We Desperately need a New kind of “News” channel.

Do you ever do the live chats? I moderate them. They're super fun.

I usually just watch. If not on Current, then on their youtube. Do you do your live chats through facebook or twitter, or is there some sort of feed on this site?

We do the live chats on the site. Here's the link to today's chat (which will go live a couple minutes before the show starts): http://current.com/shows/the-young-turks/episodes/2012-06-26

I tweet them every day before the show - follow @CurrentJess to see them.

Cool. Will have to hang out one night....thanks.

I like all of those shows with TYT and The War Room as my two favorites. But, I really hate the way ya'll play all the Lock em' up programs instead of having actual World news during the off hours and weekends. You could at least show some sort of educational \ informational programming during those hours.

BTW, I noticed that Matt Taibbi was on Viewpoint last night. I really wish your site would do a better job at letting community members comment on those without going off the community board. It's like we're here in limbo.

p.s. the more you can get Taibbi on your network, the better.

http://current.com/shows/viewpoint/videos/matt-taibbi-considers-whether-organize...

I would love to know your thoughts on how commenting works -- send me a PM and we can chat about it?

Hi, JessMag. I would love to watch your news programming, but I don't have cable or satellite. If it were available online, your viewership would grow exponentially.

"It would be nice though, to watch a news cast without all the hype and the political ads....I haven't watched much news since the silly season began."

I watch some Japanese TV news. It is especially informative because they do not have an ax to grind. The ideas of Left-Right, Conservative-Liberal do not exist, so a more objective truth comes out. There have been some interesting commentaries about OWS and Obummer.

Kind of like the commentaries i've seen about communist sympathizer Raygun and him selling weapons to Iran?

sThe great Ronald Reagan was dedicated to eliminating communism.

I like one of his great quips. Ronald Reagan, the greatest president of the 20th and 21st centuries, was asked about how to handle the Cold War. He said, "It is simple. We win, they lose."

And he did it!

"axe to grind"

What they don't have an axe to grind?

Grind on.

{"axe to grind"

What they don't have an axe to grind?}

Please put it in context, thanks.

"I watch RT TV. They have pretty good newscasters. I suppose....."

Do you know about- or like -Democracy Now?

Oh...yeah! Amy Goodman is great for bringing forth all kinds of crap and she doesn't pull punches with any side.

Cool.

"We just need the ones we have to report the truth not what the corperations what them to say."

Great point bailey, good to see you ];-)

I see the republican trolls have desided I'm open game and are voteing me down on every post. They must have the help of the HuffPo trolls backing them. Yee Haa. i'm going to get a middle of the road badge yet.

But the "News" channels ARE the corporations telling them what to say. They're certainly not mutually exclusive.

Huh? Pass that by me again .

But the current news channels ARE corporations that want the money that our watching brings them.

Pwr 2 the dissenting peons! GUILLOTINE MEDIOCRE CORPORATIONS!

Oh Jebus H Christ -- I should've read the comments b4 I posted ... you just said the same thing I did!

Pwr 2 the dissenting peons! GUILLOTINE MEDIOCRE CORPORATIONS!

Ha,ha,ha,ha,ha.......pause, big gasp, ha,ha,ha,ha...........

Ehh I watch the local news then get my world news from http://www.facebook.com/#!/aljazeera that and a few other places that report the truth

Easy there Big Boy DEEP Breath and slowly exhale. Thats it all better?

Ok, sure, yep I'm Ok now, yep.......sur..... HA,HA,HA,HA,HA! OH GOD HA,HA,HA,HA,HA

{The second the Fairness Doctrine was killed was the day that true, factual, unbiased news broadcast died.}

No, the UNfairness Doctrine was anti-free speech.

Lol

Sorry, but that does not make even a little bit of sense. The stations are free to broadcast what they want. There is no truth being suppressed. How can you possibly even imagine anything like that?

All that is happening is that the people are choosing what they want and do not want to hear. What happened before was very simple: The station masters had a choice:

1. Get this balance and lose sponsors and listeners. People would go to other stations. It was that simple.

2. Don't have any news or the absolute 5 minute top of the hour minimum. This keeps the sponsors. At least avoids losing them.

That was the reality. But what the Left-winger distorters and liars should - but won't think about is WHY. WHY do people not tune in?

Another thing Leftists will never consider - for reasons of arrogance - is why not let the people decide what they want to hear? Why not let the free market provide what people want?

"Sorry, but that does not make even a little bit of sense"

Only because you don't want to face the truth.

No, it is not true. We are discussing anything here. You can follow news from any country on the world. The Huffy Post and the National Review give different interpretations. BBC offers something else. Then go to Nation magazine for free on-line.

It does not make a bit of sense. Information is not being suppressed. That is absurd.

only because it's the republicans that are suppressing the truth.

How can you POSSIBLY write something like that? I really cannot understand it. Ever turn on MSNBC? Read Nation? Link to the Huffington Post?

What friggin' truth is being suppressed?

"Sorry, but that does not make even a little bit of sense." -Because of this statement, somewhere in the US an English Teacher has committed suicide, and tax payers are demanding their money back from your total waste of a free public education.

1. Ever seen people drive slowly by a car accident. They don't knowingly do it, they're just shocked and curious. The same effect is employed at Fox News. Fox News appeals to people's emotional part of the brain, rather than the part of the brain that requires reasoning or complex thinking. So, it's like Crack-News.
You don't realize you're watching it until you're too late.

2. There is no rival "Liberal Media" to Fox News...as most Business owners (network station owners) subscribe to the Republican point of view that The Free Market is God.
-Because it's what made them rich. Therefore, finding a CEO with a shred of human sympathy and compassion to push a Liberal agenda are hard to find. Even so, they have Banks to answer to.
So the liberal media is a Myth. Which makes Fox News NOT fair an balanced, because there's nothing to counter-weigh them.

I don't wonder why people tune in, I know why people tune it.
I just know that people who prefer facts and news that appeals to reason/sensibility do not subscribe to news that only appeals to the (lower)Reptilian brain.
We prefer intelligence.
While those at Fox News, prefer Opinion. 95% of all of Fox's programing is not news, but OPINION. Meaning, NOT FACTUAL NEWS. And non-facts, are also known as un-truths. And un-truths are also known as lies.

READ A BOOK.

The truth that the republicans are ruining whats left of this great country. The fact that there is no such thing as a good republican. They are greedy little trolls that feed on the misery of others.

No, the Left would destroy our traditions, our history and our heritage. The Left would promote the centralization of power and ruin what has made our country great.

You know thats just what the republicans are doing now. Trying to destroy our traditions, our history and our heritage. They want to bring us back to the stone age a time where might was right and the weak are preyed upon

{ it's like Crack-News. You don't realize you're watching it until you're too late.}

Illogical statement. If it were true, you would be watching it and agreeing with it. Absurd.

{There is no rival "Liberal Media" to Fox News...}

Distortion. I wrote that there are many sources, including foreign news. MSNBC contradicts FOX, too.

{ the Republican point of view that The Free Market is God.}

Another illogical statement. The free market is only one important part of liberty. If it crumbles under Left-winger policies, the edifice of liberty goes with it. But it is not liberty itself, of course. You are watching too much MSNBC.

. "There is no truth being suppressed"

Fox news is nothing more than a lie factory at best. They do not spread truth. They are spreading lie after lie They will post photos of events and say they are from other events Thats just so wrong

{So the liberal media is a Myth.}

No, it is true. Nation magazine, Huffy post, this thread and TV, MSNBC, and on and on.

{Which makes Fox News NOT fair an balanced, because there's nothing to counter-weigh them. }

You are contradicting yourself in that very statement. Do you see it?

"READ A BOOK."

I just wrote the titles of some books that I am reading and have recently read, but I deleted them. Can you guess the reason?

According to you, FOX is not presenting truth. That is your opinion. I suspect you think Rachel Maddow presents truth. Do you? Or is she lying, according to your standards? Will you answer this clear question?

{You know thats just what the republicans are doing now. Trying to destroy our traditions, our history and our heritage.}

Conservatives want to preserve our heritage. That is clear and irrefutable. I suggest you read Russell Kirk for starters.

I have never watch Rachel Maddow so I have no idea what she says is the truth or not

Post Classification: Deflection

Post Classification: Personal attack. Also in violation of Current guidelines.

He's trying to help you out.

No it's the truth. I believe it's new to you to hear the truth isn't it.

It's a genuine miracle. I just saw the transformation from a weasel to a rat.

one is what one does.

""Sorry, but that does not make even a little bit of sense." -Because of this statement, somewhere in the US an English Teacher has committed suicide, and tax payer......"

Wow, what a great post, thank you mite!

"The policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission that became known as the...."

I'm not sure, but I think I just heard the sound of someone groaning, like they had just been kicked in the nuts. ^++++++++

"Conservatives want to preserve our heritage. That is clear and irrefutable. I suggest you read Russell Kirk for starters."

You might also want to read Mein Kampf while your at it.

I have read many books that have pointed me to the truth.

Why do you equate Mein Kampf with Russell Kirk?

I would like to know what you think of Kirk and why. You made a definitive statement, so I am only asking you to support what you wrote.

Post Classification: propaganda

Omission of the truth is the same as lying. It's like when your mom stands there and says "Now did you steal the cookies?", and you just stand their squirming.

Fox news is not presenting the truth and that has admitted by it's very own employees. It's not a News show merely an opinion outlet for it's presenters and financial backers.

The Fox presenters can't even read a so called news story without constantly interjecting with their own opinion. A news story from a professional news outlet should consist of the facts. For example "a tornado with winds of 200km/h killed 10 people when it touched down in Florida on the 25th of May."

Who ever reads the news should be irrelevant, only that they state it clearly and keep their bloody opinions to themselves. That is news reading. Is it not too hard to comprehend?

{The Fox presenters can't even read a so called news story without constantly interjecting with their own opinion.}

From the little I have seen of FOX - I do not get American television in my home - that is not true. To be accurate, one would say that they OFTEN interject their own opinion.

{A news story from a professional news outlet should consist of the facts.}

Go to Associated Press. And the FOX news people are professional, of course.

{The Fox presenters can't even read a so called news story without constantly interjecting with their own opinion.}

Have you ever watched Rachel Maddow or The Ed Show? Isn't FOX a good balance to their radicalism and distortions?

{Who ever reads the news should be irrelevant}

Interpreting the news is important. Look at the lies and distortions of the left-winger gurus Moyers and Cronkite, nevermind Maddow.

But I do not think that you are dealing with the reality of human nature.

And what, pray tell, is the reality of human nature?

Our Founders knew it and accepted it. That is why they set up the government as it was. Please read some of their comments, such as about "factions." One reality of human nature, for example, that is a universal and cuts across all cultures throughout history is the drive for status. It can take the form of wealth, or it can be among gang members being tough, or what college one attended among other people.

The problem with Left-wingers and visionaries is that they look at different aspects of human nature that are troublesome (let's consider striving for status, for example), and imagine that they can set up a society and/or educate people so that this will no longer be a problem. For example, if it appears that people strive for economic status and many have trouble achieving in this, they think that they can solve the problem by equalizing incomes and educating the people as to why.

This solves absolutely nothing. The drive for status still stays. But the Founders accepted this sort of nature (of course, they did not use the term "status"), and set up protections: Have branches of government not only competing with one another, but actually OVERLAPPING. Each will struggle for supremacy against the other.

And so on. Work WITH human nature, and do not hope to change it.

I've read Federalist #10. Does this mean that factions are the reality of human nature? Is that all the founders discussed at our Constitutional Convention? Were the founders concerned so greatly with "left wingers and visionaries?"

WOW! that has to be the most ignorant thing I have ever heard.

Left-wingers think that human behavior can be fundamentally changed by structuring an ideal environment.

Our Founders knew better; they understood and accepted human nature. In Federalist 51, Madison wrote that “there is a degree of depravity in mankind which requires a certain degree of circumspection and distrust,” and “the latent causes of faction are sown in the nature of man,” factions being groups of citizens with interests contrary to the rights or others or to the interests of the whole community.

John Adams wisely stated that with human beings, “reason holds the helm, but passions are the gales.”

In Federalist 78, Alexander Hamilton recommended “making deductions for the ordinary depravity of human nature” (emphasis added).

Our Founders also noted the positive aspects of our natures, of course. In Federalist 51, this was written: “there are other qualities in human nature, which justify a certain portion of esteem and confidence.”

But a question to you: Do you think that we can change these aspects of human nature with the right education and social structures?

So, the same question to you: Do you think that we can change these aspects of human nature with the right education and social structures?

"Left-wingers think that human behavior can be fundamentally changed by structuring an ideal environment."

That's a pretty broad generalization you're making, especially when you really haven't even answered the question as to the reality of human nature.

The founders were certainly keen on the notion that people were not inherently good, but were they the authority on what human nature was back then? They quoted the likes of Locke, Hume, Montesquieu and even Plato. But did they ever explain human nature, or were they simply interested in forming a government that could accommodate the "factions" of their day?

So instead of deflecting, I'd really prefer reading more about your insights into "the reality of human nature."

{So instead of deflecting, I'd really prefer reading more about your insights into "the reality of human nature."}

Deal with one thing at a time. I presented the universal of status for starters.

Are you saying that status is the reality of human nature? Is that what it's all about?

Are we to believe that status is the most important driving factor in human nature? What about basic survival and the proverbial passing on of genes? Sure, status plays a part in that, but is that the the reality of human nature?

It really seems to me if that were the only aspect, we'd have an "Übermensch" by now. Isn't there more to human nature than just status?

"Are you saying that status is the reality of human nature? Is that what it's all about?"

I wrote to take one thing at a time. Why are you trying to deflect and avoid?

"Are we to believe that status is the most important driving factor in human nature?"

You distorted again, probably to avoid a serious exchange. I never wrote that, never.

"What about basic survival and the proverbial passing on of genes?"

Yes, those too. But as I wrote, one thing at a time.

"status plays a part in that, but is that the the reality of human nature?"

It is one universal trait among many. I will repeat myself, but I will not keep repeating myself: The Left-winger visionaries think that they can educate people and organize society so the potential problems will status (again, for the fifth time, it is not the sum total of human nature) will be alleviated. I chose status because it has political implications.

Do you think that it can? Do you even agree with the multitude of anthropologists and scholars that status is one (repeat, for the sixth time, among many) universals of human nature?

You respond to a post of mine that had little to nothing to do with "left winger visionaries," and I ask you questions about an abstraction you made about human nature. Instead of answering my question, you go off on tangent after tangent. I really don't understand why you're being so defensive here.

And yes, I do believe that through education and self-cultivation, we can overcome some of our darker traits. But even you haven't begun to scratch the surface as to our darker traits--unless, of course, that was never your intention to do so. I'm assuming you do believe that the founders considered our "passions" and "depravities" to be darker traits.

But what does left wing or right wing perceptions even have to do with the topic of this thread?

Why are you so concerned with your critiques of left wingers when even you admit that status is more important?

{ I ask you questions about an abstraction you made about human nature. Instead of answering my question, you go off on tangent after tangent.}

No, I wrote something very concrete and asked specific questions. Stop deflecting please.

All of this was in response to your early post and I will repost it:

{No. We DESPERATELY need a new kind of citizen.

We need people who aren't afraid to ascend out of the cave.

We need people who aren't afraid to admit that this is all shadows on a cave wall.

We need people who aren't afraid to tell their fellow prisoners that this is all an illusion, and that there's a whole real world out there that's being hidden from them.

We need people who aren't afraid to stand up against ignorance even if it means ridicule, isolation and derision.}

Very idealistic. "New" kind of citizen. Out of the cave. No longer seeing illusions and such, not afraid to stand up.

I wanted to bring the conversation down to the realities of human nature. This led to the Founders' wisdom of factions and my reference to status.

{ I do believe that through education and self-cultivation, we can overcome some of our darker traits. But even you haven't begun to scratch the surface as to our darker traits--unless, of course, that was never your intention to do so.}

It was my intention. Status acquisition is not necessarily a dark trait, but it can lead to that.

Do you believe that we can educate people out of striving for status? This is a concrete question.

{Why are you so concerned with your critiques of left wingers when even you admit that status is more important?}

Post Classification: Deflection.

What do you mean, "more important?" More important than what? I wrote status is a universal trait. That means that independents, conservatives, communists and all the rest have this, even people who do not care a whit about politics. But political decisions are made based on human proclivities and actions. Left-wingers, for example, think that the right government policies can save us from mythical "greed" of the evil rich, for example, and they are willing to have the federal government engineer our society and control the economy in order to achieve this chimerical "vision."

Thanks for repeating my words. I think the founders were very idealistic too, just as I find adherents to their words to be just as naive to the realities of society then as they are to society today.

One of Madison's best arguments for a large republic was that factions could coexist and diffuse as opposed to ultimately turning on one another and destroying the republic itself.

Since you're so concerned about bringing this down to the realities of human nature, then why are you so concerned about condemning a certain "faction?" Certainly, you are aware of what this kind of rhetoric eventually yields.

What is status?

It's awfully difficult to even understand what you're asserting here when all you're attempting to do is bring politics into this.

"What is status?"

It is difficult to operationalize the definition so that it fits all situations perfectly. Left-wingers, rather than discuss concepts, will look for some minute flaw or inconsistency to destroy reasoned discussion, then they will claim that they only wanted to clarify. If they truly did, they would try to help clarifying.

But maybe you are different. We will see....

Status is really self-evident. The person gains importance in his group and becomes one whom others look up to, admire, or even envy. That person has more influence and power in his group also. The professor who has many publications and speaks at national conferences; the gang person who is feared and others do what he tells them; the family with the biggest house and Benz in the neighborhood; the person who went to an ivy school while the others went to state colleges; the guy who has an incredibly high income; the Masai who has the most cattle.

{One of Madison's best arguments for a large republic was that factions could coexist and diffuse as opposed to ultimately turning on one another and destroying the republic itself.}

Yes. The point is that he accepted this as part of society/human nature. Instead of thinking human nature could be changed, the government was structured to accommodate to it. Not permit it or excuse it, but deal with the reality that it can never be changed, so let's have a structure that minimizes/negates the harmful influences as much as possible.

You don't type three sentences without criticizing left wingers. How are we to have "reasoned discussion" when this dialog immediately becomes a condemnation of political beliefs? How does this serve to "clarify" anything?

{Since you're so concerned about bringing this down to the realities of human nature, then why are you so concerned about condemning a certain "faction?"}

That "faction" being the Left-wingers, right? They will always exist. It will never end. There will always be those who want to control the society and think that they can set up the perfect place and are willing to make others conform to their vision of a utopia. That, too, is part of the problem with which our society has to deal: The eternal problem of what is now represented by LEFT-WINGERS.

{You don't type three sentences without criticizing left wingers. How are we to have "reasoned discussion" when this dialog immediately becomes a condemnation of political beliefs?}

"Left-wingerism" is simply shorthand.

Yet when you condemn "left wingers," are you truly "accomodating?"

There you go again.....

I have been trying to follow the thread of you and Vic, but I have gotten lost.
Status is one of the many traits of human nature and I for one do not think it can be overcome.
Plato was writing about it in what...800 BC? (I forget the timelines of my philosophy classes)
Ancient burial grounds from Africa to Egypt to Greenland have shown whether a person had a higher status within their community. And I think people want this status of being higher up the food chain than the other guy.
This behavior can be seen in something as simple as a conversation. People want to be the one everyone listens to.....