Tea Party travesty

[TimC]

http://theweek.com/article/index/202072/Ke...arty_TV_channel

 

Kelsey Grammer's new Tea Party TV channel

How serious is the sitcom star's plan to launch a "Pro-America" cable channel for Tea Partiers?

posted on April 19, 2010, at 4:07 PM

Best Opinion: Mediaite, True/Slant

 

Kelsey Grammer, who for eleven seasons played a persnickity psychiatrist on NBC's "Frasier," is planning to launch a new cable network this summer aimed at the Tea Party demographic. The venture, called RightNetwork, will air programs with "Pro-America, Pro-Business, Pro-Military sensibilities," including a comedy program and a political reality show. Company representatives have even been travelling with the Tea Party Express bus tour in an attempt to connect with "people who live in what [others] call flyover country and what we call America." But do Tea Partiers need — or want — their own channel? Fox News, along with the rest of "the mainstream media is already pro-America, pro-business, and pro-military," says Allison Kilkenny in True/Slant. "Unless I’m missing a Burn The Flag, Marine-Shooting Cooperative network hidden between MSNBC and Comedy Central." I wouldn't underestimate the potential here, says Colby Hall in Mediaite. "RightNetwork looks and feels like it will be a succesful venture." Watch Kelsey Grammer's RightNetwork promo video below:

[Duchess Jack]

So its not some conspiricy of the left, seeing as how - according to you - they do not do it intentionally.

 

Now - when viewership of Fox is so much more than like the next three stations combined - how exactly is the 'liberal' media doing anything with policy and opinion that Fox cannot do better - especially because there is little to no left wing presence on an otherwise robust talk radio dial? Especially when the talk radio/cable news overlap is so huge. Especially when it is that much easier to harmonize the message.

 

Liberals can't even get their crap together in congress and get on the same page - do you think that the combined might of what you consider the leftest media is going to be able to harmonize a message.

 

So what exactly are we still talking about a leftist media for, Perch? Why do many on the right cry about them and say that they control the message? Why are they given any imaginary power at all? I really, really don't understand

bump.

(because I really want to hear why folk should still be crying about the liberal media boogie man)

[SEC=UGA]

bump.

(because I really want to hear why folk should still be crying about the liberal media boogie man)

 

I think that we are leaving out a key component of the "liberal media" and that is the nightly news on the big 3 networks and the preponderance of left leaning news produced by the mainstream journalists in the print media. To simply say that more people watch Fox during prime time, thus the liberal media bias doesn't exist is erroneous, IMHO.

 

ETA:

If you look at viewership for the National Network Evening news, it is 3 to 4 times the viewership that any Fox news program receives:

http://www.tvb.org/nav/build_frameset.asp?...ntral/index.asp

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/02/e...c_n_523120.html

Edited April 22, 2010 by SEC=UGA

[Duchess Jack]

I think that we are leaving out a key component of the "liberal media" and that is the nightly news on the big 3 networks and the preponderance of left leaning news produced by the mainstream journalists in the print media. To simply say that more people watch Fox during prime time, thus the liberal media bias doesn't exist is erroneous, IMHO.

 

ETA:

If you look at viewership for the National Network Evening news, it is 3 to 4 times the viewership that any Fox news program receives:

http://www.tvb.org/nav/build_frameset.asp?...ntral/index.asp

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/02/e...c_n_523120.html

perhaps, but you are looking at a single time slot (or a couple hours in a day). what about total viewership and thusly the sum of all info passed to viewers? and than there is the synergy between talk radio and fox news. with all that said - is the left wing media still worth people crying about? and how much of the nightly news (vs cable news) is full of opinion pieces? I'd suggest that cable news' need to fill air time and need to make people angry or scared is far more problematic.

 

is the nighttime news so problematic within those two hours that people should be all up in arms? do they have more influance on public opinion that the juggernaut that is Fox news and talk radio?

Edited April 22, 2010 by Duchess Jack

[Caveman_Nick]

is the nighttime news so problematic within those two hours that people should be all up in arms? do they have more influance on public opinion that the juggernaut that is Fox news and talk radio?

 

IMO, Yes....especially when combined with the NYT, Washington Post, Boston Globe, etc.

 

That's NBC, ABC, CBS, and CNN as well as NYT and all of it's affiliates pushing what is essentially a left slanted 'news' presentation, and the only right slanted 'news' presentation that is as noteworthy is Fox.

 

Talk radio is another entity. I don't agree with the people that discount it as 'entertainment', because it is not. Many people do treat is as a news source. It's also something that people will actively choose to listen to because of the message, which is up front and in your face. People don't tune into right wing radio just to hear the news, because it's not delevering that. It's delivering a slanted opinion on it's spin of parts of the news. TV News is much more subtle about it's agenda. We aren't talking about "Face The Nation" or "Meet The Press" as news here (both of which tend to do similar things to Talk Radio), just regular old news.

 

Fox news often suffers from that same "In Your Face" quality that Talk Radio has as well. It caters very much to a specific audience. IMO it is crafted specifically to attract people that are turned off by the messages they receive elsewhere. It's "the alternative" place to get news, so to speak.....but alternative for conservatives.

 

Your average TV viewer will pick amongst the news stations based on who they like to watch/look at/listen to. The majority of people don't put a lot of thought into this kind of stuff. They just listen and 'learn'. That's really where NBC, ABC, CBS and CNN do their work.

[caddyman]

IMO, Yes....especially when combined with the NYT, Washington Post, Boston Globe, etc.

 

That's NBC, ABC, CBS, and CNN as well as NYT and all of it's affiliates pushing what is essentially a left slanted 'news' presentation, and the only right slanted 'news' presentation that is as noteworthy is Fox.

 

Talk radio is another entity. I don't agree with the people that discount it as 'entertainment', because it is not. Many people do treat is as a news source. It's also something that people will actively choose to listen to because of the message, which is up front and in your face. People don't tune into right wing radio just to hear the news, because it's not delevering that. It's delivering a slanted opinion on it's spin of parts of the news. TV News is much more subtle about it's agenda. We aren't talking about "Face The Nation" or "Meet The Press" as news here (both of which tend to do similar things to Talk Radio), just regular old news.

 

Fox news often suffers from that same "In Your Face" quality that Talk Radio has as well. It caters very much to a specific audience. IMO it is crafted specifically to attract people that are turned off by the messages they receive elsewhere. It's "the alternative" place to get news, so to speak.....but alternative for conservatives.

 

Your average TV viewer will pick amongst the news stations based on who they like to watch/look at/listen to. The majority of people don't put a lot of thought into this kind of stuff. They just listen and 'learn'. That's really where NBC, ABC, CBS and CNN do their work.

 

You are also missing MSNBC...Olberman and Maddow are just as slanted as Hannity and Beck. I never hear the left beating that drum. I guess it is because their rating are so putrid.

[Duchess Jack]

You are also missing MSNBC...Olberman and Maddow are just as slanted as Hannity and Beck. I never hear the left beating that drum. I guess it is because their rating are so putrid.

What drum? I am talking about the left wing media boogie man and why folk cry about it so much. I am not crying about Fox or talk radio. I don't believe they are good for America, but I am not crying about them. I don't believe any cable news or political talk radio is good for the country because they are there to make people afraid and angry regardless of their leaning. They are about dividing us a country. They focus on the ten percent that people disagree on while pissing away to ninty percent of things we do agree on.

 

and yes - their ratings are relevant to this conversation in how silly it is to think that they set policy or the publics opinion when nobody listens to them.

Edited April 22, 2010 by Duchess Jack

[Duchess Jack]

IMO, Yes....especially when combined with the NYT, Washington Post, Boston Globe, etc.

 

That's NBC, ABC, CBS, and CNN as well as NYT and all of it's affiliates pushing what is essentially a left slanted 'news' presentation, and the only right slanted 'news' presentation that is as noteworthy is Fox.

 

http://mediamatters.org/reports/oped/

 

I realize that the source might be left leaning but they post some interesting statisitcs. They might be crap statistics, I don't really know.

[Caveman_Nick]

http://mediamatters.org/reports/oped/

 

I realize that the source might be left leaning but they post some interesting statisitcs. They might be crap statistics, I don't really know.

 

Seriously...not to completely discount it, but it's an op-ed trying to prove a point on a left leaning website. I am not sure I can take it seriously at all.

 

The problem with numbers is that you can make them prove anything if you use them the right way.

[Duchess Jack]

Seriously...not to completely discount it, but it's an op-ed trying to prove a point on a left leaning website. I am not sure I can take it seriously at all.

 

The problem with numbers is that you can make them prove anything if you use them the right way.

 

I figured that this would be the reply - and I can in no way account for the accuracy of their study. I understand the problem with bias and the problem with statistics - but the link seemed like something to chew on. I am not saying there is not liberal biased in the media - but that it is overblown and pretty much in balance with conservative bias in the media.

[Caveman_Nick]

I figured that this would be the reply - and I can in no way account for the accuracy of their study. I understand the problem with bias and the problem with statistics - but the link seemed like something to chew on. I am not saying there is not liberal biased in the media - but that it is overblown and pretty much in balance with conservative bias in the media.

 

Okay, let me put it another way:

 

There is a bar chart almost halfway down the page that talks about "Relative Ideological Voice" by state. on the bar chart, Massachusetts is rated as having a 45% conservative voice to a 35% liberal voice.

 

Really? Does the person publishing this study have one iota of a clue about what they are talking about? Massachusetts is essentially a single party state.

 

Here are some stats for you: In the Massachusetts House of Representatives there are 133 Democrats and 16 Republicans. In the Massachusetts Senate there are 34 Democrats and 4 Republicans. In 2008 Barrack Obama won 62% of the vote in MA, while the "Conservative" liberal John McCain won 36% of the vote.

 

Here's a Gallup Poll that speaks to the political make-up of Massachusetts.

 

So I have to ask, does the study have any credibility considering those numbers, or does it sound like a left leaning editor is trying to prove a point in his Op-Ed?

[Duchess Jack]

Perhaps, you missed that I mentioned that:

1) they could be crap stats

2) I cannot account for the accuracy of the statistics and

3) I acknowleged that it was a left leaning site.

 

Its no different than the whole 'liberal media' boogie man I guess - you know people on right wing talk radio who are as right wing as you get - repeating that there is a left wing media boogie man so often that people begin to believe them and repeat it. Left wing compaired to what? Them? I can see that - but that by no means makes them left wing.

Edited April 22, 2010 by Duchess Jack

[Caveman_Nick]

Perhaps you mentioned that:

1) they could be crap stats

2) I cannot account for the accuracy of the statistics and

3) I acknowleged that it was a left leaning site.

 

Its no different than the whole 'liberal media' boogie man I guess - you know people on right wing talk radio who are as right wing as you get - repeating that there is a left wing media boogie man so often that people begin to believe them and repeat it. Left wing compaired to what? Them? I can see that - but that by no means makes them left wing.

 

Wing is relative, for sure, and I am in no way discounting the "boogie-man" factor. I am just saying that it's hard to take the study you posted seriously. I know you acknowledged some things in the post that you provided the link. Either way, IMO it's not worthy of any kind of factual consideration, any more than any similar outlet's spun facts.

Edited April 22, 2010 by Caveman_Nick

[SayItAintSoJoe]

You are also missing MSNBC...Olberman and Maddow are just as slanted as Hannity and Beck. I never hear the left beating that drum. I guess it is because their rating are so putrid.

 

I agree with you about the MSNBC shows being slanted. Watching them is sometimes like watching an Obama pep rally.

 

I listen to Rush and Hannity during the day and tune in to Olberman and Maddow at night. Sometimes I'll catch Ed Schultz (The Ed Show). Just hearing the differences in these shows each day based on the day's news cycle is pretty entertaining.

 

One thing I will say for the MSNBC folks is that they will criticize the administration, not often, but from time to time if certain decisions the administration makes aren't enough to the left. Both Olberman and Ed ripped into Obama during the healthcare debate for not "fighting harder" for a public option and therefore helping to get a bill passed that had "no teeth" in their opinion.

 

When the news came out that the administration gave the ok to put US citizen Anwar Awlaki on the CIA hit list Olberman lambasted Obama.

 

Maddow has taken her swings at Obama for not working harder to get Don't Ask Don't Tell repealed.

 

On the flip side I never hear anything but criticism from Rush and Hannity. Even when some news comes out that you think they would support like the Awlaki thing or the administration's latest support to increase domestic oil drilling, you get nothing. For god's sake Rush found a way to criticize Obama when the news came out that he gave the ok for the Navy snipers to take out the Somali pirates that had seized a US cargo ship.

 

It's hard to take anything they say seriously when all they do is criticize. This stinks because I think both Rush and Hannity are smart guys and are both very knowledgeable about what goes on in Washington. I'm sure they often have valid points. But it just gets lost with all their other criticism and ranting. Some of which I'm sure is justified, but who knows?

[driveby]

A good example of the double standard

[bushwacked]

The nature of this discussion will never change. If all major media news outlets proclaimed Obama the anti-Christ today, people would be complaining about the liberal bias next week. The myth of the liberal media has become an urban legend that will never die. Just as PETA will whine about the fate of the gooey duck and the NAACP will whine about how OJ Simpson was a victim of racism, certain people will always whine about how their belief system is a victim of the liberal media. It’s human nature to whine about being a victim instead of taking stock in reality.

[dmarc117]

The nature of this discussion will never change. If all major media news outlets proclaimed Obama the anti-Christ today, people would be complaining about the liberal bias next week. The myth of the liberal media has become an urban legend that will never die. Just as PETA will whine about the fate of the gooey duck and the NAACP will whine about how OJ Simpson was a victim of racism, certain people will always whine about how their belief system is a victim of the liberal media. It’s human nature to whine about being a victim instead of taking stock in reality.

 

 

kool-aid, yum!

[Duchess Jack]

Even when some news comes out that you think they would support like the Awlaki thing or the administration's latest support to increase domestic oil drilling, you get nothing.

 

I listen to NPR in the morning and NPR or Rush at lunch (depending on what NPR is talking about) and Hannity on the way home. I too enjoy hearing both sides of the issue. Its also why I like the discussions here because there is always a lot of point counter point.

 

I agree with you on the drilling and such - on how people could not give Obama credit. They had to paint their argument as 'he didn't go far enough'

 

Another observation I had is regarding the abortion part of the health care bill

 

right to life orginizations were all up in arms because it allowed some silly scenario where somebody could get a publically funded abortion where as a womans group was all up in arms because it put restrictions on them. When the wacko left thinks its too far right and the wacko right thinks its too far left - it means that we're probably on the right track.

 

not related - but I caught it last night and it made me laugh. marginally deals with the the telling of half a story - but I am sure quotes are cherry-picked for the best comidic results.

http://vodpod.com/watch/3424204-thats-tariffic

Edited April 22, 2010 by Duchess Jack

[westvirginia]

I remember hearing about a study in the early '90's. Something like 94% of folks who considered themselves journalists self-classified as liberal and indicated they voted for democrats. That's where the bias comes from, IMO. Oh, now this study was done before Fox News. Not sure about the NBC's, but CNN would have still been the biggest news dog on the cable block.

 

And dj - I don't know about any of the "dividing the country" stuff. I didn't hear/see you saying this when shrub was getting (correctly) lambasted for the failure to find WMD and going half-cocked into a war. I really don't get your point about saying since Fox is getting the ratings people should hush about liberal media bias. There are what, five large cable news orgs? And one... just one is not liberal.

[Duchess Jack]

I remember hearing about a study in the early '90's. Something like 94% of folks who considered themselves journalists self-classified as liberal and indicated they voted for democrats. That's where the bias comes from, IMO. Oh, now this study was done before Fox News. Not sure about the NBC's, but CNN would have still been the biggest news dog on the cable block.

 

And dj - I don't know about any of the "dividing the country" stuff. I didn't hear/see you saying this when shrub was getting (correctly) lambasted for the failure to find WMD and going half-cocked into a war. I really don't get your point about saying since Fox is getting the ratings people should hush about liberal media bias. There are what, five large cable news orgs? And one... just one is not liberal.

 

I cannot account what I said in the past - but I hope we all try to grow and learn. My issue is not with Fox - but all cable news. They take a misquoted two second sound bit and have 24 hour coverage on folks opinion on it. Jon Stewart does the same thing - but it is 1/2 hour a day and he is funny about it.

 

and I am not denying that there is a left wing media - I am just suggesting that when you look at the ratings - that it is not doing all the brain washing and policy setting that it is given credit for.