Trouble in Liberal Paradise ?

[onmyknees]

Wow...things are getting mighty testy over there at Obama Central. (MSNBC) Olbermann slams the Rev.... Racist diatribe for sure...wouldn't you libs agree? Olbermann tryin to keep a black man down...SMH...LOL

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/keith-olbermann-trashes-msnbc-over-rev-sharpton-hire-suggests-quid-pro-quo/

[Stavros]

On another thread someone mentioned 'Olbermann and O'Reilly' and when I googled them got a link to the formers attack on the latter over a misinterpretation of an incident in Europe in World War 2 (at Malmedy, in Belgium). I was puzzled at the lack of control on what Olbermann could say, and had to do some ferreting on Google to discover that there was a 'Fairness Doctrine' introduced in 1949 which continues to impose an obligation to present politicians/candidates with a sense of balance, but which in 1987 was partially revoked to enable broadcasters to say what they want -it also seems to have fed into the 'shock jock' syndrome on radio. I guess it must be about free speech, but it does mean that broadcasting is 'ghettoised' -so it surprises me, onmyknees, that you would get into a lather over opinions expressed on MSNBC by Olbermann of all people -under this free system, isn't it obvious that someone on the left will get incensed by bias on Fox, and so on and so on? It is the logical consequence of freedom...or it could be that because we have the intelligence and our own political views we can tell the difference, whereas people less well endowed actually believe what they hear and see on the news stations? Where factual news stories and opinion pieces merge into and out of each other....

[Ben]

Al Sharpton, MSNBC and journalistic standards (http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/07/27/sharpton/index.html)

By Glenn Greenwald (http://www.salon.com/author/glenn_greenwald/index.html)
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/07/27/sharpton/md_horiz.jpg Rev. Al Sharpton


On Sunday, Cenk Uygur was interviewed (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1107/24/rs.01.html) by CNN's Howard Kurtz about Uygur's departure from MSNBC, and Ugyur claimed that Al Sharpton -- widely reported to be his replacement -- vowed in a 60 Minutes interview never to criticize President Obama under any circumstances. When I first heard Ugyur make this claim, I assumed it was hyperbole until I watched the video and read the transcript (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/05/19/60minutes/main20064391.shtml?tag=contentMain;contentBody) of the Sharpton interview. The 60 Minutes segment was aired on May 19, 2011, and chronicles what it calls Sharpton's "metamorphosis: today he's down right tame. So much so, that he has made his way into the establishment." It includes this:
Sharpton told us that having a black president is a challenge: if he finds fault with Mr. Obama, he'd be aiding those who want to destroy him. So he has decided not to criticize the president about anything -- even about black unemployment, which is twice the national rate.
The segment also described Sharpton as "now a trusted White House adviser" and recounts that "given his loyalty and his change from confrontational to accommodating, the administration is rewarding him with access and assignments."
How can a media outlet such as MSNBC that purports to be presenting political journalism possibly employ someone as a journalist -- even an opinion journalist -- who publicly and categorically pledges never to criticize the President of the United States under any circumstances? That would be like hiring a physician who vows never to treat any diseases, or employing an auto mechanic who pledges never to fix any cars, or retaining a pollster who swears never to make any findings about public opinion. Holding people in political power accountable is the prime function -- the defining feature -- of a journalist, including a pundit; if you expressly and publicly vow never to do that, how can you possibly be credibly presented as being one? And how can the political analysis of someone who takes this pledge possibly be trusted as sincerely held, let alone accurate? Note that this vow was not from three years ago; it was from two months ago.
There is a wide spectrum of political opinion within progressive circles with regard to how much criticism President Obama warrants -- some believe he merits much and others believe he merits very little -- and it's perfectly appropriate for MSNBC to feature hosts and commentators representing all those views (and, indeed, it does do that). But publicly swearing never to criticize the President no matter what is in an entirely different universe. Of course, never criticizing the President was the overarching credo of Fox News during the Bush years, but that's one of the features that made it so pernicious; besides, not even Fox took a public pledge never to do so.
It's true that MSNBC has many hosts who frequently and aggressively criticize the President, but one does have to wonder what message it sends when the most critical of them is removed despite solid ratings and replaced with someone who has taken this vow, someone who is "rewarded" for his "loyalty" by the White House with "access." I've long considered Sharpton to be a constructive political voice, especially the important views he forced into the 2004 Democratic presidential primary. And it's perfectly fine for a political activist to decide that the best way to advance an agenda is through unbroken fealty to the White House. But that is a bizarre attribute indeed for a featured nighttime host of a political program on an ostensibly journalistic outlet.

[Stavros]

Sorry Ben I don't understand your complaint -as I pointed out before, you Americans decided to relax the rules on balanced reporting on TV, so now you know the tone you will get in Fox News, and you know the tone you get in MSNBC, if your tv stations acquire a partisan tone, don't then complain if Sharpton confirms what to some is obvious anyway. You probably know the difference between the New York Times and the Daily Post, thats how it is with your tv stations these days. If you don't like it, then lobby your legislators to change the law.

[hippifried]

Laws don't need to be changed. Everything's already on the books. The FCC has a wide latitude for dealing with enforcement of the rules. Since the '80s, the official position of the commission is that the fairness doctrine is moot. Most stations still try to follow it anyway becaus it's good for business. As far as I know, the only network that's tried to force their stations to ignore the doctrine is Clearchannel, the largest radio network. Not sure how that's working out since they started selling off their stations in the small & mid-sized markets in order to go private. It's a lot harder for networks to have that kind of control over private affiliates.

I've commented before on the difference between local broadcasting & the cable channels. For as powerful & influencial as they'd like everybody to think they are, all this constant yammering about FOX news & MSNBC is just about 2 stations out of the thousands nationwide. They're all political punditry all the time. There really isn't all that much in the way of news from either, & there's nothing local at all. They don't have affiliates. They're wholly owned outlets for their respective networks, without the freedom of an affiliate. FOX is the network. NBC is the network. Those 2 stations aren't even broadcast.

It would appear, just from watching the shakeups, that Comcast (New owner of NBC, or at least MSNBC) is trying to shift their focus to a more liberal perspective instead of "left wing". Meanwhile, FOX & their cult followers still haven't figured out the difference.

[Ben]

Sorry Ben I don't understand your complaint -as I pointed out before, you Americans decided to relax the rules on balanced reporting on TV, so now you know the tone you will get in Fox News, and you know the tone you get in MSNBC, if your tv stations acquire a partisan tone, don't then complain if Sharpton confirms what to some is obvious anyway. You probably know the difference between the New York Times and the Daily Post, thats how it is with your tv stations these days. If you don't like it, then lobby your legislators to change the law.

It's actually a blog posted by author, blogger and former constitutional lawyer Glenn Greenwald.
Sharpton said he will not criticize the president over anything. Nothing. Well, that isn't journalism.
Journalism, and not stenography, is about holding power -- whether it be corporate or political -- to account. That's the basis of journalism. Otherwise, well, Sharpton is simply a spokesperson for the administration; and we thus bear witness to a full fusion of corporate and state power.
End with a quote from The Father of America, Thomas Jefferson: "Our liberty cannot be guarded but by the freedom of the press, nor that be limited without danger of losing it."

[Stavros]

For as powerful & influencial as they'd like everybody to think they are, all this constant yammering about FOX news & MSNBC is just about 2 stations out of the thousands nationwide

Its not easy to tell living here, it appears you are suggesting most Americans do not watch either Fox or MSNBC -? Is it still NBC and CBS or even more diffuse?

[gmercer]

For as powerful & influencial as they'd like everybody to think they are, all this constant yammering about FOX news & MSNBC is just about 2 stations out of the thousands nationwide

Its not easy to tell living here, it appears you are suggesting most Americans do not watch either Fox or MSNBC -? Is it still NBC and CBS or even more diffuse?

Most Americans don't watch those channels. They are on cable, and the most viewers Fox News primetime gets is about 2.5-3 million, while MSNBC gets about 0.75-1 million. CNN and HLN gets about 0.5-0.75 million each per night. That's a total of at most, 5.5 million out of a country of more than 310 million. More cable viewers watch wrestling, or a show about professional garbage pickers, than all cable news channels combined.

The broadcast networks do have more viewers for the evening news. NBC gets about 7.5 million a night, ABC gets 7 million, and CBS gets 5.5 million.

The thing you have to take into account is that cable news viewers tend to be more politically active. So when only 40% of eligible voters actually show up for a general election and less than 20% show up for a primary, the influence of cable news becomes much bigger.

[hippifried]

For as powerful & influencial as they'd like everybody to think they are, all this constant yammering about FOX news & MSNBC is just about 2 stations out of the thousands nationwide

Its not easy to tell living here, it appears you are suggesting most Americans do not watch either Fox or MSNBC -? Is it still NBC and CBS or even more diffuse?
There's 4 broadcast networks. 5 if you count PBS. Oh & don't forget Univision & Telemundo. FOX is the only one who doesn't do network news broadcasts. On the air, they're strictly entertainment, & owe their success to Al Bundy & family. All of them are involved in swallowing up everything they can get their hands on. I can't keep track of who owns whom anymore, Can't be sure, but I think the mouse (Disney) owns more cable channels than anybody. They own ABC too. GE (NBC) has been spinning off most of their real business off for the past few years in favor of playing in the financial markets. Kind of too bad from a nostalgic standpoint. They pioneered broadcast radio & TV, & invented color broadcast as we know it. CBS has been struggling for years to come up with anything that'll draw an audience. They need a big shakeup.

I don't have the stats, but if anybody feels ambitious enough to research it, I'd bet dollars to donuts that the combined affiliate or independent produced local news broadcasts blow out all the network news stuff in the ratings. People want to know what's going on around them. National & international news is interesting & makes for great bitching, but most people can only have a direct effect on what's near.

[hippifried]

The thing you have to take into account is that cable news viewers tend to be more politically active.
Yeah, I keep hearing that. Has anybody ever verified it? I have to wonder how much of that is just having a steady enough income to pay the cable bill.

[gmercer]

I don't think Disney owns the most cable channels, but they do own ESPN, and that is a big time money maker. They also own ABC, the Disney channel, ABC family, lifetime, A&E, and the History channel.

Time Warner owns the CW (jointly with CBS), CNN, HLN, TNT, TBS, TCM, HBO, and the Cartoon Network.

Viacom used to be joined with CBS until it was spun off a few years back. It owns Comedy Central, MTV, VH1, CMT, BET, Spike, Nickelodean, and Logo.

CBS Corp owns CBS, part of the CW, and Showtime.

NBC Universal is now owned by Comcast with 51%, while GE holds 49%, but Comcast has the option to purchase the rest in a few years. It's assets are NBC, CNBC, MSNBC, USA, Bravo, SYFY, the Weather Channel, E!, G4, Versus, and Telemundo.

Newscorp owns Fox, Fox News, FX, Fox Business, Sports Net, and Fox Movie channel.

[hippifried]

Yeah. Like I said, I can't keep up with who owns whom anymore. But it sure is nice to see all this "job creation" by giant corporations buying & selling each other. <eye roll>

[beandip]

Democrats doing math.

4 + 4 = 6

That sums it up right there.

[Faldur]

http://successsystemsnow.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/bailout-monopoly-money-600pix.jpg

[russtafa]

i like Italian tv lots of sluts on the screen

[Stavros]

Thanks gmercer for the media breakdown. It should be obvious that because of its size, the different time zones, and micro-cultures that the US media is more diffuse than it is in Europe. There was a time of course when NBC and CBS were dominant, presumably before cable and when the cap-ex involved in starting up a new TV channel (plus regulatory issues) was prohibitive. Does the US benefit from such a bewildering choice of channels? I dont know, Murdoch as Yodajazz has pointed out, probably owns too much, percentage-wise, as he does in the UK. But ownership is but one element. The diffuse nature of the US make micro-cultures important, and someone -I think it was Hippifried- pointed out a while ago that local newspapers are more important than the NYT or the Post across America.

I wonder if the increasing diffusion of news through cable, mainstream tv, the internet, and so on, fractures Americas image of itself as a united country. I don't know if it has ever been united, in a pure sense, 9/11 in this regard was a moment that did bring Americans together, although the responses and then the examination of how it happened in the first place, have divided Americans. Wars tend to unite, and I guess the media was simpler in WWII when 'most Americans' listened to the radio and FDR's 'fireside chats'.

Perhaps the paradox of freedom is that it can appear to unite and divide at the same time: the growth of individual freedom since the 1960s has 'liberated' homosexuality and transexuality from the closet, for example -and it isn't everyone who then wants to join a group or even be lumped into a group or ghetto defined by their sexuality, yet it does seem to separate out people if they insist on being so defined. You go from a vague belief that you were part of 'society' to living in a world crowded with 'special interest' groups -this seems to alienate 'ordinary people' -and is part of the 'entitlement' issue that has been identified in Tea Party supporters.

But maybe what has happened is that we have discovered nobody was ever 'ordinary'; that in most families there has been a 'black sheep', that when freedom of individual expression is allowed, we are all special interests -our own interests. You can see the Taliban in this context desperate to 'stop the rot' by imposing a mono-cultural regime that covers everything from dress and behaviour to eating and speaking -but doesn't work and is not what most people want. And, in their context, life-style changes would not make people any 'less Muslim' than they are now. Perhaps its the loss of control that is feared, and is precisely the kind of freedom that attracted immigrants to the US in the first place.
I think its part of a theory of amortized social relations. Not sure any of this can be captured by the media, which tries to appeal to a wider audience.

[Stavros]

i like Italian tv lots of sluts on the screen

Its when they go from being eye-candy to holding government jobs because of their 'sponsor' that you need to worry...