I don't want progressive television.  I want neutral television.

I look to CBC as the model.  The Canadian station is fair.  It does not lean to the right, or the left.

Let's look to accomplish a fair, unbiased media.  Because to think that the Democrats couldn't corrupt with their own media is wrong.

Not to poo-poo on the idea of progressive news, but I'm skeptical of how much of the country would actually watch it.

Despite everything, desptie strong anti-war feelings, despite electing Democrats, Fox still outnumbers all others in viewership. Anyone want to take a gander as to why?

Great, great idea.

-) "Progressive" doesn't mean biased.  Progressives value objectivity, reason and scientific research too much to put up with much partisan krap.  A well-done progressive channel would actually come very close to setting an objective journalistic standard that we all respect.

-)  Canada has managed to escape the coersive, biased media infrastructure that infests US domestic media. They have a better chance to get something working than the US does.

-) There is a large market for "progressive" news in the US. We've abandoned Fox and CNN precisely because they are biased and simply don't serve our interests.  Polls show that on issue after issue; between 50% and 70% of the country holds progressive opinions, and these opinions are not being covered.

-) Has anybody noticed that on AM radio, the five percent of progressive talk shows broadcast every week measured by F.A.I.R hold about 25% of the listening audience, as measured by Arbitron?  

Why "we" can't get our act together.

"donor based model"? Eschewing advertising?
And "the Real news", ugh, ugh and more ugh.

This needs to happen, but calling something "the real news" and trying to run it like public television isn't the way.

The way to get attention is to break a few high profile stories.

If it's content they want, why don't they form alliances with pre-existing blogosphere news coverage like Huffingpost and TPMuckracker.

Everybody always thinks that they have to re-invent the wheel!

-C.

It isn't a partisan progressive site but it is way better then even public TV.

I can't wait until they are on cable.

It's a short to mid-term delivery method that will eventually go away in its present form. People might still get their news via the same physical cable and electrical signals that travel through that cable that they currently do, but via IPTV, which is a totally different content delivery technology from either the analog or digital TV (including HDTV) technology that nearly everyone gets their TV news (and all other TV content) from. Instead of a direct cable connection offering up to 100 channels or an STB (set top box) connection offering up to 1000 channels, IPTV will effectively be able to offer as many channels as there are people who are able and willing to create and offer them. Think of it as the web model translated to TV content. I.e. just as you can now visit literally millions of unique web sites (of varying interest and quality, of course), you will be able to "tune" into literally millions of unique "TV" channels (also of varying interest and quality), originating from anywhere from a multibillion dollar media company to some guy's basement.

This is not streaming web video, mind you, even if redirected to a TV at fairly high quality (which is currently possible, but still requires a computer as the "set top box"). Although it will work on a computer, if desired (the way that some people set up their computers with TV tuners to function as TVs), it will require no computer, at least not of the sort that most people think of as a computer (i.e. Mac or PC). Rather, a set top box will be all that's needed (the functionality of which could be built into future TVs or added via some sort of CableCard-like plug-in device), a comfortable couch, and you're good to go. And the beauty is that while you might still get such a box from the cable company, the open nature of IPTV will make it hard for them to limit the content that you can view. I.e. no more bundling or being forced to watch what you can afford to watch (this is part of the reason that so many telcoms are against new neutrality, as IPTV would kill their present business model, because they can no longer control content).

I think that prospective progressive news producers should give IPTV a serious look. Not as a short or even mid-term solution, as its time hasn't yet come, but as a long-term solution. It'll be far cheaper to produce and "broadcast", will largely avoid the regulatory and practical constraints of broadcasting on cable or (satellite), and won't be subject to the current cable and satellite practice of bundling channels. Basically, if you can afford the staff and technology to produce the news (or any other content), and the cost of an IPTV hosting account, you're good to go. Essentially, everyone gets to have their own cable access channel! The main downside being that this is still several years away from being a practically possible and technologically competitive alternative to existing broadcast technologies, as the technology just isn't there yet (nor are the right people in place in DC yet to help make this happen--Martin has got to GO).

What talk radio was to the right, and the web has been to the left, IPTV (and, I suppose, IP Radio) will be to progressivism in the future. And it will likely blow both of these away in terms of reach. Of course, the right will exploit it too (and clearly Murdoch gets it and has been making lots of moves to get in on the ground floor of this). But given the inherently progressive nature of technology, I suspect that it will benefit our side much more than theirs (but then I was convinced that Gore and Kerry would win so what do I know).