Can we get an alternative to Fox News, now?

I'm not the sort to bash on Fox News. It is what it is, and what it is is the creation of a man, Rupert Murdoch, who likes liberals, but loves money even more, and who has cleverly positioned Fox News to appeal to conservatives and draw lightning from the Left, but credibly root for Barrack Obama's victory over even the most left-leaning Republican in all of Washington.

Or, maybe you disagree with that characterization. But isn't it just a little freaky that every oar the Republicans have in the mainstream media is one boat, and that boat is the creator of "The Family Guy." And "American Dad." And "Glee." And a relentless torrent of other conservative-hating TV shows?

How liberal Murdoch is or isn't isn't really the point. It's that there are no alternatives. As monolithically liberal as CNN seemed, isn't incredible that it keeps shedding the most conservative (or at least moderate) hosts and steering harder and harder to the left? Think about it: CNN used to have Lou Dobbs AND Glenn Beck. And Glenn Beck was too conservative for Fox News.

But just think about the power-house line-up a conservative cable network could attract, from the far right to the colorful outside-the-box mavericks: Glenn Beck, Michelle Malkin, Laura Ingraham, Michael Savage, Pat Buchanan, Jerry Doyle, Lou Dobbs, Fred Grandy.

I have a feeling--that's it, nothing more, not based on any fact or anything, just a feeling--that we may very well see a Fox/Mercury Radio Arts joint venture cable TV channel being launched some time before the 2012 primaries.

Think of it as kind of the anti-CurrentTV/MSNBC/etc.

I could see FNC programming like RedEye going over to that channel--maybe put into the 11:30 ET slot to compete with Letterman and Leno, even.

I could see original-production drama programming Sam Adams-style historical dramas showing up on that channel.

60 Minutes-style investigative reporting, but turned on government, the Soros network, and the Democrat machines.

Steal some of the PJTV comedy talent to do stand-up, improv, and/or skit comedy--a sort of right-wing Monty Python/SNL. Some of those guys could pull it off, I think.

Heck, do a science fiction series or two. Heaven knows SyFy doesn't want to do science fiction any more. Revive Firefly.

Until the Internet kills off cable networks, this kind of thing is needed. A kind of freedom-oriented melange of HBO, MSNBC, and Comedy Central. It could work.

I'd watch it. A lot.

Never could understand the left’s hatred of Fox. Simpsons, American Dad, Family Guy, plus 99% of their programs are pro-leftist/anti-conservative. And the only thing that is really “conservative” are friggin’ OPINION shows, not news. And even they are gentle when it comes to real issues, like Bill O’Reilly. The horrible crime that Fox commits is giving another angle to the 100% liberal crap that the MSM passes off as “news”. To really make a buck, there should be a truly “right wing” 60 minutes. Can you imagine a show that investigates Jesse Jackson, or Al Sharpton? It would be the most watched show on earth.

For those who are the real deal conservative, live like a real conservative and who listen to conservative radio, FOX NEWS can be very frustrating in its play as faux conservative. Some of its guests are serious and conservative, but the corporate hires are right out of Hollywood. Yes, some have the brains for the job, but generally are classic Hollywood exchanging the soul for the recognition and cash.

The all blonde, all cleavage and legs, all the time has become an embarrassing distraction to serious times and serious news. As a role model for success young girls and young adult women see modesty mostly as something to purge from the public eye in favor of very little skirt and the plunge tops. RED EYE is no exception but, thankfully, half the working world is asleep by the time it fires up.

Being FOX “moderate” after 50 years has nearly destroyed the USA and its younger generation. Moderates moderate and tolerate, but now even with dynamite you can’t pry them to their feet to spell principle, or Republic, when they would rather shop Macy’s and Eddie Baur than defend the Constitution. They probably won’t be moderate all that much longer as marxism is fast filling the void of moderation.

the only thing that is really “conservative” are . . . OPINION shows, not news.

Correct . . . and that is no accident. The reason is simple: "News" is, in and of itself, a POV. Any system for deciding what is headlined, what is reported on the front page, and what is not reported at all is (or at least expresses) a POV. As long as " Half the truth is often a great lie," (Benjamin Franklin) that will remain true.
The reasons for the "liberalism" of "the media" are hiding in plain sight. First, "the media" is too broad a term; if fiction is not to be entirely censored, it is impossible to prevent fiction from expressing a POV. It is nonsense to even discuss it. So what you're really talking about is journalism. Wire service journalism.
I emphasize "wire service" journalism, because antebellum journalism in America was notoriously, openly, partisan. In every direction. The newspapers got their news in a similar fashion - the mail - as the rest of the public (tho more systematically). Most newspapers, lacking news that no local yet had, operated on a weekly deadline rather than daily. Consequently the newspapers were largely about the opinion of the printer.
With the advent of the Associated Press, journalism suddenly had a continuous source of news to which the (local) general public was in principle not privy. At substantial expense - and at the cost of printing reports whose provenance wasn't under the printer's control. The result is the need of the newspaper to sell the credibility of journalists the editor of the paper doesn't even know. The cost, IOW, is not only money but independence - newspapers compete within the bounds set by the need to maintain the fable that all journalists are "objective." Which explains why newspapers never compete with each other in any way that would disrupt collegiality.
Thus, as Rush puts it, if you miss the ABC news, catch the CBS news; if you miss the New York Times, read the Washington Post. It all expresses the same POV because none of them are actually independent. You can have an "associated" press or you can have a free press - you can't have both simultaneously.

The horrible crime that Fox commits is giving another angle to the 100% liberal crap that the MSM passes off as “news”.

Correct.

To really make a buck, there should be a truly “right wing” 60 minutes. Can you imagine a show that investigates Jesse Jackson, or Al Sharpton? It would be the most watched show on earth.

Perhaps - but what you are talking about is an "opinion" show, because "news" is defined as whatever promotes the idea that journalists are more important and trustworthy than bankers, carpenters, grocers, or anyone else. And political "liberals" are people willing to sell their political souls for positive PR - which is precisely what the term "liberal" is intended by journalists to be. "Conservative" is intended as a negative label, just as surely as we know that marketing flacks lust to label their products "NEW!"
The irony being, of course, that "liberals" are reactionary when it comes to energy. Windmills are so antebellum . . .

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.