It seems Olbermann is too extreme for US television. But Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity, now they are mainstream. What universe could that proposition be true in? That of cranky old white billionaires. And television news is owned by them. Not by you.
Whether Comcast is the villain of the piece directly, things like the Comcast merger with MSNBC are responsible for there being very few voices on American television (and despite the proliferation of channels) like Olbermann’s. And for there being relatively little news on the “news” programs. Time Warner, General Electric and Comcast (partners in NBC), Viacom, Disney, and Ruper Murdoch’s Newscorp own almost all television news. In other words, six big corporations determine what you will hear about the world if you get your news from television. There are fewer and fewer t.v. news outlets that do not belong to one of these six, a process called media consolidation.
For reasons of profit-seeking, when Disney acquired ABC, it looted the company’s news divisions. Profits are not to be had in hard news, but rather in tabloid news. It used to be that human interest stories would be ‘desert,’ but they have become the main meal.
Ironically, former NBC anchor Tom Brokaw was one of Olbermann’s biggest critics, afraid that the latter’s flamboyant and polarizing style would tarnish the reputation of regular NBC newsmen for objectivity.
What Brokaw seems not to have noticed is that NBC and MSNBC did, like most television news, a miserable job of covering the Iraq issue in 2002-2003–mainly buying White House propaganda. The powerful bias toward the point of view of the rich and powerful and well-connected in Washington demonstrated by all the major tv news outlets in 2002-2003 makes Olbermann look like a staid centrist.
Senator Al Franken, a former NBC employee, fulminated against the Comcast/ MSNBC merger, but the FCC passed it.
We’ll miss Keith. But it isn’t about him. It is about the ever-narrowing character of public comment in the US, about the few having most of everything. It is about media consolidation.
Let’s not lower our standards to the point where we think Keith Olbermann is the great liberal hope to counter what amounts to the lowest common denominator of political discourse.
We don’t need Beck, Hannity, Olbermann, or Maddow. We need something completely different from all of these partisan hacks. Our standards are laughably low.
We need someone who simply looks at the issues and presents a case for how we can solve them. Every second in my day wasted listening to these talking heads argue with each other is a second lost trying to improve our collective quality of life.
The end of the current disaster of cable news noise chamber discourse cannot come quick enough.
I told all of our guys, shut up, tone it down, make your argument intellectually. You don’t have to do it with bombast. I hope the other side does that.
Fox “News” chief ROGER AILES, in an interview with Russell Simmons, on the coverage of Tucson and, well, everything else I guess, by his right-leaning network.
By his own admission, Ailes is confirming two things: 1) Fox “News” is nothing more than a tool to rouse the right-wing rabble, and 2) yes, Fox “News” isn’t an objective news organization because, as he puts it, Fox is one side and everything else is “the other side.”
(via inothernews)
It would be really nice if the ramblings of crazy people didn’t in any way resemble how we talk to each other on TV. Let’s at least make troubled individuals easier to spot.
I never learned anything while I was talking. So what they are – are preachers – preachers of their opinion. They’re telling you what they know. They’re not learning. There’s no learning experience from either of those programs… . I want to learn.
On Fox, the news exists in order to generate controversy. And controversy exists in order to generate resentment. And the resentment is what generates ratings. So this is my most concise idea about Fox: we should consider it “resentment news.” I think that’s the genre in which it trades…
(Source: diadoumenos, via brooklynmutt)
The Germans should have invented a word that’s like “schadenfreude,” but describing the feeling that comes when someone expresses something in a such a way that you feel vaguely uncomfortable agreeing with them. Schaden-noddin’, maybe?
Whatever the word, it would roughly describe what I felt last night as Keith Olbermann made some convincing points in a Special Comment that furiously (and sanctimoniously) rebutted Ted Koppel’s passionate (and sanctimonious) bemoaning of opinion in TV news today.
Rachel Maddow Blasts Fox from her Glass House at MSNBC! (via johnnydollar01)
People of Tumblr … can we please stop taking Rachel Maddow seriously She is not a voice of reason. She’s just another voice.
Can we please stop taking cable news seriously?
This issue of Keith Olbermann being suspended from MSNBC for political donations is well, dumb. In our 21st century society rules such as the one that got him suspended are archaic. It reminds me of NPR’s ban on its employees from attending the Rally to Restore Sanity.
Journalists are supposed to be neutral, yes. I do understand the concept of journalistic integrity, but in almost no instance is an individual whose life and career concerns covering politics in this country going to be politically neutral. There’s a difference between attempting to be subjective in a professional capacity and having an individual opinion.
I think it’s more disingenuous to try and hide journalists’s personal opinions under the guise of neutrality, because if one knows where they stand as an individual, the informed reader or viewer can take that into account instead of just assuming they’re some sort of mythical 100% subjective human being. The best of the best can probably pull off subjectivity pretty well, but for the average Joe Journalist, their biases are going to leak in whether they intend them to or not.
Exactly. I’m no huge fan of Olbermann, but this myth that journalists are unemotional robots, devoid of opinions, feelings, and bias is laughable. Better to know exactly who someone is rather than the outdated, disingenuous idea that someone writing an article or performing a broadcast is a blank slate with zero baggage.
In this case, would MSNBC have been less harsh on Keith if he had disclosed it beforehand? I would hope so. If the problem here is simply disclosure, then I agree with the move. It’s a bit silly though, since anyone with half a brain realizes Keith leans way to the left, and not forward as MSNBC’s new motto would imply.
(Source: minusmanhattan)
Fox News : Your source for hyper-partisan bullshit
CNN : If you’re watching this your flight’s been cancelled
MSNBC : Lean forward???
Page 1 of 2