Losing their monopoly.

VICE President Dick Cheney's decision last week to give an exclusive interview to the Fox News Channel was a starling example of how far the Big Three television networks have fallen. A few years ago, it would have been almost unthinkable for such an important interview to go to any outlet other than ABC, CBS or NBC.

But Fox News now can deliver a big audience. It has been trouncing other cable news networks' ratings for years. A couple weeks ago, for example, FNC averaged 1.5 million viewers in prime time, way more than the 633,000 for CNN and 324,000 for MSNBC. While FNC usually can't touch the ratings of the big networks, the cable channel did beat all the networks during the Republican National Convention in 2004.

Of course, a prevailing view last week was that Cheney believed he'd get softer treatment by Fox, an outlet that skews conservative. That may be tree, but politicians, business executives and celebrities routinely gravitate to the news outlet they believe will provide the most favorable hearing. You can't blame Cheney for going to Fox any more than you can blame Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton for going to NBC's Today show.

Besides, that's not my point. It is this: What happened to the networks? Why do they seem stuck in this slow, downward spiral? How is it that the oligopoly of the big networks allowed Fox News in their chicken coop?

It's just my opinion, but I believe it is because Fox has discovered the defining debate in our time--the liberal vs. conservative argument--while the news operations at the big networks seem unable or reluctant to engage.

Before we proceed, let's deal with this bit of business: It is fine to be a liberal. It is fine to be a conservative. Both sides have legitimate viewpoints, and both sides want the best for the country. Actually, you may not agree with that, but please accept it for a minute, just for the sake of argument.

Regardless of where you come down on the political spectrum, you've got to give Fox credit for doing the most to capitalize on--OK, exploit--the food fight between liberals and conservatives. The Hannity & Colmes show, for example, pits a liberal with a conservative. Granted, it may be overtly sensational, but it is also entertaining and bracing. It clarifies positions and arguments. And to the point: It is a ratings hit.

As this media city knows well, any ratings hit invites "me-too" competitors. What's strange is that despite the consistent high ratings of Hannity & Colmes, it's hard to think of a network news show or even a cable news show that successfully duplicates it. CNN had Crossfire but canceled it, not because of poor ratings but because CNN was uncomfortable with it. CNN just doesn't get it.

Likewise, take a look at Fox's Sunday morning news show. (Granted, it's the Fox broadcast network and not the cable news outlet, but it's the same cast of Fox characters.) The Fox show includes two conservative panelists, two liberal panelists and one referee. It makes for lively debate. By contrast, ABC's This Week on Sunday morning typically features George Stephanopoulos and a panel packed with other liberals. The lone conservative, George Will, is reduced to a token. At least I think that's what happens; I usually nod off because the show is dull. ABC just doesn't get it.

One of the most embarrassing blunders in business is to blow a monopoly. True, the old networks have more of an oligopoly than a monopoly, and they haven't blown it. At least not yet. But the Cheney interview shows that the networks are getting uncomfortably close to blowing it.

Charles Crumpley is the editor of the Business Journal. He can be reached at ccrumpley@labusinessjournal. com.