We, the public, need to demand more from those who pretend to bring us the news.

www.dangerouscreation.com

-- DavidGrayling

While I was researching for a previous post, I took the time to look to see how NBC described MTP. They do not call it a news program, but rather Public Affairs broadcasting. Yes, it's produced by the NBC News Division, but even they don't call it a news program.

Having said that, I would think that NBC (or any of the others) would understand that it's their mission to present as many opinions having to do with Public Affairs, as is possible to support with the revenue they attract through those programs.

The problem is that they don't. They are presenting programs purporting to be Public Affairs programs and then proceeding to present their own editorial opinions of what the Public should hear about those Affairs through their choice of guests and the questions asked.

That's the problem.

Anchors, hosts, whatever they want to call them, are obligated by the quest for ad revenue to present what they believe will attract the most viewers. Crossfire, the now defunct CNN program, was a decent program with regard to presenting different views. Alas, the program degenerated into a series of shouting matches and became almost a parade of Dunces, each of which attempted to fillibuster the other until a commercial break left the viewer with "the last word spoken" in his mind.

If shows like MTP would have guests on with divergent views and allowed both to air those views while sitting side-by-side (whenever possible), the host wouldn't have to do anything except introduce the guests, announce the topic of discussion, and then referee the pissing contests fairly. Let the guests each respond to the Host's questions and even the softball question will generate hardball answers.

Now, before anyone goes off on me for mentioning the word hardball, I am using it in the baseball sense, and am not refering to Tweety's Gossip, Bullshit and Worship Hour.

My apologies, but this really smacked me upside the head when I saw it:

POLL: Obama's Backwards Cap: Love It Or Lose It?

After what may have been his sixth trip to the gym since arriving in Hawaii one week earlier, the president-elect shook things up on Saturday by wearing his beloved White Sox cap backwards. See the photo and vote in our poll below....

Barf.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/29/obamas-backwards-hat-love_n_154013.html

The "barf" was for the article, not the hat.

Since Greenwald swiped my original video today, I've replaced it with something guaranteed to get your hands clapping.

Enjoy.

Link at sig

FWIW, I have about the same take on Dan Rather.

As you may know from a chain of recursive and reiterative ruminations with which I am bound and double-ironed-- and which dismally trail behind me, clanking and rattling, as I trudge peripatetically through the echoing corridors of UT comments-- I have default settings of contempt and disdain for self-important, narcissistic, egomaniacal celebrity superstar corporate media infotainwhores.

And, as Harry Shearer has so brilliantly lampooned on "Le Show", Rather's speech and demeanor are those of a drama queen. When he appeared on Letterman after 9/11, emotionally overwrought and spewing jingoistic fervor, I thought, "That man is seriously losing his shit."

Rather isn't unique in being a quondam reporter/journalist who mutated into a celebrity news actor, though. Anyone to the right of Amy Goodman-- including Jim Lehrer-- is the same: performers playing News Anchors.

All that said, I wasn't particularly sympathetic when Dan got the boot, even though it smelled of a setup or trap.

But when he filed this suit, I instantly began rooting for him. So far, taking the Ruling Class and its minions to court hasn't hurt them. I'm not referring to all litigation; there have been some advances in curtailing the maladministration's most egregious extra-constitutional excesses.

I'm thinking more of the Scooter Libby stuff. And the military and mercenary atrocities.

So maybe Dan can deliver a smoking worm or two once he pries the can open. Something with great big hairy muscular legs.

As I say, I'm rooting for him all the way.

The Onion must have a hell of time trying to out satire so called real websites.

Catfight!!

Enjoy your posts GG...one yesterday on Israel was really great.....

ok...now that I've verbally schmoozed-when I usually just lurk...

Just wanted to say that I always enjoy B's comments and look for them..

Usually I know though if there only like, 10 pages-then I don't think B is there that day (the page amounts would be higher)-so I skip..

(umm-not that I don't enjoy all comments......steppin in it today.lol.

-but I do especially enjoys B's sageiness.

Of course, piefights are not that fun to sit on the sidelines and watch-(unless you're in one)-and don't think was the case here-piefight, I mean..

Some people that comment alot are arrogantly opinionated-and don't listen..jsut really want to hear themselves talk..

I don't categorize B in that group though...

Anyhoo..just sayin..2 cents.

Love ya both- GG and B!!!

I hope I did not come across as defending the behavior of softball interviews, just trying to describe the situation as it exists.

The way I see it NBC is mostly concerned with maintaining the institution of MTP more than the journalistic integrity of MTP. Their biggest fear is undoubtedly losing viewership and ad dollars, and less influential guests will get them just that.

G.G.--MTP has the largest audience and the most impact of any of the interview show. Virtually all politicians would go on it even if they were asked hard questions.

Maybe so, but is that a risk NBC is willing to take? NBC, being owner of the MTP institution, is I'm sure deathly afraid of losing its precious viewers and will err on the side of caution in trying not to alienate any guests. This is conglomerates and the bottom line we're talking about, journalistic excellence is a ways down the priority list for them. A corporation of that side is not exactly keen on risk taking with one of their big names like MTP. Already wary of 'new media' and watching newspapers' problems with trepidation, I don't see NBC using MTP as the launching point for a resurgence of hard-hitting political commentary.

heru-ur-- However, I do not think that means that a news show can not ask the tough questions. I think the shows care more about attracting viewers than pleasing the guests. If you show real reporting, they will watch. If you have enough viewers that a poll needs to talk to, the guests will come.

Hopefully so, but I would not hold my breath for an established show to do that, for the above reasons. I would love for this to happen on a network program, but imo it's not likely to happen on an existing established one.

DCLaw-- I see this hand-wringing all the time coming from otherwise seemingly intelligent and level-headed people. They lament the existence of some kind of destructive behavior, then for some reason reflexively assuage themselves that there are "good reasons" for that behavior. This seems the epitome of intellectual cowardice to me, and lays the psychological groundwork for complete passivity in the face of injustice.

Not "good reasons", just reasons. Without ascertaining the reasons and motivations for a destructive behaviour how would you ever hope to change it. Kind of like Sarah Palin not caring about what causes climate change but pledging to "work on the impacts"