Originally Posted By plpeters70 <<Sarah Palin's Alaska>> I noticed that CNN was covering that show this morning. Does CNN cover the premieres of ALL new reality TV shows - or just the ones starring former governors?
Originally Posted By gadzuux Let me state up front that I'm a fan of both Stewart and Maddow both. That said, I thought that Stewart was too dismissive of Maddow (and others) complaint - namely the false equivalency between MSNBC and Fox. Stewart's response was that his comparisons were in the service of a larger point - that both entities veer the attention away from what he sees as the "real" problem, and focuses chiefly on the red/blue divide. Maddows issue was that his portrayal of both networks as just two sides of the same coin diminishes and demeans MSNBC as being equivalent to Fox. Stewart agrees with her, but then says that it misses his larger point - that the "real" struggle lies elsewhere, and not receiving the attention it's due. I agree with Maddow. Fortunately, so does Stewart. What MSNBC does - and what the people who work there every day do for a living, is in no way comparable to what Fox does and is - an advocacy group for a particular ideology, and one that practices deception and deliberately misleads and misstates actual facts. I can understand the resentment from the MSNBC folks not wanting to be lumped in with Fox - they deserve better and they're not shy about standing up and saying so. Further - if Stewart's entire premise needs to be supported by categorizing MSNBC and Fox together, then it's a flawed premise to start with. It exhibits exactly the kind of "truthiness" that they profess to expose - it "feels" right and it's "pat" so we'll go with it. I was also hoping that it would be funnier. It wasn't. It was entertaining and enlightening in it's own way, but not what I was expecting at all.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 This is how I saw it: Stewart knows that Fox and MSNBC are fundamentally different. But on one aspect - that of "turning up the volume" on national discourse - they can be seen as similar. And that one aspect has sort of become Stewart's "pet thing" right now. Stewart knows very well that Fox often just makes stuff up and says things that are just flat-out untrue, in order to advance a particular ideology. (And often shows them doing just that.) And then doesn't offer corrections, as MSNBC does in the rare event that they report something that turns out to be incorrect. Even more often, Fox floats things by saying "people are reporting that... (Obama is a secret Muslim, or take your pick of what 'people are reporting that...')" just to get those untruths out into the zeitgeist without technically "reporting" them. Stewart knows that those are bigger sins than the "turning up the volume" sin that both networks (though not Maddow, really) indulge in. And he admitted as much more than once, as it obviously pained Maddow to have them compared, and she insisted on making the distinction. But since Stewart is so into his "let's turn down the volume" thing, he'd concede Maddow's point that they were NOT alike in the bigger sins, and then go back to talking about the smaller sin.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***A sizable chunk of the electorate railed against allowing negros into white schools. Were they to be taken seriously, too?<< Yes. Because they weren't fooling around with the racist policies and the lynchings and stuff. By "taken seriously" I don't mean "support and encourage." *** If they're making policy or committing crimes, then yes, of course you take it seriously. My point is that their RHETORIC shouldn't be. It should be ridiculed, and yes in Jon Stewart fashion even mocked.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***The difference is the media and people like Walter Cronkite used to report the facts, even if it wasn't "fair" to whiny people averse to truth and rationality. Now that's not the case. Now they report that the Obama administration says they cut taxes but tea baggers say no he didn't they've gone up and well shucks, who's to know the truth anymore?*** Excellent point. Each and every media report on the tea party where they shouted "taxed enough already!" should've ended with the journalist reporting, as a plain fact, that taxes are at a 50 year low. Why they didn't/don't is beyond me. ***MSNBC should be smart and do a little less talking ABOUT the tea partiers and a little more talking TO them. Put them on the air, ask them hard questions. That's what journalists are supposed to do*** Maddow DOES appear to try very hard to have right wing guests on her program and to treat them reasonably fairly (in comparison to, say, how Hannity or O'Reilly treat their liberal guests). Tim Pawlenty used to appear fairly regularly on her show, until he decided he's running for President and took a hard right turn on the rhetoric. Hasn't appeared since (I think well over a year now). She had Rand Paul on after his primary win, he stuck his foot in his mouth talking about how the civil rights act was flawed. He then went to ground and subsequently appeared only on the "friendly" networks and radio shows. There was another kooky right winger she had on, one of the tea baggers who lost (the guy who says nuclear waste is good for the environment). It was the most convoluted, hostile interview I've ever seen. So it's not as though they at MSNBC don't try. Weird thing is these same people don't appear on any OTHER networks either, and people don't question it. Appearing ONLY on MSNBC, then can of course claim that those kooky liberals set em up if things go badly (not so easy if it's a major network interview, although the McCain campaign painting Katie Couric as unfair and biased seemed to work pretty well for them).
Originally Posted By gadzuux Rachel has had Meagan McCain on several times. But I would also say that it's looking like Meagan wants a gig as a tv pundit, so she might show up anywhere she's invited. She purports to present herself as the spokesperson for "young republicans" and for all I know, she does - who knows what those kids are thinking.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>But on one aspect - that of "turning up the volume" on national discourse - they can be seen as similar.<< And I think he's got a good point in that regard. Both networks have a boatload of opinion shows vs. actual news time. If the bulk of a news channel's programming is devoted not to news gathering, but instead to various pundits shouting, I'm not so sure that does a lot of good for the level of the "national dialogue." Both networks are primarily attempting to "own" a specific market niche. They do this by featuring an array of mostly similarly-minded hosts. Left of center to left on MSNBC, very right wing to lunatic fringe on Fox.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan Then again, the one channel that does a lot of actual real reporting -- CNN -- is in the ratings dumper.
Originally Posted By gadzuux Here's the problem with what Stewart was doing in conflating Fox with MSNBC - it quickly becomes a cultural meme and gets recycled over and over until it's wedged firmly in the national pysche - even though it's not true. Yesterday, West Virginia's Senator, Jay Rockefeller said on the senate floor ... >> “We need new catalysts for quality news and entertainment programming”. “I hunger for quality news. I’m tired of the right and the left. There’s a little bug inside of me which wants the FCC to say to Fox and to MSNBC, ‘Out. Off. End. Good-bye.’ It’d be a big favor to political discourse, our ability to do our work here in Congress and to the American people to be able to talk with each other and have some faith in their government and more importantly in their future.” << This week Ted Koppel said ... >> We live now in a cable news universe that celebrates the opinions of Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, Chris Matthews, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly - individuals who hold up the twin pillars of political partisanship and who are encouraged to do so by their parent organizations because their brand of analysis and commentary is highly profitable. The commercial success of both Fox News and MSNBC is a source of nonpartisan sadness for me. [Assuming] that absolute objectivity is unattainable, Fox News and MSNBC no longer even attempt it. They show us the world not as it is, but as partisans (and loyal viewers) at either end of the political spectrum would like it to be. << So what we see here are two high profile americans - ones with access to microphones and soapboxes - echoing what Stewart said at his rally. Except that Stewart himself said in his interview with Maddow that it's not a fair comparison, and that his message was intended to be greater than just dogging MSNBC and Fox. Doesn't matter - that's the new mindset - that Fox and MSNBC are both equivalent, and equally responsible for the fomenting and polarization of the public. MSNBC hosts are understandably upset. They politely but firmly objected to Stewart's characterization, but it was too late - the cat was outta the bag, and now it's being repeated and echoed from numerous sources. They're also objecting to Koppel's statements, and now Rockefeller's comments. But it's like whack-a-mole - once this false equivalency set's like cement in the cultural zietgiest, there's no undoing it. And it all traces back to Stewart and his inartful way of making a point that was lost on almost everyone.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***There’s a little bug inside of me which wants the FCC to say to Fox and to MSNBC*** Shouldn't a Senator be informed at least enough to know that Fox and MSNBC are not in the FCC's jurisdiction? I mean, if he's going to comment and all.
Originally Posted By planodisney Wow. I must say I am shocked at how many of you have convinced yourselves that MSNBC is somehow better than FOX. I honestly try to be objective about these things, and have found myself watching MSNBC more often lately than FOX. I just find it more interesting. I am tired of only hearing opinions I already subscribe too, although FOX almost always gives the opportunity for an opposing view. For me, the biggest difference I have noticed, is that MSNBC can be just plain horribly mean. Olberman on a regular basis calls people names. Extremely degrading names. If you watch the 3 primetime shows, they realy have become shows where the writers, or reporters just search for something stupid a republican said, and then talk about them for 5 minutes. I like Rachel and think she is a genuinely nice person, but she isnt exactly fair. not dishonest, but definitely not fair. I realy like the new guy after her, but they all suck compared to Anderson Cooper. He had a story tonight about the Haitian adoptee bill written by a republican, passed by the house once, then the senate, with some minor changes, and then sent back to the house again. The bill was supposed to be voted on monday, but was mysteriously taken off the agenda, because democrats want to tie it in with the Dream act. Anderson had families on who were angry democrats were playing politics with this bill which has bi-partisan support. Both sides do this and I hate it. My point, is that this is a very important story, but you would never see this covered ny Olbermann or Maddow. The only, and I meen only do stories that make republicans look bad. IMHO, as a conservative, MSNBC is far, far worse than FOX. i realy feel it is an objective opinion. My sister, a registered Democrat who realy lies write in the middle as a moderate, cant stand MSNBC, but particularly Olbermann. She finds him extremely rude and mean.
Originally Posted By planodisney Holy crap!!! Is there no way to go back and correct our posts? That was terrible.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 IMO, Olbmermann can be mean, but mostly to people who earned it. If he's tough on everyone from the super-powerful (Bush and Cheney) to the obscure for awful also (that assistant DA in Michigan who took it upon himself to harass the student body president of UM for daring to, you know, be gay)... <a href="http://www.thefrisky.com/post/246-attorney-general-fired-after-harassing-gay-student/" target="_blank">http://www.thefrisky.com/post/...student/</a> ...at least his targets are people who have done things that warrant their being targets. Beck, for one, slams people who belong to churches that do nothing more than call for social justice. In his view the term itself is suspect, particularly when used by churches. Then in the next breath claims the mantle of somehow being the next Martin Luther King. Who, of course, repeatedly called for... social justice, (and came at it from a Christian perspective.) And, of course, Maddow isn't mean at all, and she can't be expected to touch on all the day's stories in one hour. When she does have conservatives on, she is ALWAYS fair to them, and never cuts them off mid-sentence as O'Reilly and Beck and Hannity do. In addition, there's that important distinction we mentioned before. MSNBC hosts do not just make up stuff and lie about people. Fox does. Every more often, they do the smarmy insinuation thing (Hannity is particularly good - or bad, if you like - at that). So while you can compare the tone, and there is a point to that, that very important distinction remains.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox <<Olberman on a regular basis calls people names. Extremely degrading names.>> Oh yes, very true. I can remember for years on his show, how he would refer to Dr George Tiller as "Tiller the Baby Killer" over and over and over again. "Tiller the Baby Killer" "Tiller the Baby Killer" "Tiller the Baby Killer" Oh wait... I thought you stated "O'Reilly." My bad.
Originally Posted By ecdc I recently ditched my efforts to stream all my TV content and got DirecTV again. I'm watching MSNBC this morning and Jon Stewart is spot on about one thing. When you have 24 hour cable news, EVERYTHING becomes a "breaking news" story. North Korea fired on South Korea today and the lead stories on MSNBC are how we haven't found Natalee Holloway and the Royal Wedding. They may not be the BSers Fox News is, but it's tough to take them seriously at moments like this.
Originally Posted By plpeters70 <<When you have 24 hour cable news, EVERYTHING becomes a "breaking news" story.>> Exactly - everything is suddenly elevated to the same level of "news-worthiness" - even when it's clearly not. Personally, I just don't see the need for these 24-hour news channels - there just aren't enough stories worthy of National attention to fill all that time.
Originally Posted By DAR Eh I liked Olbermann better when he and Dan Patrick were running the four letter network up in Bristol CT.
