Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
I consider myself a left-of-center voter but I truly despise Rachel Maddow. When she was on the Today show recently she was asked about the campaigns and basically refused to even comment on McCain's options- She is a walking stereotype- the kool-ade drinking Liberal who won't even COMMENT on the opposition.
One should not be looking at anybody who has a "show" to do Serious Journalism, liberal or conservative (God forbid, libertarian). Truly, is there serious journalism on Wolf Blitzer's show? He'd like to think so, but no.
Countdown with Keith Olbermann is amusing and often hits the nail on the head, but serious journalism? Hardly.
The Daily Show with Jon Stewart more often touches on the essence of an issue than most "news" shows.
These are not called "shows" for nothin'. It's ostensibly smart entertainment. Period.
The problem is a lack of liberal talking heads pushing a point of view that is wrong with the media. It's that there is the idea that there should be the liberal media and the conservative media.
MSNBC should not be the answer to Fox News. The answer to Fox News is to continually undermine their credibility and destroy their business model (biased propaganda as news) as responsible journalists continue to put forward accurate and unbiased reporting.
The problem is that the only outlets putting forward such work are NPR and PBS and they have low ratings because they don't sink to the lowest common denominator.
What all of this points to is audience driven news production where the audience only consume information that is transformed and packaged as entertainment. We are caught in a very vicious circle that will be very difficult to break.
Ha! You mean the same guy indulging in quasi racist faux-rapping at some DC black tie dinner with his buddy Karl Rove?
The point here is obvious: it literally doesn't matter if Maddow is a walking stereotype, because OTHER NETWORKS EMPLOY BILL O'REILLY AND GLENN BECK, among others.
In any event, the entire cult of media objectivity is crap anyway, a product of a sterile and oligopolistic moment in media history: postwar broadcast TV. Journalists historically were expected to show respect for facts, but were also expected to operate from a particular ideological and partisan perspective, and to bring unremitting hostility to bear on public officials and figures of opposing ideologies. It was only when news coverage began to be dominated by the oligopoly of the big 3 TV networks that media began to be seen as some sort of quasipublic entity that was supposed to show "fairness". And the decay of journalism as an institution dates from that time and from the adoption of that mindset, and I would argue is the result of that mindset.
We were vastly better served by our journalists when they were polemicists. The yellow press did better by all of us than the Grey Lady or Columbia's School of Journalism ever did.
MSNBC should not be the answer to Fox News. The answer to Fox News is to continually undermine their credibility and destroy their business model (biased propaganda as news) as responsible journalists continue to put forward accurate and unbiased reporting.
Why do you assume that can't happen on MSNBC? Do you think Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann are incapable of "accurate and unbiased reporting"?
In the wake of Watergate Congress held hearings during which it was revealed that hundreds of reporters had working relationships with the CIA. That was the tip of the iceberg. A read of Christopher Simpson's "Science of Coercion: Communication Research and Psychological Warfare, 1945-1960" shows that the relationship existed before the CIA was even created, and that the use of news outlets was a primary strategy for propagandizing the population. The relationships that existed in WWII continue today.
Cable news outlets from their beginnings have been used as propaganda outlets. I look back at the volume of the overwhelming anti-OJ Simpson reportage in 1994 as part of the strategy for the Great Republican Revolution (The Contract With America, etc.).
When one analyzes the purpose of media propaganda directed at Americans, it is easy to confuse the slant as pro-Republican and anti-Democrat. The Republican Party is essentially the party of the military-industrial complex, though, so their consonance with the program should not be confused as their own initiative. Any "conservative" positions that Republicans have historically held (anti-government intrusion, protection of the individual, etc.) has been washed away by the dictates of the MIC.
Here's the scary part: Rachel Maddow's ascension is reason enough to not trust her. For propaganda to work, it has to be fed in proper doses to the various elements of society. What racists and reactionaries willingly gobble must be fed in smaller portions to lefties, mixed with what lefties like to eat. The difference between Maddow and Beck? Pay attention.
Just saying.
ha ha
And, completely off-topic, but: Condi Rice announces the troop pullout on the eve of the Democratic and Republican Presidential conventions!
No one could have predicted THAT one!
I was a proud democrat until the primaries when Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, David Schuster,Dick Gregory took a decisely turn to the far left and almost destroyed Hillary's candidacy.
I then turned to FoxNews which I had never watched before.There I found, to my surprise, a definitely more balanced reporting of Hillary etc.. Once and avid follower of Matthews and Olbermann, I never watched them anymore. Since the Democratic Party abandoned Hillary who was by far the strongest candidate and the media following the far left, I am no longer a democrat and will be voting for McCain. The extremism of MSNBC which culminated by giving Rachel Maddox a show is the ultimate in partisan journalism. The NYTimes" Frank Rich and Maureen Dowd have also accomplished their goal. Their demented articles about Hillary Clinton also helped nominate Barack Obama. I also cancelled my subscription to NYTimes, The Nation and Vanity Fair.It's a shame that the media is the one helping people to make their decisions in elections.
Like that never happens...?
Listen, 'maturity', you aren't living up to your name/handle here. You sound more like a whining, petulant loser.
There isn't enough difference between the policies of Obama and Hillary for you to vote for McCain. I guess, 'maturity', that you base your vote on something other than the fate of our nation and the facts of the matter.
You base it on whether or not your feelings got hurt. You and every other McCain supporter, making the most immature decision you possibly could make in this circumstance.
Get a life. And when you step into that voting booth, don't remember poor Hillary and how they treated her. Remember the LAST EIGHT YEARS and who is going to really give us a break. No third term!
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
