network. They are completely different markets, completely different circumstances.

[tinanator]

12. Im afraid there are inherent censorship problems with commercial broadcast

thats why people are so clueless when they rely on the TV. I think you would be better served organizing around internet media. Im not disillusioned about the "assault on Pacifica" Im encouraged, thrilled even. The good guys won that time, and you can count those occurrences on one hand.

[Tactical Progressive]

13. 'inherent censorship problems' is pretty vague

And being "thrilled" with a 'win' on Pacifica seems contradictory to using Pacifica as an example of why progressive media is impossible. Do you want to be less vague or are you just venting about Pacifica?

I loosely followed the Pacifica saga from a few threads on DU because I'm interested in the comprehensive failure of American media, but without knowing the station or the personalities, the politics of it was pretty remote to me. It seemed that Pacifica management was infiltrated by Republicans and went accordingly. Now you appear to be saying that only by spinning some of their programming off to the internet could they survive. Is that a fair synopsis?

Well, AAR is being successful, TV is vastly different from radio, and one win or loss either way isn't very representative, let alone determinative, of what goes on in another market.

[tinanator]

15. clearly i am failing to communicate with you

my fault, sorry. Im trying to say there is an inherent conflict in commercial broadcasting and free speech, surely that isnt a stretch?
different page i guess.
Pacifica is just fine at the moment. they were infiltrated by Clinton appointees, not Republicans.

[Patchuli]

14. Let's hear it for AIR AMERICA!

http://www.airamericaradio.com/