digg

Join DiggAbout

The Promise: Break the News Monopoly watch!

youtube.com — Want to know what Real News really means? If your tired of all the from corporation controlled media, than this is what your looking for!

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • PaulPi3rce, on 11/15/2007, -9/+103News without government funding or advertising. Not sure if I'd call that news, sounds more like change.

    Dugg
    • mp3dog, on 11/15/2007, -32/+5If that's your attempt at a witty comment, you fail.
      • kinseyincanada, on 11/14/2007, -4/+16is that's your attempt at a witty comeback then you fail.
        • Frnnkdlxx, on 11/14/2007, -3/+15Both of you should be ashamed at yourself for waging an internet battle that comes to nothing. This is an interesting article that signifies a lot. You should think on that, instead of whose joke was the best.
    • GregR, on 11/14/2007, -3/+9I think a change from the one-sided crap that is passed off as news in North America (and much of the rest of the world I'm sure) is news - welcome news.
      Now the trick is getting people to stop watching the "oReally Factor" and the rest of the equally slanted 'news'.
      • badqat, on 11/14/2007, -2/+5That isn't news...it's a commentary and opinion show. Are you saying you think shows like that are "news"?
        • devjt2, on 11/13/2007, -2/+5True, it is a commentary and opinion show. However, Bill O does form those opinions from "facts" from the mothership that is Fox News. Now we have to decide whether or not Fox News has a slant. What do you think?
          • cranium, on 11/14/2007, -1/+1It doesn't matter where the ***** in question gets his "facts", it's an opinion show, *OF COURSE* it's slanted. Duh.
      • meno911, on 11/14/2007, -0/+6I agree with you're statement. You should know that News is no where near as one-sided/bad as in the US in Canada and the rest of the world. I'm going to their website now and Donating my $10/month.
      • cmadach, on 11/14/2007, -0/+4Canadian news is light years ahead of American news. Stations in Canada actually realize viewers are capable of using discretion and *gasp* judgment. We don't need 'This Just In' or 'Breaking' graphics to get our attention; we actually know when something is important.

        But either government funding or advertising are necessary evils. As much as people hate to admit that they rely on the news, they're especially not willing to pay for it. Somebody has to pay for it. Fortunately it hasn't gotten to the point that we're receiving "the Blizzak Snow Tread weather report" or "Lockheed Martin presents: This Week at War."
        • cheesehead, on 11/13/2007, -0/+1Disagree. Just watch Kevin Newman tonight as he tries to "make the news make sense" ***** I hate that guy.
    • mmortal03, on 11/14/2007, -0/+12Unfortunately, if the establishment has anything to say about it, the real news will not be televised. :(
      • theone3, on 11/13/2007, -0/+6Yep. Just look at what they did to Al-Jazeera when it attempted to enter the US market.
        ( http://english.aljazeera.net for those of you who haven't seen their reporting)
      • icebrk, on 11/14/2007, -0/+2"will not be televised" -Isn't this an internet only "news channel" or am I missing some tv aspirations they have?
    • simpleid, on 11/13/2007, -0/+3Freaking amazing. :-)
  • Seeker135, on 11/14/2007, -4/+92Uncensored information? What a concept! You Promise?
  • pwnster, on 11/14/2007, -15/+12http://Truthnews.us
    • Frnnkdlxx, on 11/14/2007, -4/+4Yay!
    • h3llscaper, on 11/14/2007, -7/+3I stopped reading at "Alex Jones".

      P.S. Alex Jones, could you possibly put *MORE* ads for your *****' book? Wake up, indeed. :rolleyes:
    • legendxx, on 11/14/2007, -11/+5nice, more ron paul spam
    • Ireland, on 11/13/2007, -2/+9Truth News is has no basis for linkage in this story. ***** OFF!!!
      • barnseyboy12, on 11/13/2007, -1/+3It is directly relevant, it is an alternative media outlet that pwnster (and myself) value. Your usage of "***** OFF!!!" tells me you have no intelligent argument to support your nonpoint.
        • peestandingup, on 11/13/2007, -0/+2No, I think he sincerely just wants you to ***** off.
    • digichris, on 11/13/2007, -1/+4first thing i saw was "loose change final cut"

      lol.
    • Frostman3D, on 11/13/2007, -1/+3I wouldn't consider Alex Jones a purveyor of the truth. Maybe he's right about some things, but the man is a total ***** and I take everything he says with a 3lb. bag of salt.
  • AsianChopsticks, on 11/14/2007, -4/+26Count me in!
    • stoanhart, on 11/14/2007, -0/+7I just donated 10 bucks and subscribed to their RSS feed.

      PS: Canadian bucks ;-)
  • tw0k1ngs, on 11/14/2007, -3/+10Dammit. I thought this was some awesome new version of an old classic. Joke's on me.
  • syxle, on 11/13/2007, -2/+5Sounds good.
  • snotrokit, on 11/14/2007, -2/+56Hmm, looks promising. Granted, the promo video looks very slick, almost too slick, but I will subscribe and see what they have to say. If I like, I will gladly throw $10 per month at them. I donate several hundred per year to public radio and public television, I would be more than happy to donate to a non-corporate news source.
    • kaelyiesta, on 11/14/2007, -0/+5And just to make this point again, the donations are tax deductible(they claim), so if you have problems with what the government does with your money, fix that somewhat by donating and writing off that donation.
      • Iconoclast25, on 11/16/2007, -2/+1I already have a problem with the far left slant of "public" radio and TV; for damn sure I'll not support additional lying leftists (recognizing the latter term is redundant).
  • Jeps, on 11/13/2007, -18/+2News Flash: News network folds before it was even started. Right back to you Katie.
  • LeadHead, on 11/14/2007, -3/+16This could be an enormous movement for the world if this program hits television. That is, provided the other news networks are ignored when they criticize it for whatever false reason.
    No more government sway, no more ads even? hell, no more lies! It gives me hope to think that we could give news to people, from people, and not government over-looked organizations, but another part of me says it's too late and the other news networks already have their audience...only time will tell.
    • jaymzdean, on 11/13/2007, -1/+5THE REAL NEWS...brought to you by the Ford Foundation and the MacArthur Foundation.
      Why don't you do a little research before you go running into the pretty fire?
  • jmpeagle, on 11/14/2007, -33/+3sounds like *****. Like it or not, making information readily available to anyone is not a good thing. The people DO need to be controlled or else you have chaos. It's not a coincidence that the most affluent and stable societies are plutocracies. The average person is a moron and unable to digest information correctly. It is every right of the government to determine what you are allowed to read or listen to.

    You can only be free if you have nothing left to lose, so unless you want to live in a society where government takes EVERYTHING from you, then you are going to have to live with the fact that the government's best interests are your best interests and those who think otherwise should be quarantined.
    • Groovemaster, on 11/14/2007, -0/+30"It is every right of the government to determine what you are allowed to read or listen to."

      You're either an attention starved troll or you're mentally ill.
      • jmpeagle, on 11/14/2007, -11/+1everyone agrees with that statement, just different degrees of it. Mopst people just don't realize it. For example it is illegal for you as a private citizen to tap someone else's phone and listen in on them. That is just one example but goes to show people think the government does have that roll.
        • akinara, on 11/14/2007, -0/+5That's a pretty bad example. It is illegal for me as a private citizen to listen in on someone else's private conversations, but it should also be illegal for the government to listen in on someones private conversations. The government is just a means, not a cause, needed to uphold certain qualities of our society - as long as the majority of the citizens support this.
          • jmpeagle, on 11/14/2007, -4/+1no, it is a great example. The government will always no matter how liberal a society is, place limits on what you can say or listen to. There are countless laws against this in every "free" country in the world.
          • phauwn, on 11/14/2007, -0/+1Flip your head 180... The government's role is to protect our rights. Not to limit them for our own protection!
    • Znivam, on 11/14/2007, -3/+7Yeah, this fascist crap makes me want to climb a clock tower. I'm not saying you don't deserve an opinion, I'm saying your opinion is evil.
      "The government's best interests are your best interests and those who think otherwise should be quarantined."
      This is where I insert the obnoxious bleating.
    • EuphopiaB, on 11/14/2007, -0/+5How do you define that which is good, and therefore worth of taking action towards?
      • jmpeagle, on 11/14/2007, -6/+1it's completely subjective. That is the point. It is not for moral purposes but for control purposes to prevent society from descending into chaos. Without government power, there would be widespread violence.
        • EuphopiaB, on 11/14/2007, -0/+3If you do not define good and evil, it would be just as reasonable to accept chaotic violence as desirable. Either there is a good and evil by which to act or all morality, humanity, right, wrong, and taking any action whatsoever becomes pointless to pursue. Therefore why is being controlled any better than widespread violence?
          • jmpeagle, on 11/13/2007, -0/+1widespread violence destroys capital thus making the elites worse off. The agricultural revolution only came about after those with a comparative advantage in violence switched from being roaming bandits to stationary bandits where instead of raping and pillagin everything they only took a proportion so as to have future extracted income from the masses. The stationary bandit aligned the elites and the masses to have a common goal of economic growth. Economic growth means more money for those who extract resources from the general population.

            It's an act of self interest but a necessay one. You don't need good and evil (which don't exist) for this to be a necessity. There is only the strong and the weak. The strong would strictly prefer a nonviolent society from which to extract more resources from than a violent society from which less can be extracted.
    • jaymzdean, on 11/14/2007, -0/+7When the civil war starts, I'll have a bead on your ass.
      • jmpeagle, on 11/13/2007, -6/+1as long as the government keeps careful control of the population, a Civil War is impossible. When was the last time a developed country had a Civil War?
        • jaymzdean, on 11/13/2007, -0/+4This developed country is in the process of being dismantled. You're not paying attention. What's been happening to our jobs? What's happening to the dollar? Checked the price of gold lately? We're moving deeper and deeper into despotism every day.
          • jmpeagle, on 11/14/2007, -5/+1if anything the government is getting more control over the people, not less...so civil war is impossible
    • CCoe, on 11/14/2007, -3/+4Well one thing's for sure - I can tell you're not an American. You sound like a communist.
      • jaymzdean, on 11/14/2007, -0/+7Well, there's nothing there that points to communism, but there's a lot there that says he's a fascist.
    • meno911, on 11/14/2007, -0/+3You need to read more Noam Chomsky
    • archimago42, on 11/14/2007, -0/+4Clearly you are one of the people who cannot process information that you talk about. The only truly stupid people are those who purposefully remain ignorant.
    • coyoteblue, on 11/14/2007, -0/+3What the ***** is wrong with you?
    • silentsprawl, on 11/14/2007, -0/+0That's all fine and good from the perspectice of formal logic or whatever but you might want to think about what makes life worth living, i.e. why you haven't killed yourself yet. There must be a reason, and that reason, your own pleasure, your own desire, your own will is what will break down the absurd wall you stand behind while espousing fascist nonsense.
  • metric7, on 11/14/2007, -25/+8Looks like more leftist rubbish
    • jaymzdean, on 11/14/2007, -3/+6Well, you're half right. There's leftist rubbish and then there's rightist rubbish. The left/right paradigm...oh what a tool of manipulation. Let's see them cover the NWO, fiat currency, and government sponsored eugenics programs...THEN we'll have something of value in a news outlet. But if you''re looking for left / right masturbation, this "Real News" program looks like it might just be your ticket.
      • metric7, on 11/14/2007, -2/+2Most major news outlets lean left and the major right leaning ones are neo-cons so i don't see them covering NWO,NAU ect. . This "real News"
        will be nothing new.
        • cheesehead, on 11/14/2007, -1/+2As a Canadian I'd say all of your American news outlets were right leaning
        • Iconoclast25, on 11/16/2007, -0/+1As a conservative American, I'd say you truly MUST BE a cheesehead in making such a statement. The NY Slimes is as much a leftist rag as the Toronto Globe & Mail, CBC "news" takes its place beside MSNBC and CNN in parroting the leftist line, etc.
  • Richandler, on 11/14/2007, -16/+4Wow, now this is liberal media. haha. It really doesn't look very different from CNN International. Great idea, except that non of the opinions are any different than what I can tune into every night already. Maybe if they started covering how history of american in comparison to modern times and comparing the constitution in comparison to modern politics then they would be legit. However, it looks like a news pittyfest.
  • mikedoth, on 11/14/2007, -5/+11I always thought NPR was uncensored atleast for radio?
    • rnelsonee, on 11/13/2007, -3/+5As great as NPR is, it's not uncensored, not wholly independent, and is not free from corporate or government funding. Most of NPR's funding comes from member stations who pay for the broadcast rights. They in turn get money from private corporations, government grants, and the corporation for public broadcasting, which is funded by the federal government.

      Hence, they are (in theory) susceptible to government interference. Obviously, NPR doesn't toe the line, as they're pretty liberal, but the potential is there. You can never really tell what doesn't make it on the air unless you work there.
    • Iconoclast25, on 11/16/2007, -0/+1Well they freely parrot whatever idiot leftwing story is the cause du jure. Back when they played classical music most of the day, I was happy to support them, but once the stations began to babble a steady diet of the soros ***** rather than Mozart, I stopped. I can get the same tired crap from the liars at newsWEAK, SeeBS, etc.
  • Frnnkdlxx, on 11/14/2007, -3/+16If they talk about what Alex Jones talks about, I'm sold. Because frankly, Alex sucks ass! He's rude, he's easily distracted, and he pontificates waaay too much. The only drawing factor is that he's not a psychopath talking about aliens and jew assassins in the vatican. He talks about the REAL hardhitting stuff. I want to see them cover the NWO.
    • Qtip42, on 11/14/2007, -2/+9I've listened to Alex Jones a few times. I like how critical he is of the government. Some things he says are a little out there but overall I'd trust what he says over something I see on TV.
    • parabolee, on 11/13/2007, -1/+2Agree, agree agree. Altough the whole "NWO" thing is very naive. The owrld is far more complex than a small group of elite running everything. What we have is large GROUPS of elite running things with different agenda's that often overlap. The one thing they all have in common is power and rarely giving a crap about the little guy.

      Ignore the racists NWO rants that have strong anti-semitic undertones and wake up to the fact that we are talking class war. The elite wealthy are at war with the common man, and they are winning. It has nothing to do with race. And that is another reason that while Alex Jones does some good work, he is annoying (racists undertones) and small minded on the bigger picture.
      • cheesehead, on 11/13/2007, -0/+1So you don't believe in the CFR IMF and the international banksters, who own or control everything?
  • Marijuana, on 11/14/2007, -3/+6http://www.questionsquestions.net/docs0209/0929_fo ...
    • parabolee, on 11/14/2007, -2/+2Yeah, that's a credible source. So don't trust anyone because the Jews run everything? You ignorant racists fool. Do you believe everything that fits your anti-semitic slanted view of the world?

      Of course you believe this, you need to justify why the alternative news don't agree with your right wing (blame the Jews for everying) views.

      Let me sum up the article and argument this guy is making for you all. The Jews control all media, even the "alternative media", you can't trust any of them, except Alex Jones and far-right wing media.
  • TheDHC, on 11/13/2007, -5/+8dugg for epic amounts of win
  • EuphopiaB, on 11/14/2007, -7/+30This will fail. I like the idea and the concept, but eventually it will come down to "what do our viewers WANT to see?" and that's when information begins to get chosen. At first it is putting candidate A on and not candidate B, or talking more about this than about that, but eventually the audience will become a concentrated group (be it large or small) of people who are watching what they want to watch, irrelevant of how true it is. It is a simple fact of human behavior that we want to read about and see things about what we believe in or agree with. Every news network started out fair and then became preferential, not because corporation or the government are funding them, but because they start showing their viewers what their viewers want to see. Maybe this network will be different from the funding model, but until I see it happen and work for a good time I am skeptical.
    • Shalaby, on 11/14/2007, -1/+10aww you ruined it!
    • kalleanka, on 11/14/2007, -0/+6I want this to be true.
      I hope it will come true.
      But I do reserve the right to be skeptical til the day they have grown to something bigger and have a large audience.
    • CoconutKC, on 11/14/2007, -0/+5"I like the idea and the concept, but eventually it will come down to "what do our viewers WANT to see?"
      But if all the viewers of the Real News want the simple unbiased truth then the amount of reporting that can be done is unlimited and not based on what we WANT to see. As long as current events are being reported on without bias, and these guys seem up to the task, then their network will succeed. We WANT to see news reported TRUTHFULLY. An idea like this is not doomed to fail, it's destined to blossom.
    • meno911, on 11/13/2007, -0/+2Watch:

      http://www.therealnews.com/web/index.php?thisdatas ...

      Specifically:
      What evidence do you have that The Real News will succeed?
      Are enough people going to watch and contribute to make this work?

      They address you're comment
      • ophello, on 11/13/2007, -0/+1you're: contraction: you are comment
        your: possesive: your comment
    • silentsprawl, on 11/14/2007, -0/+1You're assuming that people want something that is unchallenging. What if viewers want a complex perspective on world events that does not reduce or oversimplify? Not saying that is what these guys will deliver neccessarily, but there is a huge market gap for that at the moment,
    • Iconoclast25, on 11/16/2007, -1/+1They will go the same way as air america. There are all sorts of propaganda vehicles competing for the 20% of the market distinguished by its blind adherence to the leftwing drivel.
  • mikeruiz7, on 11/13/2007, -5/+6Even though the video did seem a little biased, this is definitely a step in the right direction for the news media. It's impossible to be entirely impartial, but at least these guys are eliminating the effect of sponsors and government funding. Dugg and donated
  • leftykiller, on 11/13/2007, -13/+7The "Real News" claims to not rely on corporations to get their message out, yet they're advertising on one of the biggest corporate entities around today? (Google/Youtube)

    Yeah, that makes sense.
    • jmpeagle, on 11/13/2007, -1/+4you mean a company is exaggerating its differences with other companies in the same market? Say it isn't so.
    • MindTrigger, on 11/13/2007, -1/+4They are using YouTube because everyone is watching YouTube. No one paid them to use it. They are not claiming they will not advertise their own programming, but they will not be selling advertising time to other companies. They will supposedly only take money from their subscribers. This should be verified.
    • nancynectar, on 11/13/2007, -1/+3how else will they get their message out? telephone? television? oh, sorry, giant telecom companies there. going door to door to every person? obviously not practical, or timely.

      there's a big difference between getting funding from some company, and using another company's services. In the case of advertising on YouTube, they are still in public space without another corporation's oversight, or demands.
    • junshien, on 11/13/2007, -1/+3you can digg me down after, but that has to be one of the most ignorant comments i have read so far today...
    • CoconutKC, on 11/13/2007, -1/+2I had to re-read this comment twice and then I saw it was written by a guy named leftykiller and all became clear.
  • jaymzdean, on 11/14/2007, -0/+22"Their website notes that they 'are member supported and do not accept advertising, government or corporate funding.'

    That said although their website does not acknowledge it they do receive ample funding from foundations.

    Writing in January 2007 in the Ryerson Review of Journalism, Shereen Dindar notes that "IWT has already raised $5 million from several foundations, charitable trusts, individuals and unions, including the Canadian Auto Workers Union, the FORD FOUNDATION and the MACARTHUR FOUNDATION."

    http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=The_Rea ...
    • Terry12345, on 11/14/2007, -4/+10Thanks for that Jaymzdean.
      People really need to look into these foundations and learn about their true agendas.

      I was watching the video and as soon as they started on the global warming "crisis" alarm bells went off for me.
      • digichris, on 11/14/2007, -0/+5It wasn't global warming, it was global war-n-ing. But yes, this is an interesting point jay brings up.
    • parabolee, on 11/13/2007, -1/+1Yeah but this doesn't fit your Liberal Jewish conspiracy theory does it! The Ford foundation was set up by Henry Ford, a well know Anti-Semite!

      And receiving some initial funding does not always imply continues bias. For instance they do not receive from them any more and it requires a good tin foil hat to think they set the agenda from one donation.

      Also as I said where does the right-wing donation fit into your "global warming crisis" conspiracy? I thought that was left wing.

      Some of you will believe anything as long as it confirms your ideological bias!
      • jaymzdean, on 11/13/2007, -0/+1You're trapped inside the Left wing / Right wing paradigm. Therefore you can't hear me, so I won't even try. Good luck with your false dichotomy.
  • Bremen, on 11/13/2007, -3/+0the promise ? oh ich weiß nicht ?
    • archimago42, on 11/13/2007, -0/+1I can read German and that is still a stupid and pointless comment.
  • kindpastor, on 11/15/2007, -1/+35There's no such thing as unbiased news. If you thought that promo was "unbiased" think again.
    • Shorties, on 11/14/2007, -1/+7Seriously its impossible to have an unbiased 24 hour news network, Unless they changed topics every 3 minutes, Once a story dwindles they start throwing in opinions.
      • digichris, on 11/13/2007, -0/+1But at least we wont have to see that guy that used to wear a bowtie, or Ann Coulter (dont care about spelling) giving their opinion...
    • Rich711, on 11/15/2007, -2/+4Oh KindPastor dont be so sceptical. Let me tell you of a magical time when journalists werent inspirered watching Citizen Kane. When a reporters reputaion was based on his ability to remain truthful not how good he looked on t.v. When they strived to tell people the facts not what the facts mean. A time when journalists trusted Americans to be able to read a paper and understand the facts with out having to translate the "real" meaning. When it was assumed that news was balanced equal and the word sensational could only be applied to the celebrity news on page 18. Reporters who knew their opinion was not only irrelevant to the story but corrupted it's integrity. When reporters unbaised enough not to cry on television when the cadidate they voted for didnt win. A magical time before fluff pieces and editorials passed off as fact. And maybe if we all close our eyes and clap our hands the pirates that have kidnapped them and taken over news, "real" or otherwise, will disappear.
    • Sep11insidejob, on 11/14/2007, -3/+3The key is to remove the corporate money from the equation.
      • junshien, on 11/14/2007, -1/+4right. and you think corporations are the only ones with money and power?
    • warcin, on 11/13/2007, -0/+1You are right instead of corporate bias you get their bias. Even attempting this means they have an agenda they are trying to get across. If you lean towards their way of thinking then for all means watch it but unless news is regurgitated by an unfeeling machine it will always be biased in some way.
    • stoanhart, on 11/17/2007, -0/+1kindpastor is right. You can't really have unbiased news. Maybe unbiased is the wrong word to describe therealnews.

      The guys at therealnews see a problem with the media today; namely, very few people own the majority of outlets, and those people are helping special interest groups shape public opinion to their advantage. So, the mission that therealnews has set out for itself is to be financially independent, so that they can report the news in a way that they feel most accurately reflects the "truth".

      Sure, it will never be unbiased, as peoples' own opinions will influence their reporting no matter how much they fight it. However, a financially independent news agency formed of people aiming to break the old system is far more likely to have accurate, or less-biased, news.
  • BenitoMussolini, on 11/14/2007, -4/+8Go to their actual site if you want to see the material they have covered so far. http://www.therealnews.com/
  • brownmajik, on 11/14/2007, -4/+3The Real News Journalist Hiring Criteria: Must be a real journalist, desperately looking for a job.
    • mgri, on 11/15/2007, -0/+1There should be plenty of those out there since the major neworks stopped hiring them ages ago.
  • Rich711, on 11/15/2007, -13/+9A new bunch of liberals offering a change from the regular bunch of liberals? And am I the only one who's ***** detector goes off at a group pretentious enough to call themselves the "Real" news? Or that right of the bat they're talking about how global warming is the most important crisis facing the planet..."real"-ly?

    This gets a big yawn and a thumbs town for the new biased liberal journalists claiming to be different from the regular biased liberal journalists.
    • OswaldKenobi, on 11/15/2007, -7/+5But to liberals, that is REAL news. They don't want to know outside of their ideology. I would love to see unbiased news, but this will just be some liberal slant that ignores legitimate counterpoints to their stories.
    • Matthew720, on 11/15/2007, -6/+7All I heard was ranting......No substance. No wonder people like you prefer to watch Faux News. You need complex geopolitical issues broken down like this "this....good.......this....baaaad" for you to comprehend them.
      • Rich711, on 11/13/2007, -0/+3Wow you deducted all of that about me from "new liberals for old liberals" and "call your news news 'real' news is pretentious"? Talk about the need to break everything down into good and bad. Why are liberals always so blatantly hypocritical?
        • Iconoclast25, on 11/16/2007, -0/+1"Why are liberals always so blatantly hypocritical?"

          It's programmed into their genome . . . .
    • parabolee, on 11/15/2007, -2/+4I agree with calling it "real" news being arrogant. However everything else you said was typical right-wing moronic ranting.
      • Rich711, on 11/13/2007, -1/+2When someone says they are unbiased and focus on just the facts and then say Global Warming is the greatest crisis facing our planet. Oh, I'm SURE youre right, they're not liberal at all. Please, give me a break. But I suppose all the scientists as well as that hippy Patrick Moore founder of green peace that argue global warming are all just on a moronic right-wing rant as well.

        When people disagree with you about sports are they on a right-wing moronic rant as well.
  • uberkuh, on 11/14/2007, -0/+4Paul Jay, CEO: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Jay
  • Dominea, on 11/14/2007, -2/+13I pay 13$ a month for Sirius Radio. I pay 15$ a month for WOW. I can pay 10$ a month for a reliable news station. You got my money vote.
  • shakingfist, on 11/15/2007, -1/+8Who is funding it and whose agenda is behind it?
  • humanerror, on 04/03/2008, -7/+3you're.
  • Matthew720, on 11/14/2007, -4/+7 These guys get my vote. I've just sent in my donation.
  • digichris, on 11/13/2007, -3/+4Awsome.
  • OswaldKenobi, on 11/14/2007, -9/+7Funny that it sounds exactly like rawstory. Only stories about "failures of US policy in Iraq." "Real news" would also talk about the successes we've had in Iraq. This garbage is nothing more than an anti-FOX News. But liberals will embrace it, because its slant is totally toward their point of view.
    • Matthew720, on 11/14/2007, -2/+13It seems you don't understand the concept of news. The press are supposed to be the watchdogs of democracy. To watchdog something you have to criticize it and shine a light on the corruption and screwups and keep it in check. If you didn't, there would be no improvement. News is not entertainment. It's NOT supposed to be all rosy and nice.
      • akinara, on 11/14/2007, -1/+2Yes, of course. But what I think Oswald meant is that both views (or rather, various sources of facts) need to be weighted against each other in what should be called "real news". This means, for example, taking in and citing both pro-war and anti-war opinions, while giving top priority to facts.
    • CoconutKC, on 11/14/2007, -3/+4We've had successes in Iraq?
  • ngnboone, on 11/13/2007, -0/+2Could be good if done right, but the video didn't really impress me. The kid asking Chuck Schumer whether we owe the Iraqi's war reparations made the thing look like a high school project. How about... I don't know, the confirmation of Michael Mukasey. He's only a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
  • Sep11insidejob, on 11/13/2007, -2/+4I really enjoyed the piece on Yahoo-China anti-human-rights piece!
    http://www.therealnews.com/web/index.php?thisdatas ...
  • mthole, on 11/13/2007, -1/+5Looks really promising. I want to see this actually happen and be successful, so I signed up for a $20/mo donation. Take a look at your current monthly commitments and ask yourself why they are more important than this.

    And while your wallet is out, you might consider a donation to Wikipedia as well. They are doing a donation drive right now -- see the banner on the top of any Wikipedia article.
  • natmaster, on 11/14/2007, -2/+6I fear with donations from individuals, it might by swayed by popular opinion (rather than corporations, or governments). It looks good, and I hope people will fund it based on its integrity (and that it will have integrity), not whether it panders to their particular views at the time.
    • kindpastor, on 11/13/2007, -1/+3Well ***** it has to get swayed by SOMETHING unless they plan on getting funding from fortuitous treasure hunts.
  • jaymzdean, on 11/14/2007, -3/+7THINK before you donate!!!!!
    Sponsored by the Ford Foundation and the MacArthur Foundation...
    http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/FordFandCIA.ht ...
    http://www.questionsquestions.net/feldman/pc_macar ...
    Trojan Horse Media.
    • sumasshu, on 11/14/2007, -2/+3Where are you getting the info that they are sponsored by the Ford Foundation and the MacArthur Foundation?
    • mr_wej, on 11/14/2007, -1/+2I'm not familiar with the MacArthur foundation, but the Ford Foundation has ZERO ties with the corporation of the same name. The only thing they have in common is Henry Ford, who died a long time ago.
  • GhostyBoy, on 11/14/2007, -1/+5I really hope this is real and not just another clever ploy to manufacture news for people who are sick of being lied to.

    I'm sick of tyrants writing history.
  • tarzan99, on 11/14/2007, -0/+5This is an ad. The fact they're claiming to sell what I want to buy doesn't change that
  • barnseyboy12, on 11/14/2007, -2/+5It smacks of controlled opposition. God bless the diggers pointing out the Ford Foundation connection. Am I the only one who thought it had the feel of how t.v. news looks when its shown in B movies?
  • Kumaku, on 11/13/2007, -0/+1So where is the podcast link?
  • an0n1m0us, on 11/13/2007, -1/+1This may be nothing more than a great effort by the lefties to fight the likes of the ultra right-wing Fox.
    I believe the most legitimate sources of information are those who admit their news is subjectively presented and encourage people to get the story from more than one source, then make up your own mind.
    If this channel is the polar opposite of ultra-right neo-con loving Fox, at least it is providing a counter-balancing alternative. However it should not be considered any more objective than Fox or any other journalism.
  • Frostman3D, on 11/14/2007, -3/+1When will it be on TV?
    • meno911, on 11/13/2007, -0/+2As soon as you donate you $5-$10 / month :)
  • GeoffChang, on 11/14/2007, -3/+2I want to watch this.
  • flaznog, on 11/14/2007, -0/+2FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting)

    http://www.fair.org

    FAIR is another non-profit that is always looking for donations and has a good track record of monitoring Journalism.
  • twiztedambience, on 11/14/2007, -0/+8This really isn't a new concept.

    Public television has done it.

    Decades ago a newspaper tried to do it before it sold and joined an association.

    Now, bloggers try to do it.

    I'm all for this happening -- but we're already flooded with promises of this happening and in the end, the promise will probably end up looking similar and eventually running on the need for profit like everything else.
    • peestandingup, on 11/14/2007, -0/+5Well, most public access & bloggers are FAR from professional.
  • cranium, on 11/14/2007, -3/+6Slanted news is slanted news, whether it's the right obsessing over terrorism or the left over climate change, they're bothing working the memes to take your freedoms from you.
    • silentsprawl, on 11/14/2007, -0/+0Interesting... How does working the memes take freedom from me? I'm honestly interested in understanding the connection as you see it. Please don't think I'm being sarcastic.
  • Radiohead84, on 11/14/2007, -0/+7Just because they say they aren't biased doesn't men that actually practice that. From watching the video it seemed pretty damn liberal to me. I am all for an honest news channel, but this seems to me, to just be liberal people wanting very liberal channel. I could be wrong, but I'll believe it when they praise the government, and perhaps even george bush or the war, when things go right, and not just attack them.
  • ophello, on 11/14/2007, -0/+2All news is slanted. As soon as someone interprets an event and tells you what happened, you are receiving information via someone other than yourself. Once YOU decide what happened, you're further altering the truth.

    Truth is not acheivable by a News station. The best we can do is to look at MORE than once source.
  • Dillenger69, on 11/13/2007, -0/+1How is this different from the PBS model?
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 61 of 61 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.