Let's start a new TV news station

I think it is safe to say that we are all sick of corporate media and the pathetic stories that make the nightly news. What if there was an alternative, a news station which reported important news from around the world in an unbiased fashion.

A few days ago there were some people reporting news about Sarah Palin offering their opinions of her and as they cut to commercial the microphones were still live and they continued to talk. Although they had just finished telling their listeners that Palin was a wonderful choice for VP and how well qualified she is, then, when they thought no one was listening, they all went ballistic on how she was terrible choice and it was all political B.S.

www.editorandpublisher.com...

We need an alternative. For many the internet is just that, but there are so many who do not use this resource, or find no need to seek any additional information. People know what Britney Spears is doing but they don't know that the Federal Reserve is not even part of the government. Some people are waking up but there needs to be a catalyst.

Personally, I don't have the experience to know how to go forward with this idea, so I would like to hear what others think. Is it even realistic to start a new TV channel which would offer unbiased important news while leaving out the ridiculous talking heads that don't even believe what they are saying or the stupid celebrity nonsense that means nothing? The biggest obstacle would surely be financial backing and getting advertisers. Perhaps the truth would be too much for advertisers and it is simply not a realistic option.

The channel could even be called "Internet TV" or something and could include many podcasts or news sources that otherwise would not show up anywhere else on TV. It could even have funny news such as the Onion.

Please share your opinions and ideas. Thank you.

[edit on 29-9-2008 by Building7]

[edit on 29-9-2008 by Building7]

Originally posted by Building7
I think it is safe to say that we are all sick of corporate media and the pathetic stories that make the nightly news. What if there was an alternative, a news station which reported important news from around the world in an unbiased fashion.

YA good idea... I have been sitting with the same one for a while now.

It seems America has three sources for news - the left - the right and the net.

I don't think it serves any of us to have such a reality. Whats your idea?

Well, the cheapest way to establish any media presence is at the moment through the use of Internet.

Unfortunately, bias tends to be a huge issue when you aren't paying reporters or writers for their video coverage or articles. Without a physical locality for which these reports or articles are "connected", it becomes difficult to maintain a staff that is dedicated to your personal, or company vision. Similarly, hiring over the Internet, instead of in person, would only make for inefficiency... for covering stories on time, for a cause for language problems, if they happen to be foreign (assuming your directing your media to an English speaking audience), or if they just aren't capable of writing in a professional, educated tone.

To be a top media source, you have to make sure to capture the relevance of each story, and if you really want to do that in the sense that I believe you are imagining right now, you really need to have a physical presence at the source of those news. The CNN, BBC, Fox all have helicopters and professional camera crews. But I did say "top" and that's probably not such a necessity when it's your vision that you want to extend to the world.

Like you said, and going with the notion held by so many on these forums, the largest media sources are diluting the real information, advocating their own political agendas. This is a very real threat to the delivery of facts and truths, and I understand why you want to create your own form of media.

I think the best way to approach this problem is by finding an alternative method for which to create and distribute your media. The Internet is great, but then again that source is saturated with blogs, alternative news sites, even conspiracy forums. It's really has to stand out. The Internet is definitely the way to start out, since an idea needs capital-that could probably be raised through advertisements, or donations-in order to expand to a respectable size.

Bottom line: It has to have good enough marketing that it establishes a truly unique presence in a highly saturated environment.


[edit on 29-9-2008 by cognoscente]

Well, I think the only two options are to start a new "show" that is on an already established channel/network or start an entirely new channel/network, with the latter being more realistic but also more financially challenging.

I envision something which meshes tv and internet and also makes use of user-submission. The ultimate goal would be to find the most important current issues and find people who know what they are talking about to debate the issue or explain it to the viewers. For example, instead of people talking about how high the gas prices are right now, how about we have a discussion about the EV1 and how electric cars have already been developed and worked great. This would hopefully put new pressure onto Chevy who is about to release their Volt which only has a 40 mile range vs. the 100+ mile range of the EV1.

Maybe there could be something similar to Reddit or Digg where the "front page" stories would be discussed on the channel.

Stories like a kitten in a tree being rescued would not be considered newsworthy.

This station would set a new precedent for covering important issues which truly have an impact on America and also the rest of the world without an agenda, unless truth is an agenda. The closest current anchor that might be a good fit is Keith Olbermann or even John Stewart.

We would show the photos from Iraq that other stations do not show, for example. We would be a station of truth for the people and by the people.

Applaud the OP's sentiment

And am blown away by the clarity, articulation and intelligence revealed in
Cognoscente's post !

Posters like this and other, newer posters who're coming aboard are proof that when the going gets tough, the tough get posting !

ATS's reputation is gaining and so also are those who come to ATS for the real-news

Starred and Flagged

Thank you for your excellent post Cognoscente.

In terms of advertising/marketing:

Since the truth would be the ultimate goal, it would create an interesting advertising environment. Companies would be aware that the station would not "play nice" simply because they are paying to advertise. For example, if GM wants to advertise their new Volt we would still talk about the EV1 from the 90's and have a debate about why the project was canceled, etc. This might upset GM but the station would not be intimidated. This would eventually give more credence to the advertisers. In a way, it would make companies want to advertise even more knowing that the station would not hesitate to bring to light negative aspects of that company's doings. The station would be known for having the "best companies" advertisements.

The internet might be the cheapest way to do it, but most people do not watch their news online. My father and brother think everything online is for entertainment purposes only and are all lies and distortions. I'm tired of trying to convince them. In order to get people to watch (and it would even be better if it was a public imput and created news station to some extent, perhaps even utilizing students of the media and a spot for teenage journalists), is to have a companion newspaper, with ads delivered door to door free like Penticton Western Advertiser is. Of course, that would include time schedules for up and coming interviews and programs.

Perhaps a good way to start out would be to take the best in current internet news programming (which would work with the philosophy we'd be aiming for) and try to join together to form a network. This way the infrastructure already exists.

I'm not familiar with which online-only news sites would fit this ideal best, but I believe that The Onion would be a good addition and is very similar to The Daily Show/ The Colbert Report and would attract many viewers.

So, instead of forming an entirely new network with all original programming, currently successful and relatively unbiased online news sites could band together. This way there would already be a viewer base and the chance of success would be much higher.

While I don't have much to add to this, I can offer help. I volunteered for the college TV crew a year I was attending. I have some experience, but not a whole lot and my submissions were usually too cynical to be added to the mix. If something gets started and help is needed, just U2U me and I will do what I can

I like how you think Building7. Showing no remorse or fear of intimidation would definitely add credence to the program, and in turn attract some high paying advertisers.

The use of existing online infrastructure would seem plausible, but with the scope and vision you have in mind for this project, that I can so far infer, would require a largely independent reputation. I like how The Onion uses cynicism to disclose the truth, but it just doesn't get across to a large enough, serious enough audience.

Edit: With The Onion, when I said it doesn't reach a large enough audience, that is not accurate. However, is it not true that their programming is merely a reflection of our own cynicism and disgruntled attitudes to the powers that be? The idea is great, but it is unfortunately lost on many people.

Anyway, I always appreciate it when someone has the initiative to launch such a positive, inquiring discussion. Hats off you to Building7. I'd like to continue this discussion.

[edit on 30-9-2008 by cognoscente]

There's an organization called Independent Media Center ("Indy Media"), they have chapters all around the U.S. and throughout the world. They don't have much of a presence in video format however. They do produce a show which is aired monthly. Are you thinking something along those lines?

I think a fresh news organization would be a great thing. I'm in college as a journalism student at the moment. I'd be very excited to be involved with a news organization whose priority is disseminating the truth. Any of you serious about pulling something together?

Cognoscente,

The point I was trying to make about The Onion is simply that it is a well put together news (albeit spoof news) site with a large viewer base. As far as I can tell it is not already on TV anywhere, but I'm sure we will eventually see it there since it is some of the funniest stuff available. My thinking was that the station would not be 24/7 truth but that at least a portion of the programming would be just that (i.e. primetime) . But to help with ratings it would be very difficult to compete with CNN, FOX, etc without something unique.

Some of the news journalism I was thinking about goes along the lines of the Monsanto story I remember reading about years ago which was censored by FOX.

www.prwatch.org...

I just watched Who Killed the Electric Car recently and that is the type of story that needs (needed) to be out there. Also, the station could develop documentaries through investigative journalism which our competitors wouldn't touch with a ten foot pole.

Am I serious about all of this?
Yes, to the point that I am so frustrated with the biased crap I see on tv (FOX and others) and the stupid celebrity crap (everyone). For the most part I think CNN is the closest thing to what I'm talking about, since they seem to do an okay job for the most part. But I remember seeing Ron Paul on CNN and they treated him like he was from outer space.

I have very little money and experience, but the people with the experience and money would not want to do something similar to what I am proposing.

I'm not really sure where to go from here, but am encouraged by the responses so far. I will look into Indy Media when I get a chance wingman.

Originally posted by Building7
Cognoscente,

I have very little money and experience, but the people with the experience and money would not want to do something similar to what I am proposing.

I'm not really sure where to go from here, but am encouraged by the responses so far. I will look into Indy Media when I get a chance wingman.

While I do not have any money, I do have some experience (see above post). It would be great to do somthing similar to what you are talking about, and I really don't see anyone who is shooting down ideas. Perhaps I am misunderstanding the first sentence in the quote?

But you said also something like CNN...I hate to say it but unless you are backed by corporate entities with about 2 million to start, it wont happen. However, that is not to say that the issues that would be presented would not be taken seriously. It is all about presentation.

Where to go from here:
Gather a group of volunteers.
Research...
Assign positions.
Research...
Delegate tasks.
and did I mention research?

Starting an indy-media group won't take a whole lot of money if you initially start with dedicated volunteers to help out. Once profits begin to come in (which will take some time) then they can be distributed to all involved. But there is also a wealth of information on the net if you know where to look. I just happen to know what bit I do from what projects I worked on with college.

Taledus,

I simply meant that people in the news business (with lots of financial resources and experience) would not want to take the risk and do what I am proposing since they have everything to lose.

When I mentioned CNN, I only did so because they seem to be the "least biased" of the news organizations. At least they sometimes give time to people like Ron Paul for example, and don't have ridiculous talking heads like Bill O'Reilly.

Another idea could be to critique current news organizations, but not in a joking fashion (like the daily show does). For example if someone goes on tv and gives their opinion of the bailout we could look up the background of that person and see if their opinion is completely biased in some way.

I am very interested in investigative journalism as well. A big story on Scientology would be a good story to start out with and something a lot of people are afraid to discuss.

Scientology is a good topic but it provides a challenge in the fact that many alternative journalistic organizations have saturated that story to the point where it becomes simply outrageous. If you are familiar with the brooding and arguably violent-you could call it a meme or internet phenomenon-called Anonymous, then you will know that their campaign against Scientology has only benefited that religion with some form of credibility.

I would love to see a take on this whole story from a clear, contextual perspective. Investigating the facts, dissecting reality from nonsense, and disseminating the truth... all this would make a great source of media. It would be a challenge. It would be controversial.

But it is necessary.



[edit on 30-9-2008 by cognoscente]

hope this hasnt been mentioned before but there is a channel on British sky digital called EMTV (their website www.edgemediatv.com...)

It mainly shows documentaries interviews and seminars on many of the subjects you would expect to find on ATS, including America: freedom to fascism, the Arron Russo interview.

perhaps contacting the creaters or owners could advise you

..and hey, im willing to help if its possible.

Well, I have been encouraged by the new sites people have posted and it is additional evidence that real journalism still happens.

A few more stories I would like to see on tv that no one seems to be discussing:

Voter purges (CNN actually does mention this on their site and may have discussed it, but I haven't personally seen the media talking about it)

Marijuana (if it is less harmful than cigarettes/alcohol why is it still illegal?, why not tax the crap out of it and make money)

Electoral college (is it really the best way?)

The new chevy volt performance vs. old EV-1, why not just bring back the EV1

Ok sir , the haarp gear has the 16 bit digital with the extra pin . All you have to do is shoot it once with the laser and it is out of comission for good . Do a test shot safely from a far range and you can see the sattelite is over , do it fast it is cold . They are cranking the stuff , we have to take out the poles ourselves manually but all you have to do is just shoot the 16 bit in the haarp gear once and it is over .