Will an Alternative News Channel Ever Compete With MSM?

Wondering what peoples thoughts are on this. Obviously, the MSM controls the flow of information, as well as the opinions of the majority of Americans, given that is their main source for news.

But, do any of you think an alternative news channel/station/outlet will ever compete with the likes of CNN or Fox News? Would it ever be possible? I would think that with all the cable channels we presently have, at some point, a successful alternative news station will one day appear on tv. Or are we so incredibly corrupt, that it will never happen?

As more and more people get their news from the internet, and the MSM slowly loses viewers, someone might come along and realize their is an untapped market on television, and that viewers which once got their news from the MSM, and now get it online, would gravitate towards an alternative news channel. If there was enough money, could it happen? Or is there too much control behind the scenes?

reply to post by MysticPearl


The last "alternative" news channel was Fox, and you see where that ended up. If they did manage to come out with another alternative news channel it would only be a matter of time before it was bought out and given an agenda.

Just curious. Do you think alternative news sources are less bias than "Mainstream" news sources? I just find the news I'm interested in. Go to as many sources, including CNN and Fox to get different views. If anything it's funny watching them dodge certain aspects of the report and focusing on the parts they like.

reply to post by MysticPearl


MSM has already lost to alternative news such as drudge report and sites like ats. The amount of traffic that drudge report get is more than facebook and other high profile internet sites

Where is Reuters in all of this? They seem to be gaining momentum and viewers..or at least I see more of them now. Couldn't they move to cable tv, if they aren't already?

FOX News is the alternative to the MSM.

If you want the lefty view turn to ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC.

If you want the balanced view turn to FOX .

reply to post by tonyinawareness


The Drudge Report is alternative news. And Carseller4 thinks Fox News is alternative "fair and balanced". Both of these news sources are to the right. They are not objective at all. People will find the news sources that cater to their way of thinking and will not seek out additional information.

I can see infowars becoming big. everybody has heard of Alex Jones. Some don't like him but for the most part his reports are true and he does his research. He has millions of listeners everyday.

Originally posted by Carseller4

If you want the balanced view turn to FOX .

Thanks for the laugh! Fox is no better than the rest. If you want a conservative view turn on Fox, the rest are typically left leaning, even though CNN has seemed to center a bit lately.

reply to post by Carseller4


...So Fox News isn't completely right-winged out? That's news to me.

Whatever happened to the news just reporting the damn FACTS and not putting their own agenda spin on it?

Originally posted by Carseller4
FOX News is the alternative to the MSM.

If you want the lefty view turn to ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC.

If you want the balanced view turn to FOX .

I would like uncensored, unbiased news coverage. None of what you listed falls into that category.

News media wouldn't even exist if humanity ever got past it's desire to experience destruction vicariously. That's really all the "news" is--somebody died, a city was bombed, there was a fatal car accident down the street, political turmoil reached a boiling point in... whichever country, the ice caps are melting, and so on and so forth.

The media are not the problem. WE are the problem. As long as you point your finger anywhere but at yourself, nothing will ever change. No one wants to hear that, because the truth usually stings.

reply to post by MysticPearl


A simple answer to your title question would be "yes." It can happen.... or at least, there's nothing "blocking" it from happening. HOWEVER... there is also nearly zero commercial incentive to do it considering the very idea of "success."

As to "success"... it is difficult to achieve, chiefly because the definition of 'success' will be brought to you (paradoxically and ironically) by the MSM itself .... they will begin by maligning the 'viewers' of such an alternative news channel... calling them 'tin-foil hat wearing fringe lunatics' and 'desperate pursuers of fantasies'. (As if the Jersey Shore/Springer/hate-mongers/sex-peddlers and the rest were more 'in line' with the "America dream" or more 'uplifting' to American culture' )

Having done that, they will take the content ... capture and re-characterize it ... so they can to cast the appearance that the 'alternative' news channel has a nefarious or socially counter-productive agenda; and possibly different elements of the MSM will begrudgingly cooperate towards the end of making the alternative productions unprofitable by staging 'citizen committees' to lobby regulators to outlaw "outrageous conspiracy theories" (to coin a phrase) as damaging to the national climate an potentially threatening to national security. I am sure it will include a polished parade of talking heads and political celebrities who will enlighten America as tot he "dangers"" of the 'lunatic fringe.'

Then there is the fact the that MSM's majority owners are the advertisers they promote; we would see no meaningful advertising revenue coming the way of this theoretical alternative source; making sustained operations a folly, unless it is entirely funded via altruistic sponsors ... unlikely at best. (forget donation-driven operations... that model does not engender "confidence" in the corporate world.) Since the MSM has a huge ownership stake in the mediums of "broadcasting" it is very costly to pursue a media enterprise which they will see as competition.... the "truth" and "facts" will have little to do with the conflict of interests in this regard. For them it is not about principles and values... it's about revenue and political relevance - nothing more.

And the last poison pill we need to accept is that the very things the alternative news threatens.

Like it or not, believe it or not, argue and debate all you want; but it seems clear to these old eyes.... there are things we are not encouraged to talk about, investigate, question, or challenge.... and there IS a "they" who benefit from the restriction (openly declared or suppressed with Machiavellian elegance.) Many in the alternative theory community disagree about who "they" are, or why we are being 'dumbed down" or "kept in relative darkness" ... but only their stalwart disciples with vested interests in the status quo argue the prevalent fantasy that there is no "they" to worry about.

If you want such an entity as an alternative news source to exist.... you must overcome the obstacles I mention above... and then some. I will gladly help... as I have been trying for years.

reply to post by MysticPearl


Not by their format. It's partially the format to blame, if you think about it. You have to show 24 hours worth of news, and granted it's there. But to show that much news, you have to have an apparatus that is sustainable (can still be not-for-profit, but let's delve in a little more).

So, what do you do to make revenues? Well, PBS counts on the government and "viewers like you" which usually end up being corporate underwriters and charitable trusts that I'm sure half the tin-foil hat crew around here will have negative things to say vis-a-vis eugenics, NWO, etc., etc. Whether that is the case or not is not my concern here, but they are technically still special interests. So, that probably does have a baring, even on Bill Moyers (though he retired, right?) and Diane Rheem.

Ads. That is what makes revenues, but you need people who can buy a lot of ad space, and you need to sell a lot to cover your operating costs. Foreign bureaux, though important, would be expensive and probably get cut first. Then, we have to consider the "people" (and by "people" I mean the "Citizens, united!") buying the ad space. If they can afford to pay you a lot of money to keep your news on the air, they probably aren't going to want to have you saying anything negative about them. This leads to a conflict of interest.

This is why the 24-hour news channels are broken and need to be tossed out, not emulated or competed against.

No one here "needs" news 24 hours a day (and even MSNBC recognizes that because they turn into a reality show TV station on the weekends reminding us all about prisons, pedophiles, and how well Coca Cola is doing). As consumers, if we want better quality news, we have to be willing to make concessions. We have to be willing to lose the 24 hour cycle, the songs, the video clips, the glitzy lights and fancy studios, the pretty and strapping hosts (accepting that old saying about a book and its cover), the jokes and puns (they have a place, but not on the news) and all the other trappings of modern infotainment.

Might I suggest a refresher on what news is supposed to sound like by going to www.democracynow.org

Sure, Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzalez are liberals and they do go into the stories for the last 3/4ths of the show that show their bias (though I would argue not as biased as you would assume), but if you watch the first 10 minutes or so you'll be pleasantly reminded that news is supposed to be "Who, what, where, when and why...next story...Who, what, where, when, why...next story...etc."

And you can add to this discussion what we see here on ATS. The owners and staff take no standing position outside the T&C's yet how many times do we hear ATS supports the right wing republicans and the left wing democrats? ATS is ran by the CIA or other agency? ATS supports Christians or Muslims or Jews or Zionists or Atheists or racists or bigots of various flavors?

While it is true that news media is controlled by editors and owners, which causes bias and spin. It has always been this way. In fact, so ingrained is the expecting of bias, we get acused of it seemingly daily. And before some smart aleck speaks up and says ATS censors pot...reread the T&C again. It has been standing policy for years to not have drug related topics. We bent our own rules in order to allow them on the provision that there was no advocacy nor personal use posts. Finally it became a matter of enough being enough and the rule was no longer bent.

The question of if an alternative news/conspiracy format could be handled in other mediums other than the Internet is being answered currently. On Saturdays the Live show is broadcast on two AM radio stations heard from Florida to California parts of Mexico and Canada and seems to doing well on the stations carrying it. And I think that is the best answer that can be given at this time.

Originally posted by Carseller4
FOX News is the alternative to the MSM.

If you want the lefty view turn to ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC.

If you want the balanced view turn to FOX .

Holy crap, I'm never taking anything you say seriously, ever.

Remember this member guys, he just said FOX is alternative news to MSM and that it is a balanced view.

You're either joking or trolling, everybody knows FOX is NOT FAIR NOT BALANCED.

can you guys get aljazeera in the US?