
Peter Thiel Is Exploring the Creation of a Conservative Cable News Network - smacktoward
https://www.buzzfeed.com/ryanmac/peter-thiel-conservative-news-network-roger-ailes-fox
======
oceanghost
I realize this idea is a bit old fashioned... but how about a news network
where they simply try as hard as they can to report objective reality, and we
don't worry about whom that favors?

~~~
mieseratte
Choosing what to show (and what not) is just as important in shaping opinion
and worldview while still allowing for objectivity. We have limited time,
limited attention spans, and limited concern (or outrage).

For example, one can cover, say, the illegal immigration situation in the US.
While a more liberal outlet might focus on humanitarian concerns of the
immigrants, the "good ones" leading virtuous lives in the country a
conservative one might focus on the humanitarian concerns of Americans, major
crime, etc.

What would be nice is an objective outlet that provides reasonable
consideration of both sides in a concise manner, analyzes potential benefit
and harm, etc. I'm sure this is the "Good, cheap, or fast" of news.

~~~
whatshisface
Politically "active material" is, for some reason, the only branch of
knowledge that we all seem to agree can't be expressed in words. I can tell
you everything known about the effects of... caffeine on general health: all I
have to do is start talking, and then not stop until I've said every well-
supported, relevant fact. There's absolutely no fundamental reason why I can't
put the profile of an undocumented hard-working fruit picker in the same
broadcast as a report on a brutal drug-related homicide believed to have
involved people here illegally. There are many _political_ reasons why I
wouldn't do that, most of them related to the motivations that drove me to do
character profiles (a dangerous combination of emotional credibility and
statistical weakness) in the first place, instead of having calm talks about
the large averages that we use to illuminate _every field of truth that 's
devoid of strong ulterior motives._

~~~
QAPereo
You still require an audience which understands you, believes you... otherwise
you do what you just said for vaccines, and you still get anti-vaxxers.
Besides. 90%+ of your audience just flipped to the channels which tell them
what they want to hear.

~~~
whatshisface
The tools that we could use to get the "uninterested" to believe the truth
work equally well for falsities, and are usually _used_ to spread beliefs of
convienience. If those tools were just sent down entirely, you'd be left with
"right" and "random," and the random would always average out at the polls.
Sadly, in our present world stupid is dangerous because machiavellians and
martyrs alike are magnetizing it with arguments that are as wrong as they are
emotionally convincing.

~~~
QAPereo
_Sadly, in our present world stupid is dangerous because machiavellians and
martyrs alike are magnetizing it with arguments that are as wrong as they are
emotionally convincing._

I don’t usually do this here, as it’s not strictly substantive, but damn
that’s a concise and lovely way of putting it.

------
freedomben
If Thiel is going to use his own ideology, it would likely be more of a
Libertarian news network. It isn't clear tho if that's the case. Maybe he just
thinks there's more market for "conservative" and thus would go that
direction. Or a third possibility (what I think is most likely actually) is
that nobody knows what words mean other that "Conservative" and "Liberal" so
they picked "the closest one."

~~~
humanrebar
There's not really a conservative news network, a libertarian one, or a
classically liberal one. Fox News has positioned itself in a tabloid/populist
space. It's hardly ideological (is cutting corporate tax rates pro little
guy?), so something with a more definite point of view as opposed to virtue
signalling would be interesting.

------
tcbawo
I worry about being on the cusp of not being able to discern real from non-
real. Pictures, stories, audio, video can be convincingly fabricated. Our
society and the rule of law may not be able to function. Maybe (hopefully?) we
can develop technology that will help solve some of these problems. We're only
in the first inning when it comes to political divisiveness.

------
nerfhammer
Is he confused about what Fox is or is he trying to copy it?

~~~
Buldak
I do wonder what "there is room to flank Fox News from the right" is supposed
to mean. What does that network look like?

~~~
jballanc
At least in the US, libertarians typically consider themselves "right" of the
Republican party. It's confusing, because right/left in politics exists on
multiple dimensions. One of those is religion/social morality, and on that
dimension libertarians are far to the _left_ of mainstream Republicans. On the
economics/gov't size dimension, however, they are solidly to the right.

~~~
humanrebar
The Republican party is more diverse than most commentators appreciate. Trump
didn't even have a majority of the vote in the Republican primary. Consider
that the median Republican voter did not consider Trump to be their first
choice. And that basically all the candidates except for Kasich ran to the
right of Trump.

Also, libertarians are generally to the right of the Democratic party on
religious liberty issues. Hardcore libertarians have no problems with people
having kooky or unhealthy religious practices, for that matter.

------
oblib
Well that would be just another billionaire owned blabber box then wouldn't
it?

Wanna know what I don't see much at all of on the FB feed right now?

Links to FOX News, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, NBC, produced "News". Almost none.

People are getting tired of tilted "News" and I promise right now do my best
to help bleed Peter Thiel's cash as fast as I can by exposing bullshit they
produce every chance they offer, and I'm sure that will be constantly.

Bring it on...

------
dragonwriter
MSNBC and CNN both tried to go hardcore conservative and out-Fox Fox briefly
around the same time many years back, both lost ratings and failed to dent Fox
when they did.

I'm not sure there's a market here; the demand for a conservative cable news
network has a strong tribal identity with Fox News.

------
cabaalis
We need to be careful that our news outlets do not become basically state
media when their party/ideal of choice is in power, and opposition media when
their party/ideal is not. It appears that is what we are leaning towards right
now, and all it does is foster more polarization.

------
wasx
If your news only aligns to a political ideology it is not news.

------
apineda
Great!

------
carrja99
No thanks.

------
RickJWag
Numerically, there are a great many more left-leaning sources than there are
right.

Another conservative network would be good. If we can't have fair news, at
least we can get biased news in equal and opposing doses.

~~~
mulmen
I will take your word for it that there are more left-leaning sources. I will
also assume for the sake of argument that it is possible to quantify the
political alignment of a news outlet.

What is your definition of "left-leaning"?

What is your definition of "fair" in the context of news?

Why do you believe news cannot be "fair" or that we cannot have it?

Is the numeric quantity of sources at any point on the political spectrum
relevant? How do you find the middle? Is it an average of all sources? Is it
just a scale from MIN to MAX? If it is min/max then can't an extremely
conservative (or liberal!) organization move the middle simply by making
outlandish claims on their side of the spectrum? Does that make sources that
would otherwise be considered "fair" appear biased?

~~~
RickJWag
These are good questions.

I'd say left-leaning sources are those that tend to report negatively on
conservative politicians and positively on liberals. The Harvard study
purports to measure what constitutes negative coverage, so this seems like it
could be measured.

About numbers, it seems today often Fox reports favorably for the GOP, while
CNN, NBC, MSNBC, NPR, and the BBC seem to favor the political left. (I think
the Harvard study seems to suggest this.)

I suppose a microcosm of the 'balanced list' I'm describing might be 'Real
Clear Politics'. This site posts leftist articles, then immediately follows
them with right-leaning articles in equal numbers one after the other. It's an
interesting way to get news, and it allows the reader to study different
biases, often on the same topic.

~~~
mulmen
Thanks for that explanation. I'm still unclear on why the total number of
sources or articles with a given alignment is relevant.

In your "Real Clear Politics" example two perspectives are given equal
weighting in their representation. This seems to make an assumption that there
are exactly two valid perspectives and that they can be easily balanced.

Can't that system be exploited by extremists? If an extremely left-wing
organization publishes a story that is nearly fabricated in its bias does a
right-wing organization need to publish an equally flawed piece on the other
side? Should people even read the stories?

I think it's accepted that there is bias in reporting. I also think it is a
trap to believe "middle" == "balanced" == "fair" because extremists can
exploit that perspective by making increasingly extreme statements. This is
the basis of much of cable news as I understand it and I believe it
oversimplifies the issues and creates echo chambers by rewarding the biggest
delta in opinion.

In my opinion it is more important to get _diverse_ news sources than it is to
try and balance ideologies, especially when those ideologies are defined by
someone else.

~~~
RickJWag
Thanks for that. I agree, diversity in news sources is a good way to get
differing perspectives. (Also, perspectives not being pushed from the same
opposing ideologies, as you suggest.)

