General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThe Problem with MSNBC
Is that its existence destroys our moral high ground when we demand honest, objective news reporting, or when we rightfully condemn the Republican propaganda outlet that is Fox News.
What's worse is MSNBC isn't the left's version of Fox, not even close. While it unquestionably aims to prop up Democrats and criticize Republicans, it doesn't lie and mislead and fearmonger to do so. Rarely will you hear any reporting on MSNBC that isn't factually accurate. As a division of NBC, they must uphold basic journalistic standards that Fox employees have never even heard of. MSNBC doesn't donate to Democratic politicians or prop up and support liberal movements like Fox does.
Most importantly, MSNBC doesn't spend its days advocating for true liberal policies or speaking truth to power to our fascist government.
Moderate Republicans, tea party nuts, and blue dog Democrats get about 100 times more airtime on MSNBC then a Tom Hartman, an Alan Grayson or an Elizabeth Warren.
And yet MSNBC allows Republicans to make the assertion that there is a "liberal media". It allows the public at large to make the assertion that "the right has Fox, and the left has MSNBC", creating a false equivalency that both liberal and conservative views are equally represented on cable news, when nothing could be further from the truth.
Which is why I personally wish MSNBC would end its current faux-liberal programming and go back to straight reporting. As liberals, we don't need a propaganda outlet, we just need the facts to get out there.
It's the right who needs to lie and spin and mislead, and MSNBC's existence makes it really difficult to prove that or make such an assertion.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
TransitJohn
(6,937 posts)N/t
Phillyindy
(406 posts)...Maddow and Hayes are easily the smartest people in the room when it comes to political commentary.
Brainstormy
(2,542 posts)I don't want to give up Rachel or Chris. That leaves nothing but Stewart and Colbert.
DontTreadOnMe
(2,442 posts)Do I need to say anything else?
What serious Progressive news outlet would have a show based around him?
Liberal Media!!!11!!!11111!11!
brooklynite
(96,882 posts)Am I expected to make up my mind for myself?
Phillyindy
(406 posts)...liberals don't like, want or need talking points fed to them. This is why liberal radio never works (to any substantial degree). Righties want and NEED that bubble, liberals are insulted by such a notion. Speaks volumes to the differences between the left and right brain.
BumRushDaShow
(169,708 posts)that this becomes self-defeating because although I agree that liberals don't like to operate from the tactic of fear, uncertainty, and doubt, let alone from the perspective of hysterical hyperbole, those on the left STILL need some sort of way to get their message out to the masses and to refute the propaganda from the right.
Too many people right here on DU claim the Dems or the President are "doing nothing" yet they refuse to acknowlege that the current RW-oriented media won't cover or refuse to cover what they ARE doing... and when there is some half-hearted coverage, it is distorted or skewed.
Phillyindy
(406 posts)...calling Fox BS from your own BS network doesn't work.
BumRushDaShow
(169,708 posts)As I understand it, NBC didn't make this change for philosophy's sake like Faux, which is owned by a philosophical loon. They did it to get the eyeballs of what they perceived as an underserved constituency on a network that was struggling with viewers... They essentially wanted to grab a niche market when it comes to viewers of news and politics cable channels.
And their experiment "worked" in terms of rocketing them past a well known and well-established network (CNN) in terms of ratings... which was miraculous considering that both CNN and Faux is available everywhere (including in hotels, restaurants and even on cruise ships), whereas MSNBC still has a limited distribution to cable and satellite providers based on the types of commercial agreements and packages they offer.
And of late, they have calibrated their program hosts to try to average out to "balance" the views, with a lean to the left. So you have a bunch of right-wingers like Mourning Schmoe, Scmuck Toad, and Andrea Greenspan and that "balances" with Martin Bashir, Al Sharpton, Ed Schultz, and Rachael Maddow. Then there are the pile of "centrists" like Tweety, Tamron Hall, Steve Kornaki, Toure, etc.
At this point, these networks, due to their unholy embrace of technology and pretty graphics, have lost the ability to do "news" (after spending so much money and time on doing the 2008 election and being unable to get out of "election" mode), and thus they have fallen back to "politics" or "tabloid" stories, both of which are naturally "opinion-driven", thus leading to the "left-right" divide, sprinkled with pontificating from select folks claiming they are "the center".
Phillyindy
(406 posts)
Inkfreak
(1,695 posts)millennialmax
(331 posts)You need a clear and concise message repeated by all ranks of the party.
No individuals running around screaming that another member of the team isn't liberal enough.
Stinky The Clown
(68,952 posts)It is worse for the reasons you cite, plus, it stops short on some issues where a truly left network would keep going.
Squinch
(59,513 posts)Phillyindy
(406 posts)...the shaming and boycotting of Fox News until no serious politician, pundit or advertiser will touch them.
Squinch
(59,513 posts)rather die than watch Fox News?
Phillyindy
(406 posts)Squinch
(59,513 posts)Phillyindy
(406 posts)Snotcicles
(9,089 posts)KharmaTrain
(31,706 posts)...and getting the right ones watching so you can make money. It's the bottom line and explains a lot of what Phil Griffin has been trying to do with the network. It has less to do with politics than reaching out to more desirable younger viewers. Studies and voting records show that those people are more likely to vote for Democrats and be liberal in their perspective. He was proven right with the solid ratings with Olbermann and then with Rachel...the network was beating faux in 25-54 in prime time and able to profit from it. Comedy Central does a similar thing with the Daily Show...a show on a network closely affiliated with CBS...
Phillyindy
(406 posts)Crow73
(257 posts)and yeah, it sucks.There was a time when this thing called "news" was required to be a service. Those days are over, like the days when you had rights under the fourth amendment, or the first amendment protesting in public space without permits.
The US changes, it turns out it changed for the good of concentrating corporate wealth...
spanone
(141,602 posts)Snotcicles
(9,089 posts)Gimmicks like exaggerated hand gestures, and visual amplification, make me feel like the whole process of delivery of content has been so scrutinized and manipulated that they have lost focus on the content itself. Years ago I started noticing a trend in the way sports commentators seemed to be being coached while on camera to certain movements and gestures that they weren't doing off camera. It now seems all so choreographed, I have gotten pretty good at predicting when one of them is going to put their finger tips together, or twist their ring around their finger, all while saying the dumbest crap. Or at which break they will no longer have their jacket on. It cracks my kids up, it's like a play by play on the play by players.
I was watching John King standing in front of his magic board doing election prediction, or something, when he moved his hand outward the camera would magnify the size by maybe ten fold. I don't know if it is being manipulated or if the camera is doing it on it's own. Maybe someone here knows. The point is I think our media sources are so focused on the visual production and cheap distraction techniques to mesmerize those who would rather turn-off when tuned-in rather than appeal to a more information driven consumer.
Maybe they see how intellectually lazy we have become, and think after all their efforts to make that happen, the momentum is in their favor, and they will take full advantage of it.
It's all fun and games when I'm watching sports. But when I'm being sold thoughtful analysis and an informed point of view, leave out the filler. "The Problem with MSNBC" is they do it also.
olddots
(10,237 posts)The track shots circling the panel ,the backgrounds in constant movement are there to create excitement like an artless effects movie .
Fill 24 hours with an hour of content and that's what you get .At the end of the day TV is there to sell soap , sex and the sizzle not the steak .
TV and movies are old and may be dying from lack of wonder .
millennialmax
(331 posts)During the Bush years, no one at FOX News did that.
For me, they aren't ENOUGH like the FOX News of the Democratic Party.
kentuck
(115,406 posts)...that they are the response to FOX News and right-wing radio, etc...
They need to change that perception but they don't need to change their message. I would suggest more conservatives on their talk shows. I think the liberal argument with the facts can hold its own against anyone on the right? And that would also get more conservative viewers and perhaps make them take a second look at their perceptions?
Snotcicles
(9,089 posts)tries to BS their way around an issue.
kentuck
(115,406 posts)and the hosts on the MSNBC shows need to be more assertive and make sure they get the last word on any topic discussed.
Snotcicles
(9,089 posts)
rock
(13,218 posts)But Republicans are stupid and would make those claims anyways. So I say say good for MSNBC.