Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Al Gore Gets Down

By Ari Berman, The Nation. Posted May 4, 2005.


With Al Gore's progressive cable channel, what began as an effort to challenge the right-wing domination of the corporate media has transformed into a business proposition to lure a youth audience.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by Ari Berman

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

During a town hall meeting on MTV in 2000, Al Gore dismissed a question about the rapper Mos Def. Throughout his career, Gore viewed hip-hop music, even when practiced by a politically conscious artist like Mos Def, as an undignified form of political expression. "Gandhi once said you must become the change you wish to see in the world," Gore said of hip-hop. "I don't think it's good enough to say, 'Well, we're just reflecting a reality.'"

Five years later, on a spring night in San Francisco, none other than Mos Def was anchoring the pre-launch party for Gore's new youth cable channel, Current, reflecting a reality of a different sort--that of the television business, where hipness trumps values. Gore was there too, trying to pump up enthusiasm for what he claims will be an entirely new approach to news and culture. Looking bulky but relaxed, Gore asked the diverse young crowd, "How many of y'all would like to see an opportunity to talk about what's going on in your world that you can participate in with television?"

Current screened three video clips as evidence of what the network plans to offer: the first a high-speed montage, created by a team of producers, freelancers and the audience itself, touching on everything from poppy fields in Morocco to hacking into Paris Hilton's cell phone; the second, a twice-hourly news update spotlighting the top ten queries on Google for any given subject; and the third, winner of a $10,000 submission prize, a satire of political campaign ads that came across as an amateurish stab at "The Daily Show With Jon Stewart."

Reactions were lukewarm at best. "It's the same references you see on any other channel," said 26-year-old activist Julian Davis. "When did Google become alternative media?" asked 22-year-old filmmaker Jennie Heinlein.

Comments like these suggest that what Current has become is quite different from the vision Gore and his partner, Joel Hyatt, started with. What began as an effort to challenge Rupert Murdoch and the right-wing domination of the corporate media has transformed into a business proposition to lure a youth audience with lofty rhetoric, new technology and pop-culture content. Gore and Hyatt didn't have TV experience, so they ceded creative control to industry people who did. Along the way, "democratizing" the media--their buzzword from the get-go, which they described as giving space to ordinary young people--became more important than politics or elevating television's dismal content. What emerges on Aug. 1, Current's launch date, could resemble an interactive grad-school version of MTV. Current may still improve youth television and usher in a wave of new technology, but it isn't likely to change the media, or the world. "Less and less they're trying to run a company with a social mission," says Orville Schell, dean of the Berkeley School of Journalism and a member of Current's board of directors. "They want something that's new and interesting and economically viable."

After the 2000 election, Gore became increasingly concerned about the conservative shift in the press. While teaching at the Columbia School of Journalism, he invited Rupert Murdoch to discuss the corporate consolidation of the media. Around the same time, Gore was helping his old Democratic fundraiser Joel Hyatt, an influential lawyer and entrepreneur who teaches business at Stanford University, to try to buy The New Republic. When the deal fell through, their attention turned to the concept of starting a high-end political web site for progressives.

"The idea didn't have a business model," Hyatt says. "Both of us, having spent 2000 fundraising, didn't feel like once again asking our friends for money." They explored different media possibilities and hired Jamie Daves, who ran youth outreach for Bill Clinton in 1992 and served as a senior official at the Federal Communications Commission. Cable television, which Gore dubs "the dominant medium of our time," became the most appealing avenue, offering two revenue streams, from advertisers and subscribers. As they queried friends in the industry for advice, Gore and Hyatt kept hearing the same refrain: There is no market on TV for a liberal channel. No one will watch it. No advertiser wants it. No cable operator will put it on the air. So they turned to an emerging demographic that appealed to both advertisers and visionaries. Twentysomethings were defining their buying habits, coming into their own politically and were underserved creatively on television. The decision was made to launch a youth network. Gore, through a spokesman, declined to comment for this article.

Hyatt and Gore knew cable would be a tough market to crack. The most popular television shows for the 18-to-34 demographic today, according to Brad Adgate at Horizon Media, are "American Idol," "Desperate Housewives," "Apprentice 2," "CSI," "ER" and "Survivor." "The West Wing" ranks 90th, two spots ahead of "60 Minutes." The only network to attract and hold young viewers consistently has been MTV. "Young people trust what they get from MTV more than any other source," says Jehmu Greene, president of Rock the Vote. "It's an opportunity for Current to be the competitor and tap into those not watching MTV." In fact, the channel decided to aim at MTV's elder graduates, according to Annie Zehren, Current's head of marketing.


Digg!

Ari Berman writes The Nation's "Daily Outrage" weblog. He is a Ralph Shikes Fellow at the Public Concern Foundation.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
FORMER INSIDER
Posted by: PROJECT6K on May 4, 2005 2:21 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As one of the "freelancers" that was brought into the INdTV/current to create the " high-speed montage", I must say that i think you are missing the bigger picture here. never before in the history of media has the audience truly had the means of production in their hands.

@NAB last month, 3 companies released sub-8k HD cameras, & Apple's new FCP 5.0 can do everything that a 200k switcher & a 100k avid can, BUT it's less than 1k.

why is that significant, because now the audience can make sophisticated, palatable shows; good, fast & cheap, something that has always alluded the entertainment business.

dont believe me? then go to any film festival and you will see scores of great documentary films, & because there is no distribution medium 4 these films, only agents, managers, & college students looking for a chance to get laid on a road trip have seen them, Until now.

Because, Apple, sony, jvc and panasonic have all created tools that will make awesome moving pictures available from little johnny. For instance, FCP is winning the edit race because apple figured that quantity is more important than price, that there was significant price elasticity and therefore a huge demand for sophisticated editing programs with a sub 1k price point.

so learning from ibm and microsoft, apple has set out to sell million of units of their best products ipod, fcp, shuffle; by keeping the price low and diferentiating through features, ease of use and design.

why is this important, because no where else on TV can you find this type of collaborative content creation. current is being very smart about how they are implementing their VC2 strategy (viewer contributed content). there has been and will continue to be a large% of their content coming from the audience, and it will go up each month.

for the record i am no longer with the company nor do i have an plans to have any further relatonship with them, moreover, i am a republican, and before i met mr gore, never really respected him, but now i have a tremendous amount of respect and admiration for not only him but the entire team that they have put together.

it will be worth it to watch current very closely, they will have some copy cats, soon; however, this network will be what primes the pumps for this type of content to be a substantial part of available programming on all networks.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Interesting... Posted by: CLB
» RE: Interesting... Posted by: PROJECT6K
This is a loser of an idea, from a loser of a VP
Posted by: GeneK on May 4, 2005 7:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
“progressive” businesses (especially media) always lose in the free market unless they are subsidized by the gov’t. i.e PBS, NPR, AA.

Progressive media is an especially big loser because liberalism can’t compete in the marketplace of ideas. Take a look at Air America, losing money, market share and support…
In San Diego, the much-hyped liberal talk station KLSD continues its ratings collapse, from a 2.3 to a 1.9 to a 1.6 audience share in brand new figures. Philadelphia, Air America affiliate WHAT-AM drops from a tiny 0.8 to a miniscule 0.6 overall audience share. In Detroit, lib talker WTDW-AM is a no-show again. Even Canadian talk radio (Ontario's CKLW-AM) is doing better than Air America in Detroit! Air America in deep trouble in San Francisco: a flat 1.0 share, tied for 25th place overall, no audience gain from last month and a small fraction of the audience KQKE's predecessor had on the same frequency, playing adult standards. In Washington, DC: liberal outlet WWRC is not present in the latest figures with any measurable audience.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: continued Posted by: GeneK
» RE: WHJJ Posted by: Tom Desmond
» RE: continued Posted by: Asses of Evil
Depending on the cable oligarchy for distribution of a progressive network is a lost cause
Posted by: Tom Desmond on May 4, 2005 7:51 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And I think that is really a major part of the reason why "Current" seems to have devolved into another junk pop-culture channel. It's the only way that they can have any hope of getting distribution past the 17 million HH they currently have (mostly through DirecTV). The heart of the problem is here:

> Agreements with Dish Network, Cox, Cablevision, EchoStar and all of Comcast will be necessary to grow Current into 50 million households, at which point advertisers begin paying attention.

In other words, they need to get five big companies to "buy in" to their concept, and if even one refuses to do so, they are pretty well dead in the water. Independent cable network launches are virtually impossible in this environment, and the political baggage (folks in the cable industry apparently do not like Gore) makes it even worse.

It's a shame, because I think that a progressive TV network is a good concept -- but the way to go to get distribution is through broadcast, and especially through LPTV. It's not glamorous, but then neither was AM talk radio in the late eigties when the conservatives started developing that media. And LPTV stations are fairly cheap to acquire.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Typical conservative Posted by: mendomama
GET REAL!
Posted by: mendomama on May 4, 2005 8:26 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I like the concept described here, for the most part. Except where it's assumed that because I'm young, that somehow means I give a crap about Paris Hilton, or teenage girls getting boob jobs. In my opinion, to group young people all together like that is a mistake. To demean our generation by saying that to get us to watch they'll need to be like MTV, really puts me off. There's a reason I don't watch MTV. Some young people actually want to see intelligent, engaging TV shows. What's the viewer numbers for Bill Maher's "Real Time"? I watch it every week. The reason I watch it, is because it stimulates me, intellectually, politically, with a balance of humor. Where do they get all their numbers, anyway? Has the media been dominated by stories like Michael Jackson, Terry Shiavo, and the Pope? Yes, and I complain every second of it that they aren't reporting about something else. Something important. To bring these issues into the media is one thing, for them to dominate the airwaves on every channel, is quite another. I don't want to hear about some family that's been fighting over end of life decisions for years, I want to hear about Bush's latest assault on our environment. I don't want to hear about what every legal analyst in the country has to say about the Michael Jackson trial, I want to hear about what's being done to bring about justice in our electoral system. And I sure as hell don't want to hear about what some airhead floozy, like Paris Hilton has to say about Donald Rumsfeld, instead, I'd like to hear the opinion of someone who is interested in and informed about the state of the world - rather than someone who's spent more money on purses than I'll probably make in my whole lifetime. The political scene has ignored the younger generation for far too long, in that respect, I welcome this change. But, please, give us something with substance, something that actually appeals to our intellect - it's possible to be cutting edge and informative at the same time. There are times that I want mindless TV, that lets me forget about my troubles. But, when I want to be informed about the latest political upset, I don't want it told through the perspective of a boy-crazy, barbie doll who proves through her own tv show that she knows absolutely nothing with respect to the issues that concern everday people. So, get real! No, really, GET REAL! I want to hear about real issues, from real people, seeking real change.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: GET REAL! Posted by: archivgrl
» RE: GET REAL! Posted by: gonzoskismet
Gore was engaging, inteligent, insightful and sincere.
Posted by: PROJECT6K on May 4, 2005 9:35 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
People (normal people, not the fringe that is picking up on the word liberal or air america and using this forum to rant about nothing) will be pleasantly surprised at the programming balance. Thanks for picking up on the essence of what I had to say & stay tuned.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It could work
Posted by: Monde on May 5, 2005 12:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Paris Hilton was a bad, bad idea. Current, however, wasn't.
The ugly fact is that to get a major TV network going you have to have money and pal around with the rich to get it.

If it can start off with the corporati blessing it and slowly, steadily evolve towards a higher standard, that may be the only way a progressive network can actually break ground in this decade's awful unfriendly-to-progressivism climate.

This is my optimist speaking, of course; my cynic already defenestrated my TV and I believe ultimately that's where the real answer lies.

Bottom line, however. Take a look at the blogs, journals et cetera of the 13-25 age group these days and you see they're so immersed in TV and Hollywood that the only way to reach them is going to be to hold out a hand to them through the crap faucet. It sucks, but I haven't seen a better idea.

PS: The idiot above is lying about Air America. It's finally catching its stride and gaining listeners as well as better content. What it needs to do is start being more aggressive about pursuing advertisers. Remember, the con-servers are literally taking shifts running rampant on liberal blogs trying to convince us we've lost, seduce us to give up. Tune them out. They are nothing. We have to talk and think like winners even when we are losing, or...well, we HAVE lost. I didn't understand this until relatively recently but now that I do it's already making a big difference.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

You expected a good idea?
Posted by: mason on May 5, 2005 11:53 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Come on and save your breath...Al Gore will necessarily go down in history as the most incompetent politician of our time. How he turned what should have been a landslide into something "contested" in still beyond me.

Besides, trying to launch a cable television show in a thinly veiled attempt to counteract conservative programming, and all its (unfortunate) success - just to sell out...the only more irrelevant example of a business model is NetFlix, which of course has nothing to do with the "net," except to say "net." If you can not connect the given dots - then lots of fun watching 'current' to you. what a joke!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Not following the conservative herd mentality
Posted by: zeitgeist1979 on Jun 6, 2005 3:57 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I've been looking for articles or posts on the creation of a liberal cable channel and I have hardly found anything at all except for year-old dated articles on Gore's wishes to create a "liberal radio station" (which was already done-Air America) and a "liberal cable channel." Some articles mention how Gore was talking to investors to create a progressive radio station but I haven't found out anything about what his involvement was on creating Air America. For all this talk about "liberal media" you'd think this would be front page news. For all those that go on and on about how much hyped up Air America is ... well that's not the case in the mainstream media, who I would call it more conservative than "liberal." I saw some conservative blogs droning on about how the creation of a "liberal" channel would be nothing new since "liberals" already had CNN, MSNBC, ABC, god knows who else, and conservatives only had Fox ... talk about delusion. Despite the snub that Air America is getting from the rest of the media, it is doing considerably well and some shows are even blowing conservative talk heads like Rush Limbaugh out of the water on some markets (ex. Randi Rhodes in Florida and Ed Schultz in syndicated markets).
For all the complaining that "liberals"/progressives, whatever you wanna call it, just "don't get it" or that they are "so uncreative" and are hopelessly chasing and copying what conservatives are doing already I'm surprised no one has mentioned that Gore's concept on this new channel is definitely different than the tools that the conservative propaganda machine use.
Anyway, I hope that Gore in reality has a hidden agenda and that this will really be a liberal channel that will change the face of television. It is sad how much resistance people have against a progressive channel because their market says that "no one would watch it." That's what they said about Air America, that "no one would listen to it" and against the spin controlled-story that Air America is not doing "impressively well as it should" (I ask who decides what this standard is and for what purpose?) I would venture that the market researchers were wrong. The silver lining after Kerry's defeat is that it created a determination for activism in many sectors of the popultation never before seen since the 60s. I hope the progressive movement grows and is here to stay.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Gore has the right concept
Posted by: zeitgeist1979 on Jun 18, 2005 10:08 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Along with the effective framing of it, the progressive messages need to be spread out onto the public in an equally effective manner. It is certainly of some encouragement that attempts have already been started by some Progressive outlets such as Air America Radio with their use of talking points and AlterNet’s newly-formed “media echo chamber.” Nevertheless, it is certainly no replacement for a centralized media outlet like that of Fox Channel News. As long as Fox Channel News exists progressives will be at a huge disadvantage even with such attempts at influencing the mainstream media such as AlterNet’s “echo chamber.” However, I believe that progressive should not try to create a liberal news channel to be the mirror-opposite of Fox because not only would it be commercially unsound but mediocre at best. I would envision a Progressive channel that is more attractive, creative, and commercially effective than the dull Fox channel. Shows that would mirror CNN segments –with a progressive point of view- should be present but I would envision a more “wholesome” channel. I would picture a channel in which the Progressive agenda would be transmitted not in a preachy monotonous tone but in a more entertaining and appealing way the likes of The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. The channel could be filled with appealing programs the likes of Monday Night Football but with a progressive twist. On Sunday mornings (or any other day for that matter) you could have a priest with Progressive values with his own show that would counter the religious right. Or imagine Martha Stewart for progressives ... think of the unlocked possibilities!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]