Why doesn't CNN just go all-liberal?

I've been wondering this for awhile. I think, in order to compete with Fox, CNN should be as liberally biased as Fox is conservative.

Fox has already proven there's big demand for politically biased news. Most conservatives have already bought the "liberal media" lie and thus believe CNN is liberally biased anyways; I don't know any conservatives that watch CNN. CNN ought to just start loudly and proudly catering to a liberal audience.

If people want relatively non-biased news, they've still got MSNBC. I really think part of the reason why the right in this country is growing stronger is that liberal's are vastly under-represented on TV.

What do you think?

is Keith Olberman's show, otherwise my tv flips on its right side whenever any of their other shows come on.

you have to work under the impression that CNN and MSNBC aren't already working for the VRWC. :tinfoilhat:

you can just come out as a network and say you will be an all liberal network.

I think what CNN "Could" do is put on some commentators that are very left of center and still say they deliver quality news.

I mean, that's what Fox News does.

And Fox News is mainly op-ed right wingers anyway.

So CNN could get rid of LouDobbs, Judy Woodruff, and the rest of the moderate gang and put on some people like Corn, Vanden Heuvel, or Eric Alterman.

and couch it in the proper slogan. Perhaps:

"Balanced and Fair."

I Love Judy Woodruff!!!

and MSNBC is one of the most rightwing networks.

They even gave a show to Scarborough, the killer, just because he talks the wingnut talk.

You have a SERIOUS perception problem if you believe what you posted.

I recall that he was a GOOP Florida Congressman. I hate his face. But I missed the story where he is a killer. Please elaborate.

"The story had a brief flutter in the Northwest Florida press, which ran a few very short stories on Lori's death. With the exception of the Northwest Florida Daily News, they were of the "Aw-what-a-shame/ nothing-to-see-here-move-along-now-folks" variety. But nationally, this mysterious death earned a mere one paragraph mention in The Washington Post's NATION IN BRIEF column:

"FORT WALTON BEACH, FL. - Lori Klausutis, a 28-year-old office worker for Rep. Joe Scarborough (R-Fl), was found dead in the congressman's district office. Police said preliminary findings from the medical examiner's office showed no foul play or any outward indication of suicide."

Unbelievably, that was it. The story was simply dropped. A young female employee of one of Florida's Congressmen had died unexpectedly in the Congressman's office. There were no witnesses to her death and the cause of death was not apparent. Klausutis' boss, Joe Scarborough had recently resigned from Congress prematurely and unexpectedly, amid rumors about his marital fidelity and soon after a divorce. He had also abruptly resigned as publisher of the Independent Florida Sun, claiming that resigning from Congress and as publisher was necessary to spend more time with his sons.

Such circumstances make one pause. Sick to death of the clear bias of the corporate owned media, and suspicious of the odd nature of this death, we began to dig for answers. The more information we discovered, the more unlikely, and the more newsworthy the story became."

http://www.americanpolitics.com/20010808Klausutis.html

here's an excellent page with a LOT of information

http://www.allhatnocattle.net/congressman_joe_scarborough.htm

Thank you and bicentennial_baby for following up on this story of hypocrisy and media bias.

i'm somewhat skeptical that such a thing could even exist ...

for example, let's say there's just been a debate of the democratic candidates and let's say bush just made a speech ... do you spend equal time covering these events? do you give the democrats 9 times as much time because there are 9 of them?

and, either way, if that's what you cover, do you not tell the story of the homeless man sleeping outside the auditorium where the debate was held? do you examine the causes that lead to his homelessness?

do you disclose that your news station lobbied against an "equal time provision" that would have required the networks to provide significant amounts of free time to the candidates? why would a profit-oriented network disclose such a thing? how would you even begin to address the problems that result from networks seeking profits as a higher goal than informing the public ...

is it straight news to focus endlessly on Kobe, or O.J. or Peterson? the problem i'm highlighting is that news stinks because of capitalism ... democracy requires the informed consent of the governed ... "straight news" will do nothing to solve this problem ... i see this as an even greater problem than the right-wing bias in the news media ... it's not that i disagree with you ... it's that profit motive is an even greater evil ...

the press is supposed to be the "fourth estate" that should act as a check and balance on the 3 branches of government ... i'm afraid that somebody's been holding an estate sale ... and the result is a critically uninformed electorate ...

those stories should be told AS news stories. If the trials were handled as straight news stories, then we'd here about them in 3 min. updates.

The presidential coverage IS bigger news and should be treated as such.

btw, I agree about the corporate conquest of the media.

Right...

Sit down sometime and watch it, and then tell me that Scarborough is unbiased.

Matthews? Whore.

Get a grip...

p.s. and welcome to DU! :)

I don't labeling themselves as "liberal news" is the answer. If they'd just become a real, honest and serious news organization, that'd be more valuable. And would also help rebuild their ratings.

They make it from the media monopoly part of the business model, which requires the cooperation of the FCC and the courts and the justice department.

One of the threats I read was rumoured to have influenced CBS to back down on the Ron Reagan movie flap, was the threat of some unfavorable rulings by the FCC if Viacom tried to buy up local TV stations.

AOL was counting those AOL disks they send out as an asset on the books among other irregularities.

One of the threats I read was rumoured to have influenced CBS to back down on the Ron Reagan movie flap, was the threat of some unfavorable rulings by the FCC if Viacom tried to buy up local TV stations.

Can you cite a credible source for this? This would be a serious breach of ethics if it is true ... and I'd love to see them pin this on Powell Jr.

The just sprinkle enough liberal in it to get Liberals to watch. There are supposedly 20 million radio listeners to the likes of pill head limbaugh, that is who cnn, Faux and MSNBC are catering to.

when I heard ya say,.....

"If people want non-biased news, they've still got MSNBC"

I know ya meant no harm. But the harm that MSNBC does is outrageous!!

PEACE!!

News should consist of the reporting of facts. Faux (and to a smaller degree the other networks) have changed news into activism (in their case RW). They use the pretext of news to shape pulbic opinion to their way of thinking. Bleuch!

*sniff* *sniff* I smell bacon!

But libelous to the Right wing. What works, that which is humane and and good is dangerous to those that want to abscond money and usurp power.

PNAC machinery.

he said 3 times, "Well, I could have made a REALLY good movie about the Clintons." He's as right-wing as they come.

Othervise I dunno

there is no hope for them

why would the people who own networks or cable go liberal? there is nothing there for them. they get 100% income from adverts. the adverts are from corporations. liberals are not as good at shopping as conservatives. who here would buy a hummer? who here drinks bud lite? who here eats at kfc? there's no profit in the kyoto protocol. there's not profit in nuclear test bans. there's no profit in saving the flora and fauna in ANWR. $=godliness.

The only thing I can think of is that they are making even more money by doing what they are doing now - influencing legislation by their right slanted reporting to get favorable perks for corporations.

CNN is just a small cog in the AOL/Time Warner machine.

Their parent company is a mega-corporation that benefits from the Bush junta's corporatist policies. They certainly aren't going to bite the hand that feeds them.

This is why corporate ownership and monopoly of our media has produced a biased, right-wing slant in everything we see. AOL/Time Warner doesn't care if bringing back a truly 'fair and balanced' CNN will increase ratings. It's all propaganda to keep the Republicans in power to further benefit their corporate greed. CNN is just a tool, not a real news network. A *true* news network would never call a right-wing hack like Candy Crowley a "Senior Political Analyst" with a straight face.

If anything, expect CNN to really gear up the wingnut propaganda next year. They'll Gore the Dem nominee and pump up * at every turn. Prepare to be nauseated to an extreme previously unknown.

CNN and MSNBC are both corporately biased. They are not interested in liberalism in the least.

I had to laugh when he asked her exactly how many people were in the HB1 program and she was totally unprepared to give an answer. HA, see ya, Chao.

It seems that there are a lot on the left who seem to think that news slanted towards their point of view is a good thing - this is no different than people on the right doing the exact same thing.

I would love to have news neutral and informative. And where do you get MSNBC being neutral?