MSNBC hurts the liberal/progressive cause

[MellowDem]

I know many on here like some of the shows on MSNBC. Heck, I even like to watch Rachel every now and again, she is pretty much the only one that I can kind of stand. But MSNBC, like all corporations, wants to make profit. That is its priority.

In this country, 40% of people identify as conservative. Fox saw this and saw a business opportunity. Corner the conservative 24/7 news market with biased entertainment reporting. Done. MSNBC came later to the game, and saw the untapped (though relatively smaller market) of liberals (only 20% of the country identifies themselves as such). Well, they have cornered it, and with a lot of success. Indeed, as their viewership has risen, it has driven them to take a more biased tone.

Is it quite as biased or partisan as Fox? No, but then again, the left in this country is relatively moderate and small, so it doesn't need to be. But MSNBC isn't doing this out of the goodness of its heart. It is doing it for profit, pure and simple.

Increasingly, I find myself having to battle false equivalencies with others. They are everywhere of course, that the Democrats are just the same as Republicans, that Fox is the same as MSNBC, etc. The thing is, I kind of agree (to a point) with this argument anymore. No, Democrats aren't just the same as Republicans, but they aren't far apart on a lot of issues, and in terms of tactics and strategy, well, Obama just got a Super PAC. And I don't want corporations like MSNBC to represent liberals, because their motives are wrong as are their tactics. I don't want to be the flip side of Fox News, even if it's not quite as heavy handed about it.

I don't want entertainment/opinion shows that stretch and bend the truth to fit a partisan bias to represent liberals. Or that have bombastic/rude hosts that appeal to emotion to win out over logic and facts. And some MSNBC hosts do this quite a lot now, even my beloved Rachel at times. The fact that it is all motivated by profit really underlines it for me as well. That this is a corporate strategy to pay shareholders, pure and simple.

Yes, MSNBC hosts do tell the truth as well, and some might say it is best to fight fire with fire in a sense. In our broken political and media system, they may be right from a purely tactical viewpoint. But in the process MSNBC is doing a lot of harm to liberal causes by supposedly representing them. It breeds cynicism if you ask me.

[Cooley Hurd]

1. Strongly disagree

Watch Rachel Maddow, Chris Hayes and Melissa Herris-Perry, and you will be the most informed person on your block.

[coalition_unwilling]

2. I don't have cable, so I may be more of an honest broker than some. But

what specific liberal cause or causes has MSNBC hurt?

[Faygo Kid]

3. Disagree.

You're buying into the false equivalency argument, and it's not true. MSNBC is not the "flip side" of Fox News. And if the corporation provides an outlet for voices like Rachel, Melissa, Ed, et al, I for one will take it.

[Scuba]

4. Disagree on many of your points.

There are more Americans who hold liberal values than conservatives, but the PTB have been brainwashing us for decades that "liberal=bad" so few are willing to identify as such.


It was reported here recently that the term "progressive" is the most popular self-identification term for Americans, not conservative.

Fox and MSNBC are equivalent in the same way that the Mafia is equivalent to a Cub Scout Pack.

The few liberal voices that do sneak onto the airways are due to MSNBC, which is somewhat surprising considering they're owned by thei world's largest defense contractor. But Rachel and colleagues tell something called "the truth" which is banned on Fox.

[tsuki]

5. So sit in a corner and keep very, very quiet. That way

you can feel pure. Personally, I like MSNBC, FreeSpeech and Current. If they had found their voice before 9/11, maybe we would not have been to war for over a decade.

[Tennessee Gal]

6. Stronly disagree.

Ed and Rachel are doing a terrific job reporting facts with documentation every single night. And even Tweety is on a rampage of late. I think it is obvious that he cannot stand Romney.

I fall asleep watching MSNBC every night. And if I wake up during the night, I watch them all over again.

I wish they were on on the weekends, too. I would watch.

Chris Hayes and Melissa Harris Perry are also fantastic. Chris Hayes is extremely intelligent. He gets better every week.

[tularetom]

7. Nonsense

MSNBC has a lot of crap on their schedule. Morning Joke, Chucky Toad, Andrea Greenspan, Dylan Ratigan, and Droolin Chris Matthews to name a few. Plus dumbass prison shows up the wazoo.

But it also has 8 hours of fantastic weekend morning programming in addition to the always informative Rachel Maddow show. And these are shows designed to teach and inform you, not just get you scared and pissed off like every other cable "news" network seems to do.

Edited to add this:

I think Rachel has really grown since she first came on the air. She learned a lot from watching Keith Olbermann crash and burn, and she has managed to inject more partisanship into her commentary by doing it in a nice way with subtlety and humor. She is by far the "star" in the MSNBC lineup and superior to any other polictical commentator on the air today.

[HereSince1628]

8. Everyone must understand that minutes on any media network are commodities

and those minutes are marketed to corporate buyers...NOT viewers.

MSNBC explores leftward (mostly evening) and rightward opinion (mostly before 9 am) while providing some coverage of 'news' across a few hours in the middle of the day.

Their purpose is to "SELL ADVERTISING" and that requires having an audience. They do what is required to get a share of the national viewing public.

No one should be confused about the purpose of the network--the network only appeals to an audience in order to sell advertising minutes.
That said, we must recognize that the networks tolerance of content is tempered by it's market value.

Understanding that reality doesn't mean that the "O" wasn't great to watch, or that Ed can't sometimes act like "a dumb jock" or that Rachel's erudite gymnastics aren't intellectually entertaining or that the appeal of Larry O's opinions to baby-boomer's affinities makes him obsolete.

Once upon a time there was a phrase used when buying a horse: "buyer beware." With respect to media there is a parallel "viewer beware" don't be afraid to apply it.

[just1voice]

27. True, people are sold propaganda they agree with, not encouraged to take a broad view

The corporate propagandists target certain groups to sell things to, they are not interested in any type of education or news.

[WilliamPitt]

9. Um...yeah.

[Zax2me]

10. Okay....what am I supposed to watch?

For news?
HONEST news?
Besides, my favorite program is on MSNBC.
I doubt you are correct in your analysis.

[just1voice]

26. Try RT America if you're actually interested in news

The MSM is entertainment aimed at very specific audiences and is comprised of 36% commercials. BTW, where did the idea that there is only MSNBC or Fox?

[think]

11. MSNBC is owned in part by the MIC (GE)

They allow a certain amount of "liberalism" within the confines of what is acceptable to their bottom line.

Rachel Maddow is awesome and I'm glad she's there as well as a few of the others but it is still just a Pentagon Propaganda network at it's core.

That's why they have Barry Mccaffrey on MSNBC selling us the glorious wars:

http://mediamatters.org/research/200912010037

http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=barry_mccaffrey_1

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Barry_R._McCaffrey


Here is a detailed report by Democracy Now of the propaganda we've been fed:

So screw the noise that MSNBC is "liberal". It's bull shit spin just like the propaganda they peddle 24/7 with a couple of acceptable exceptions.

[Douglas Carpenter]

12. I agree with your points - but I don't agree with your conclusion

Although MSNBC is not by any means leftist - it is more in the moderately liberal category and no doubt some people do interpret their moderately/liberal bent as representing the left - It is as they say -still better than nothing. The same could be said about the offiical established Democratic Party - At their very,very best -they represent a moderately/liberal leaning tendency -But there are not enought left-wingers amongst them to swing a cat at - Nonetheless they are what we have to work with in these trying times when the crazy right-wing is now mainstream and progressive thinking has been pushed to the margins. Still like with MSNBC they are better than nothing and a whole lot better than the alternative of having no counterbalance or counterpoint at all.

[Waiting For Everyman]

13. Strongly disagree.

Imagine a presidential election without MSNBC. That would be awful. And it isn't just the stories MSNBC covers. It's that if MSNBC didn't cover the stories it does, then the other major networks could ignore those stories and most of the country would be none the wiser. But if one major network covers a story, it's out, so the others may as well cover it too. I think you underestimate the difference MSNBC makes.

[sofa king]

14. MSTHC

I read somewhere that one of the network's highest-rated shows is a constantly-repeated and now years old documentary on the rising marijuana industry in California....

Wait, no. That's CNBC, which regularly runs a documentary called "Marijuana Inc."

Not to be confused (as just I did) with MSNBC, which also runs a show called "Al Roker Reporting: Marijuana Inc.," but with Al Roker instead of Trish Regan.

You can see why I would be confused. Imagine if I were high!

[goclark]

15. I'll take MSNBC anyday

Yes ~ Morning Joe is a pain but at least I know where that side is coming from when I check them out sometimes ~

I love Rachel, Rev. Al, Big Ed and Most of the others but those three are my favorites.

[Spazito]

16. I disagree ....

of all the mainstream networks, MSNBC is the only one that gives some air time to the left/liberal perspective. It may well not be as left a perspective as some might wish but it is better than none at all, imo. I can't understand why you believe this hurts the liberal/progressive cause.

The reality is that to get air time that reaches more of the public one has to work with a corporately owned network and corporately owned networks are a business that answers to it's shareholders and needs to show a profit. Should the left sacrifice the availability of some air time to push back against the right because it is a corporately owned body like MSNBC involved? I don't think so.

[DURHAM D]

17. rubbish

[AtomicKitten]

18. This is obviously part of a concerted attack on MSNBC, yesterday against Rachel specifically.

And it stinks ....

[just1voice]

28. Not in my case, I like watching some of Maddow inbetween the commercials

But she is selling to a specific audience that's is targeted by corporate MSM. For instance, if there were a call for not buying anything on any given day such as May Day, would Maddow tell her viewers to boycott GE for a day? Nope, she'd be instantly fired for supporting that progressive cause. I think that is what the original poster is referring to, a tv station that only represents what they choose to represent, not what the people actually believe in and act on.

[rurallib]

19. MSNBC has more than their share of RW apologists on all their "liberal" shows

[Enrique]

20. I look at them the same way I look at the Democratic Party

in a lot of ways they are a major force for progress, but only up to a point. They are the establishment and they are beholden to their corporate masters and at som point they will impede progress.

[Odin2005]

21. MSNBC is the propaganda arm of the DLC corporate party establishment.

I don't trust any news source owned by a multinational corporation to be objective. A corporation is required BY LAW to maximize profit for it's shareholders, and so if it can twist the news to do so then it will.

[otohara]

22. I'm Grateful For Any Progressive Voices on Air

because I remember a time when there were absolutely no liberals on radio or TV.

Remember when MSNBC fired Phil Donahue for trying to stop a war?

no, no, no, we need these folks, the other side still dominates the media (especially radio) , and PAC's than we do.

[TheKentuckian]

23. Your premise relies rather heavily on a false equivalence. MSNBC is an establishment outlet

and as such it is very much impossible for them to even resemble a mirror Faux, it is just more aligned with the Democratic establishment.

I also get the impression that for the most part you are focused on tone rather than the content and I'm not sure what it is you want to see in the current environment. How would liberal causes benefit from nothing but far right wing misinformation and "neutral" corporate media? Didn't we just go through a decade or two of that with extremely poor results?

I have no clue of how to navigate the profit motive concerns without state sponsorship or corporate buy in to a system that allows the news divisions to work without such, essentially dedicated to providing a public service that may even come to cross purpose with the greater organization's mission to maximize profits.

You have to have funding and distribution.

[Paladin]

24. As If The Airwaves Are Awash With Liberal Commentators.

If you're buying into the idiotic "MSNBC Is Just As Bad As Fox" notion, that's your problem. Work it out yourself and spare the rest of us the details, OK?

[just1voice]

25. You are 100% correct, all MSM in the U.S. is pure propaganda

Millions of people still don't recognize the MSM as propaganda as propaganda has become so common. Using the definition on Wiki, just replace "propaganda" with "mainstream media":

"Propaganda is a form of communication that is aimed at influencing the attitude of a community toward some cause or position. Propaganda is usually repeated and dispersed over a wide variety of media in order to create the desired result in audience attitudes.

As opposed to impartially providing information, propaganda, in its most basic sense, presents information primarily to influence an audience. Propaganda often presents facts selectively (thus possibly lying by omission) to encourage a particular synthesis, or uses loaded messages to produce an emotional rather than rational response to the information presented. The desired result is a change of the attitude toward the subject in the target audience to further a political agenda. Propaganda can be used as a form of political warfare."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda

[Egalitarian Thug]

29. You're right. Don't forget what MSNBC stands for, neither corporation is in any way socialist.

They both have a long and sordid history of feeding at the trough, and neither would exist without government sanction and subsidy.
K&R

[and-justice-for-all]

30. FAIL..nt