"Democrats Defecting?"

[Grumpy]

Originally Posted by noonereal

Check out the Science Channel. The best channel on TV. I have to pay quite a bit extra for it but it is worth every penny.

I hate paying as much as I do for TV all ready. Otherwise I would look in to it.

[doucanoe]

I try to watch them all. When I am up to it that is. The sad reality is that if you want some semblance of the truth, you have to sort through all the BS and find it yourself.

RC

[Grumpy]

Can you imagine how a news agency that only reports on the news would do now ?

The public probably would not watch it cause its not entertaining enough, or saying what they want to hear. Really pathetic if you think about it..

[noonereal]

Originally Posted by Grumpy

I hate paying as much as I do for TV all ready. Otherwise I would look in to it.

It is part of a package that includes the military channel, History channel International and a few other truly documentary channels. Little to none of that Nostradamus crap or repossession reality garbage.

[noonereal]

Originally Posted by Grumpy

Can you imagine how a news agency that only reports on the news would do now ?

The public probably would not watch it cause its not entertaining enough, or saying what they want to hear. Really pathetic if you think about it..

I don't know. I believe the majority folks on the left just want "news".
The right is the group that has evolved this culture of chanting together over hate propaganda.

Look at this forum alone. Who here on the left watches Olberman or the Rhodes Scholar? (see Rob, true to my word )

Now look at the folks who are wing nuts here, they swear by the talking heads at fox and repeat word for word what they have been told. It is a complete different culture on the right. That is my honest opinion.

[Grumpy]

Originally Posted by noonereal

I don't know. I believe the majority folks on the left just want "news".
The right is the group that has evolved this culture of chanting together over hate propaganda.

Look at this forum alone. Who here on the left watches Olberman or the Rhodes Scholar? (see Rob, true to my word )

Now look at the folks who are wing nuts here, they swear by the talking heads at fox and repeat word for word what they have been told. It is a complete different culture on the right. That is my honest opinion.

If this were completely true then who is watching the leftwing shows ? Unless you do not think there are any.

[noonereal]

Originally Posted by Grumpy

If this were completely true then who is watching the leftwing shows ? Unless you do not think there are any.

The few that exist are doing miserable. Drive down the highway and turn on the radio. It's a virtual monopoly by the right. Why?

People like myself will not support radical garbage over the airways.

People on the right tend to love this stuff.

If you think my contention that it is part of the culture is incorrect why do yo think a left wing show never makes it? Never mind a series of networks as fox has.

BTW, nothing in life is "completely true."
(Try and explain this to a wing nut!)

[Boreas]

Just to add a little perspective to the subject, there are currently more Republicans retiring from Congress than there are Democrats. I'll try to get back to you with hard numbers but I think it's this:

Senate
Democrat 2
Republican 6

House
Democrat 12
Republican 19

This is fairly normal. Politicians retire all the time. It's just that the 24 hour news cycle is always hungry. In the absence of a real story they have to cook one up. This time it's "defections in the ruling party".

By the way, George Radanovich, a Republican Congressman from California, announced his retirement today. I'll bet that one will be all over the news too, right? (crickets)

Now, the real question is how likely are any of those seats to change party hands? My guess is it'll shake out as a small loss of seats for the Democrats but no more than we've come to expect in off-year elections. It won't hurt the House much but the Dems will fall below 60 seats in the Senate and that will be a problem, given the obstructionist Republicans.

John

[merrylander]

So maybe the Dems should defecate rather than defect, on Reps if they have a chance.

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by noonereal

The few that exist are doing miserable. Drive down the highway and turn on the radio. It's a virtual monopoly by the right. Why?

Noone, shows like Countdown, Rachel Maddow and The Ed Show don't get the consistent numbers that O'Reilly, Hannity and Beck do but they're not doing horribly. Some of these shows actually beat their Fox counterparts in certain markets on a fairly regular basis and every once in a while they win out nationally for the odd week.

In any event, it's not really fair to compare Fox with any other network. They were formed for the specific purpose of becoming the propaganda arm of the Republican Party. This is very well documented but really all you need to do is look at who Murdoch placed in charge. Roger Ailes got the job on the strength of his sleazy and not-quite-illegal work on the Reagan and Bush 41 campaigns. He's a talented and ruthless Republican political operative. that was his job before Fox and it still is.

By the way, Fox lost bucketfuls of money for the first several years of its existence. Here's what Brit Hume, everyone's favorite journalist, had to say in on PBS in 1999:

"This operation loses money. It doesn't lose nearly as much as it did at first, and it's -- well, it's hit all its projections in terms of, you know, turning a profit, but it's - it will lose money now, and we expect for a couple more years. I think it's losing about $80 million to $90 million a year."

So, this is 1999. Fox News went on the air in 1996. Three years later, according to Hume, it was still losing money, "$80 million to $90 million a year", and that represented an improvement. If Fox News was intended as a business Murdoch would have pulled the plug sometime in 1998. Of course, if what you're after is one party rule, Fox News was a worthwhile investment.

By contrast, MSNBC is owned by GE, a huge government contractor and financial entity. As such, MSNBC has to serve the larger corporate interests of its parent. That includes but isn't limited to earning a profit. You really can't compare the two.

John


[Note] Just FYI, I don't watch either Fox or MSNBC.