"There’s certainly the opportunity to create a much more powerful liberal voice in the country. The fact that it hasn’t been done yet, doesn’t mean it can’t be done."
And since you paid $315 million for it...
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
७० टिप्पण्या:
...and look how it's worked for the NYT....
"There’s certainly the opportunity to create a much more powerful liberal voice in the country."
Like ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, CNN, NYT, LAT, the SF Chronicle, academia, Hollywood, and all the rest aren't enough to fight FOX. Incredible.
And still, with all these "informed" liberal outlets, no one can mention the multitude of cults or answer the question of why anyone would join one.
Maybe Arianna, with the help of John-Roger, will be able to help out there.
The "Content" to a media seller of advertising is of course what keeps the viewer's eyes on a media outlet. Outrageous progressive fantasy lines is a type of content that can be used for that reason alone. Look at Disney Studios.
AOL is the worst company in the world. HuffPo is the second worst. Or maybe the other way around.
On another topic, Keith Olbermann will be moving to Algore's Current TV. Bye, Keith!
"Yes, she’s got political views, but gosh, look how political views have worked for Fox." - Air America exec, in reference to Randy Rhodes
They just don't get it. The only reason FOX is succesful is because it fills a market need deliberately neglected by the MSM. In fact, someone could make a ton of money challeging FOX for its conservative viewers.
Crack you think the cooperate owned media is liberal- really? I guess that must be why if I want to find out what is happening in the world out side of the latest plug for Disney's cruise ship, or the latest blonde to disappear, I have to go to Asahi Shimbun, or Asia Times, or the BBC, or Aljazeera, and yes the NYT- As John Prime said long ago, turn off your TV.
Crack you think the cooperate owned media is liberal- really?
Yes Libtard, water is wet. I have over a dozen direct experiences with left-wing media bias.
You'll have more luck trying to convert us into your Global Warming cult.
RV:
Like I said earlier, if the media was not liberal, Instapundit would be much better known than blowhard Arianna. But the media is librul so it ignores and disdains and fears bloggers like Instapundit.
Maybe AOL will do for Arianna what it almost did for Time Warner.
PS roesch believes his own propaganda that Lefties are all starving for the cause. He never heard the old American truism - there's no such thing as a poor, white Liberal.
I tell you, Tina Brown is the goods.
What a minute. Who are we talking about?
roesch-voltaire,
If I want to find out what is happening in the world...I have to go to Asahi Shimbun, or Asia Times, or the BBC, or Aljazeera, and yes the NYT.
And you gain something, other than a liberal perspective, how again? Take the BBC for example:
For 20 years I was a front man at the BBC, anchoring news and current affairs programmes, so I reckon nobody is better placed than me to answer the question that nags at many of its viewers — is the BBC biased?
In my view, ‘bias’ is too blunt a word to describe the subtleties of the pervading culture. The better word is a ‘mindset’. At the core of the BBC, in its very DNA, is a way of thinking that is firmly of the Left.
By far the most popular and widely read newspapers at the BBC are The Guardian and The Independent. Producers refer to them routinely for the line to take on running stories, and for inspiration on which items to cover. In the later stages of my career, I lost count of the number of times I asked a producer for a brief on a story, only to be handed a copy of The Guardian and told ‘it’s all in there’.
Jesus, r-v, I said "liberal" and you took it as "lacking an international perspective" - are you so far to the left you don't even know what liberal means?
Andrea Mitchell is a voice of the mainstream media who speaks on behalf of the democrat party.
Most of the dominate liberal establishment media is obviously liberal if not downright proggie/leftwing.
eeek. Fox News. I'm scared. How dare there exist a media outlet that isn't pro-prog.
Crack you think the cooperate owned media is liberal- really?
That's always the question isn't it. Do they really believe that, or are they just on a relentless pursuit of working the refs because they know the masses hate most of their ideas.
This is going to be the death of The Huff Post.
The deluge of slick adds is going to drive people away.
The Asahi Shimbun isn't just liberal, it's left wing. And proud of it.
"The fire swamp!? We'll never survive!"
"Nonsense! You're only saying that because no one ever has!"
I predict a massive failure on this deal for AOL. She is hugely popular in the echo chamber that she's built but so what. You're AOL and as an internet destination you've got to overcome the fact that the whole planet basically laughs at you in the first place... and now you got to overcome that and get that $315 million back. Oh and her community is essentially outraged at her for doing it too. Going to make generating content a little tougher. I predict a huge boost for Kos.
A universal aspect of all liberals, betrayed here by garage and roesch, is that they are middle-of-the-road. There are no extremists on the left, only on the right. The big three network news departments appear conservative to them because they show advertising and the anchors wear ties.
I remember when I realized Walter Cronkite was not a patriot-saint. I felt like I had awoken from a long sleep.
Drudge says Ariana got $18 million. Now that would be an awesome payday for anyone, but she did give the initial $1 million of see money to start Huff Puff, so she should get a decent payout if it has been a success. But where did the rest of that $315 million go?
you think the cooperate owned media is liberal- really?
I'm always amused at how easily liberals are conned.
The 20% of the country that is left liberal does command a significant part of the media dollar.
At this point, they seem to be fighting for a greater portion of a shrinking market.
And they are ever-wistful for those commanding days of near-total liberal media control, a peak reached in the 1970s.
Well, if the majority of the media is liberal in a free market, where ultimately the consumer drives the choices then it follows that the majority of the market is liberal.
But we know that america is a center right country, right? If that is the case, then why is the marketplace in this country unable to assert itself?
"Well, if the majority of the media is liberal in a free market,"
The majority of viewers and listeners are not liberal, hence the leftist media's declining numbers in radio, TV, and newspapers nationwide.
The marketplace has in fact asserted itself. For example, Newsweek was recently sold for one dollar.
In that case, I wonder why it has taken SO long for the market to assert itself. I mean, its not like the "liberal media" is a new phenomenon.
With pretty much any product, it wouldn't have taken 30 years for it to fail if it didn't appeal to the market.
And it wouldn't have taken SO long for the opposing niches to be filled with products.
The big three network news departments appear conservative to them because they show advertising and the anchors wear ties.
Not to me. I see the media for the most part as mainly just stupid and lazy D+ elites, incapable of discussing public policies that might affect their audience. But then again, that's the point. Why would you want an informed public? Much easier to type up a Facebook post from Sarah Palin.
The Fairness Doctrine was a policy of the FCC from 1949 until 1987.
So all the changes have occurred in the last 23 years, a rather brief spell.
Radio toppled first and fastest.
TV news came later, and liberal news is falling apart.
Newspapers, like TV news, are falling to the internet.
garage: Why would you want an informed public? Much easier to type up a Facebook post from Sarah Palin.
Thats an odd comment, considering that Palin has been mostly right where Obama has been mostly wrong.
But thanks for reminding me of all the sophisticated libtards that tweated their ignorance of history when they thought they were bashing her "don't party like its 1773" quote.
Markos: Historic Illiteracy: Idiot Sarah Palin "Party Like It's 1773" After The Election!
OMG, will this blithering idiot ever shut up?!
More of Garage's "informed public" at
http://perfunction.typepad.com/perfunction/2010/10/historic-illiteracy-idiot-sarah-palin-party-like-its-1773-after-the-election.html
Anyone who ever thought Arianna Huffington was anything but a rank opportunist deserves what they get.
Personally, my first thought was "Ha! Good for her." My second was "Suckers!"
Ankur: And it wouldn't have taken SO long for the opposing niches to be filled with products.
It didn't. When conservatives were pushed out of the MSM, they started a parallel venue where they could exercise their freedom of speech.
Its was called Talk Radio.
You've heard of Rush Limbaugh, yes?
(I need a Libtard to remind me again how they are so smart. Maybe do it in all caps this time so it will last longer than 24 hours)
What does "corporate-owned" have to do with being left or right?
The left isn't anti-corporate, it's anti-capitalist. The left is fine with corporations as long as government gets to pick the winners and the losers.
WVR,
"Of course, by AOL standards Keith Olbermann is a roaring success..."
Well, you're right about the roaring part.
Pogo,
Symbolically it was for a dollar, but didn't Harman also get all of Newsweek's liabilities as part of the deal? So it really cost him quite a bit more than that photo-op greenback.
I suggest that if liberals keep looking to conservatives for how to succeed they just may figure it out. Hint: It has nothing to do with style. This may take a while to figure out, but keep at it.
You'll notice that when conservatives were in the wilderness, they didn't go around trying to copy liberals. They did something new - you might say "progressive."
To recap:
Nobody reads or wants liberal media. Yet HuffPo sold for 315 million. The left is anti-capitalist, yet the HuffPo agreed to be sold for 315 million, between anti-capitalists?
The right is officially speaking in tongues. Or some language only recognizable to them.
How could they be "pushed out" in a free market economy?
I mean, lets go down the list:
Liberal Media
Liberal Academia
Liberal Hollywood
Liberal Musicians
Liberal google
Liberal Wikipedia
Liberal snopes.com
Liberal FactCheck.org
Liberal School Boards
Liberal Schoolteachers
Liberal physicists (OMG BIG BANG!)
Liberal biologists (EVOLUTION!!1!)
Liberal comic books
Liberal Silicon Valley
Liberal venture capitalists funding alternative energy projects
Liberal libraries (HARRY POTTER IS THE DEVIL!!!)
Liberal Microsoft
Liberal Apple
Liberal ACLU (never mind that they also fight for the second amendment)
I am sure I have missed a few.
Feel free to add to this list. It would be fun to have an exhaustive list of liberal biases in this country.
The liberal sensibility does not reach its largest audience in news programming or commentary. They do not have anyone comparable to Limbaugh or O'Reilly. On the other hand, conservatives do not have any movie stars or directors to green light a sympathetic biopic of Thatcher or Reagan. Contrast that with the number of favorable films about Che, blacklisted Communists, John Reed, Lillian Hellman, unjustly persecuted Muslims, etc. And some of those films as entertainment vehicles were very well done......With political programming and even to some extent hard news shows, you're on your guard. You know that someone is presenting the view from their window and that there are other windows. With fictional works, not so much. Tom Joad, Robert Jordan, Lillian Hellman's "Julia": these characters live in vivid, complete worlds, and you accept that world as the revealed truth. It's all a crock, but it becomes a part of you in a way that a Limbaugh monologue does not.....Before I die I would like to see a movie that explores the dynamic of what made Alger Hiss such a self aggrandizing, manipulative liar. Also, instead of the psycho creep in There Will Be Blood, I would like to see a movie that examines why John D. Rockefeller and Andrew Carnegie were driven to give away so much of their money.
Now it makes sense, Ankur doesn't know what a conservative is.
I am just listing things that I have seen lambasted as liberal either in this blog or elsewhere in the internet by conservatives. I can provide a link for each of those complaints of liberalism.
Huffington is a skilled brander. She's skillfully branded Huffington Post as a "Come for the Liberal-ish headlines, stay for the celebrity gossip and divorce advice" site for soccer moms and dads. AOL is and has always been the internet your parents like. It's kind of a match made in heaven.
I think what's always turned me off about Huffpo isn't their success, or Arianna's personality or anything like that...it's that Huffpo despite its liberal pretensions isn't really liberal, or anything at all. It's just this carefully constructed bit-of-this and a bit-of-that demographic flypaper. Which works, in a very non-threatening kind of way. Like Valium.
Chris nailed it. Huffington post super, super annoying.
Articles about new age crap. Articles about the dangers of vaccination. And gossip style photos of Maria Belen Chapur. Just ugh.
Don't worry about the liberals:
Everything Appears To Be Going Exactly To Plan
kinda funny to hear the lefties bashing corporations out of one side of their mouths while hailing the glorious corporate takeover of the huffpo out of the other side.
Before I die I would like to see a movie that explores the dynamic of what made Alger Hiss such a self aggrandizing, manipulative liar.
I have a brilliant, brilliant idea. Mad Men + The Night Stalker (Darren McGavin) + Witness (by Whittaker Chambers) + Lost Boys.
It's set in the late 1940s. basically the Hiss story and all the other spies -- there were a bunch -- but the spies are vampires and the Communist menace is a Vampire menace. The main people in the story are a ragtag few OSS types charged with ferreting out the vampires.
Hit me up if you are reading, David Chase.
Crack you think the cooperate owned media is liberal- really?
"Liberal" is shorthand for "heavily biased in favor of big government in general and the Democratic Party in particular".
The left is anti-capitalist, yet the HuffPo agreed to be sold for 315 million
The right is anti-gay, yet several Republican Congressmen turned out to be closeted homosexuals.
Hm. If only there was a word for this word of thing. Maybe something Greek?
Revenant said...
The left is anti-capitalist, yet the HuffPo agreed to be sold for 315 million
The right is anti-gay, yet several Republican Congressmen turned out to be closeted homosexuals.
Well, he's wrong as always. Not anti-, in fact, they're the ones who don't need to know someone else does in the bedroom (or anywhere else).
Conservatives just don't think such things should be encouraged, especially for cynical, self-serving, partisan political gain.
Just because we operate under a more or less 'free market' economy in America doesn't mean that a product immediately arises to fill every market niche immediately. With a product like news especially, there used to be a tremendous amount of infrastructure required to deliver the news, up to and often including a license from the government.
Think about what it took to deliver the news before the Internet...reporters on site, massive printing presses, distribution networks, and most importantly, a brand.
Given those limitations, it's not at all surprising that it has taken so long to develop outside news sources as it has really taken 30 years for the Internet to develop, which was what made outside news sources possible.
The Washington Post unloaded Newsweek for a $1.
Weren't these guys paying attention?
Liberal ACLU (never mind that they also fight for the second amendment)
Actually they don't.
In striking down Washington D.C.'s handgun ban by a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court's 2008 decision in D.C. v. Heller held for the first time that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms, whether or not associated with a state militia.
The ACLU disagrees with the Supreme Court's conclusion about the nature of the right protected by the Second Amendment. We do not, however, take a position on gun control itself. In our view, neither the possession of guns nor the regulation of guns raises a civil liberties issue.
Nice try though.
I can provide a link for each of those complaints of liberalism.
I am tempted to ask you to do so, just because your list was so long it would be a pita and I don't think you'd really do it :)
Ever notice who sponsors NPR, mostly corporations. A corporations is a form of private socialism. There is nothing inherently right wing about a corporation.
And we'll call it Air America!!!!
What? Has that been done?
Still trying to understand what AOL sees as worth $315 million.
Seems investors may be grappling with the number.
WV: sumscerw - Sumscerwed investors bailing out of stock holdings.
I bet Andrew Sullivan is just pissed and kicking the beagle over the fact that AOL did not buy the Daily Dish. What does that Ariana have that he does not have?
Clearly AOL is homophobic.
"What does Ariana have that he does not have?"
A gay husband?
Blogger Lincolntf said...
"What does Ariana have that he does not have?"
A gay husband?
The early returns have Lincolntf in the lead for thread winner.
On the heels of their deal with AOL. I hear that HuffPo is working on a television show too.
It will be carried by the Dumont Network, and may even be in color.
Crack as far as I can tell the MSM's focus, particularly television is to sell products for corporations, and to promote their programs, which in turn sell more products-- seems to me a conservative free market approach. In return the news shows serve up distractions and fluff, yet another interview discussing Lindsay Lohan's problems this morning on ABC. I guess this is the liberal part you object to? Frankly i prefer organizations, Liberal or otherwise, that actually pay to put people on the ground to do investigative reporting, not only here but in foreign countries, which is why I cited a few of the sources I attend to. Now considering where all the money that supports MSM, including Fox, I wonder in whose interest is it to have a mis-informed country? Again I urge you to turn off your TV.
Arianna Stassinopoulous Huffington ... Grifter extraordinaire. Lives with a a guy who refused to marry her in England for a bit, then moves to US and marries a Bi-Sexual Conservative RICH Republican, for whom she campaigns on conservative values.
Next she and hubby are divorced, cum settlement, and she establishes the political blog equivalent of TMZ ... and writes a book or two for which she's accused of plagiarism. Now she's hooked AOL for $315 Million.
I'd say she's dang good at her "trade."
Roesch, I assume you missed the months of "Green" campaigning and "eco-programming" that the MSM vomited up in the weeks preceding Copenhagen. Millions of dollars and countless broadcast hours were spent not on selling products, entertaining viewers or presenting news, but on pushing a bizarre and faltering international political cause. Fortunately the real world caught up with the Green frauds just in time to make the network efforts meaningless. They certainly tried their hardest to push for the most anti-capitalist Treaty in history.
Again I urge you to turn off your TV.
I think when one looks at the ratings of the cable news stations along with thier CBS, NBC and ABC counterparts, I would suggest most people don't turn to the TV for their news.
Here you go, Hoosier - examples of ACLU supporting conservatives/conservative causes.
http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2010-07-15/news/fl-aclu-sues-for-seized-weapons-20100715_1_aclu-petitions-court-guns-sheriff
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/aclu-backs-pro-life-group-in-free-speech-billboard-case/
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,108140,00.html
you're welcome.
Crack you think the cooperate owned media is liberal- really?
That's always the question isn't it. Do they really believe that, or are they just on a relentless pursuit of working the refs because they know the masses hate most of their ideas.
- - -
And this is always the danger point for libs, where spin meets reality. Libs are in a position where they have to convince themselves that the MSM is not, in fact, leftist, and explain why Fox is doing so well.
According to spin, Fox is doing so well because its political. So another news organization that is political to the left, should do as well as Fox.
In reality, Fox is doing so well because the supply of right of center news is tiny but the demand is huge.
MSNBC is being crushed because the supply of left of center news is immense, and the demand is shrinking all the time.
But if you cannot admit the supply of left of center news is huge, if you have convinced yourself that only troglodyte banjo playing righties believe this, then you are in a world of hurt if you put money behind the spin.
Here you go, Hoosier - examples of ACLU supporting conservatives/conservative causes.
My comment was in response to your ACLU/2nd Amendment post. I posted a link and excerpt directly from the ACLU's website in which they state they disagree with the Supreme Court decision and do not officially view the 2nd Amendment as a civil liberties issue.
If the Broward chapter of the ACLU took it upon themselves to defend the gun rights of an individual bully for them although I wonder how it reconciles with the policy of the national organization which is in direct contravention.
Crack as far as I can tell the MSM's focus, particularly television is to sell products for corporations, and to promote their programs, which in turn sell more products-- seems to me a conservative free market approach. In return the news shows serve up distractions and fluff, yet another interview discussing Lindsay Lohan's problems this morning on ABC. I guess this is the liberal part you object to? Frankly i prefer organizations, Liberal or otherwise, that actually pay to put people on the ground to do investigative reporting, not only here but in foreign countries, which is why I cited a few of the sources I attend to. Now considering where all the money that supports MSM, including Fox, I wonder in whose interest is it to have a mis-informed country? Again I urge you to turn off your TV.
- - - - -
So serious question, in your mind, is it possible to be employed by a corporation and be a leftist?
Ankur, I found this comment within the article to be of interest.
Brandon Hensler, the ACLU of Florida's communications director in Miami, said: "This is the first time I know of in the ACLU's 90-year history that we have advocated on behalf of a citizen to have their weapons returned from law enforcement."
First time in 90 years? I wonder what took them so long? Almost makes one wonder if there was some other issue the ACLU had with the Sheriff's dept and this incident proved a suitable catalyst.
"The right is anti-gay, yet several Republican Congressmen turned out to be closeted homosexuals."
Not anti-, in fact, they're the ones who don't need to know someone else does in the bedroom (or anywhere else).
Conservatives just don't think such things should be encouraged
Consider the following statement:
Christianity should be kept in church. I don't want to know about your religion, and I definitely don't want you encouraging anyone else to be Christian.
If I said that, and then tried to deny that I was anti-Christian, you would take me about as seriously as I take you now. Saying "I'm not against it, it just shouldn't be discussed or encouraged" makes no sense; no rational person thinks that way.
especially for cynical, self-serving, partisan political gain.
Homophobes outnumber homosexuals by an order of magnitude. Outside of a few heavily-gay enclaves like San Francisco, the only people who achieve partisan political gains from gay issues are conservatives.
Does anybody remember Air America? It's been done to death, and is indistinguishable from most media.
AOL stock tanked by the amount they paid for HuffPo, which tells you that they should have just thrown the mother of all parties for the AOL staff. At least that would have been a morale booster.
Considering what AOL did for Time Warner/CNN...
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा