What the Rally To Restore Sanity proved: DU doesn't do nuance.

[LostInAnomie]

I watched the whole Rally on Saturday and came away thinking Stewart's summation on what the rally was about was a fantastic indictment of the 24/7 cable media and its effect on our nation's political discourse. So, I was dismayed to see how many DUers took away the facile idea that somehow Jon was drawing the same lazy false equivalency that the media is famous for. This was only compounded by Keith Olbermann and Ed Shultz's complaints about being compared to Beck. Honestly, I don't know what rally most people were watching.

Watch Stewart's speech: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jXmbzLI3pnk&feature=player_embedded#!

The argument that he is making isn't "Both sides do it" or "Left Wing Pundits are the same as Right Wing Pundits". The argument he is making is that the 24/7 cable media has had a destructive effect on our national dialogue. By constantly hyping every event and drumming up every controversy into a crisis the media gives an inaccurate portrayal of America to its viewers. When perpetually outraged pundits toss around hyperbole for the purpose of ratings they are harming the country and making any political progress less and less likely. The quest for ratings have turned our media into outrage mills where viewership comes first and accuracy is secondary.

The fact that he included Keith and Ed in the same montage as Beck doesn't mean he was drawing an exact comparison and saying they are the same (Kyra Phillips and Alec Witt were also featured in the same montage. Do you think he was saying they are as bad as Beck?). He was including them in an indictment of all 24/7 cable that use on hyperbole to keep people watching. I find the fact that many DUers can't see this to be disheartening.

I remember back in 2004 when were all disgusted by the black and white thinking of the other side. How, since Kerry spoke with nuance and in complete sentences, the media was distorting what he was saying. I fear we've fallen into that same pattern now. It seems that everything has to be spelled out for us, sacred cows are running wild, and any criticism of our own side is seen as treason. We really are better (and smarter) than that.

[Brickbat]

1. As I said in another thread, only the Democrats could sit around and have a national argument about

entertainers.

ETA: On, you know, THE EVE OF THE ELECTION.

[LostInAnomie]

3. Do you really think any form of sitting at the computer could really be helping the Dems?

People come to discussion forums to discuss.

[Brickbat]

6. Do I think so? No.

And yes, I realize discussion is the point here. I just think it's hilarious that so much effort, angst and electrons are going into the discussion about whether or not Stewert/Colbert were right, or whether or not they should be or have been thrown under "the bus." More and more, it's all just a big game.

[tigereye]

yeah, I missed the dust-up since i was out canvassing...

:rofl:

[obxhead]

139. I learn quite a bit about Dems and Repubs sitting at this PC.

[Bette Noir]

91. Yeah, because we're all going to forget to vote because we are afraid

that Jon dissed Keith, or Keith dissed Jon.

We're smart. We can double-task.

[DevonRex]

2. Perfect summary and very, very well said. Thank you.

Sometimes I think America's listening ability has been damaged by all the 24/7 hyperbolic cable "news."

[gkhouston]

4. Best OP on this subject thus far. K&R. n/t

[BootinUp]

5. I read one post that said "They keep the base fired up" I think

is how it was put. That should probably be the job of the political parties, not the MSM imho.

But the media is not entirely to blame, its what the people seem to want.

[Nostradammit]

7. Why do you think it's what the people seem to want?

[BootinUp]

10. I have been supporting Stewart, and I suggested in one post

that Olberman's liberal / factual news empire might gain a larger audience if he toned it down. So I am ambivalent on this point, not sure.

edited for clarity.

[Nostradammit]

21. I would submit that the board of directors of the U.S. media companies

are the same people who "serve" on the boards of the huge multi-national
conglomerates and nearly everything that makes it onto television somehow
serves their purposes, public demand be damned.

http://www.theyrule.net/2004/tr2.php

[BootinUp]

26. My theory on that goes more like this

People that work in the news industry have certain bias on the issues and I think in many many instances you are seeing the deregulate/cut taxes/trickle down/free trade side so well represented simply because the current generation of news reporters have largely bought into these economic ideas AND the corporations hire such persons because there is an audience that relates to these views. Ok, let me have it!!!

But back to your theory though, how do you explain GEMSNBC having such a liberal lineup today?

[Nostradammit]

28. Are you familiar with the term "divide and conquer?"

I do not subscribe to your theory that the "news industry" is a bottom-up construct.

Ask Dan Rather what happens to people who don't tow the company line.

Ask Phil Donahue, whose show was canceled even though it was the network's highest
rated because, as the company put it, "Donahue should be fired because he would be a
difficult public face for NBC in a time of war."

And we can't be cutting into General Electric's war profits, now can we?



Edited for spelling.

[BootinUp]

29. Yes, I am familiar with that

I don't think it applies in this case however.

In one of my other posts here, I point to the downfall of news on television. It was not the elimination of the fairness doctrine. It WAS when the networks began to pressure the news divisions to turn a profit. In the good old days of network news, the 3 networks battled based on quality/ratings in order to support their lineup with the best news show. The news division got the money it needed to do the job right, and the networks earned their profits from the rest of the television lineup.

Of course money is in the picture, just not the way you suggest. In the two firing cases you mention, the network in question was concerned with losing a large part of their audience or advertisers because of controversial topics. Simple as that.

edited for clarity.

[Nostradammit]

32. You are negating your own theory

"...the 3 networks battled based on quality/ratings."

Money is definitely in that picture, and they stand to make a hell of
a lot more money by warping the public's perception than they do from
telling an objective truth about matters. The "controversial topic" in
Donahue's case was going to cut into GE's BIG money maker, so he got
yanked. It had nothing to do with ratings.

[BootinUp]

34. In an effort towards brevity I did not go into sufficient detail

to explain that.

There were only 3 television news shows. Quality in those days actually meant balanced not hyped. Since there were only 3 to keep an eye on, they would get criticized pretty roundly when they over-hyped a story or presented an unbalance story. It was easier to keep score.

Once profit for the NEWS DIVISION became paramount, hyping stories was fine and they all started doing it. Then with the advent of many other news sources on cable the internet etc, it became less about being balanced and more about dog whistles and finding a certain audience niche.

Look, there is no doubt that the MSM was overtly pro-war from 2002-2004, this again was partly due to bias of the news persons, managers, ok yes CEOS and ALSO the audience. The majority of the audiences for these news shows tuned in for pro-war coverage during that time.

[Nostradammit]

38. Towards brevity - I disagree.

The owners of the networks are much more concerned that their
other interests make money and they use their "news" networks
to mold public opinion towards that end. They will promptly
fire anyone who impedes that goal - it does not originate with
the employees and certainly not with the public, who tune in
to get what they hope to be useful information, only to get
an eye-full of corporate propaganda.

The MSM is still overtly pro-war, in case you haven't noticed.

[BootinUp]

39. Well, the Ed Schultz, Mathews, Olberman, Maddow, O'Donnell lineup

on GEMSNBC clearly puts that theory on shaky footing friend.

[Nostradammit]

42. From MSNBC's home page right now:

"As pols press flesh, polls show 'rebuke' for Dems"

"Will ‘election hurricane’ knock Democrats off track?"

"Is Palin unstoppable?"

"Is the U.S. in danger of more mail bomb threats?"

"Voters likely to hand GOP big governorship wins"

"High court rejects campaign finance appeal"

"Poll suggests Dems will face 'hurricane winds'"

"Dems blast GOP 'front groups,' but use them too"


They may have a couple of fig leaves in Maddow and Olberman, but reading between the lines the main thrust
of their programming is propaganda. They are the most subtle of the big networks, I'll grant you that.

[BootinUp]

52. this is just more dog-whistling for hits.

They all have learned over the last couple of decades that more people go for dog whistling than for balanced nuanced accurate news. Now a days they push the envelope and as long as they don't get absolutely hammered by complaints, threats of boycotts etc. they are happy to take the hits anyway they can get them.

The web pages rank the stories by popularity, go to CNN.com, if you can stand it, and look at the popularity rankings for the stories. This is marketing/analysis and hiring people that know how to get the publics attention. And it is a sad commentary on our culture and commitment to sound government and all that too.

On the election news articles, it is fair to say that the polls indicate we are in for a rough election. Is it good for the media to BLAST that info 24/7? Probably not, they should be doing analysis of the candidates/issues and educating us. But we don't click on those stories as much! Apparently.

Fox news is another animal, and unfortunately they are making it more likely that things will get worse instead of better. But even Fox is playing TO their audience AND they are reinforcing the audiences views. The reason Fox is like a runaway right now is they have secured an audience of loyal partisans.

I am not saying there isn't propaganda in play. There certainly is. I think it generally takes the form of reporters currying favor with either the upper management of their corporation or directly with their sources of information/propaganda. This can still be confronted by the public successfully in many cases. Its just that it is hard to get enough people rallied against it until after it has done considerable damage. Why? Because people don't know who to believe/trust anymore.

[Nostradammit]

56. And you think that's what the people seem to want?

[BootinUp]

58. Yeah, but not as much as reality tv apparently

As I explained, this is measured, analyzed and then it is rewarded with advertising revenue.

There are signs of hope, just the fact that we have MSNBC's lineup as it is now is nice. But many people don't agree with these views and won't watch or just don't watch news and aren't getting the information.

We all choose which bubble of information is comfortable for us.

[NYMdaveNYI]

155. Bottom line: We need to address the Corporate Media for what it is: a business

A lucrative one, at that.


News organizations ARE, by design, ad-whores. THAT’S how they stay in business!

Therefore, they have to soften some content to keep their sponsors.

And as liberal as we’d like to think MSNBC is, we must remember that it is just another profit-hungry corporation, not so different from Fox.

Ever notice how MSNBC has softened and continues to soften its war coverage? It’s because GE has financial interests in the war!

Say, do you recall hearing ANYTHING on MSNBC about the GE Iraq kickback scandal this summer? No? Hmmm, I wonder why.

The main point here is that we can’t let the Corporate Media alone shape and tailor our thoughts each night; I’m so grateful for places like DU, where we can spread awareness about things that the Corporate Media can’t/wont cover.

Not to say Maddow and Olbermann are corporate cronies, though. However, they are subject to muzzling and content softening by their GE bosses, for the fear of losing advertiser money.

Look what happened to CBS when Murrow called out McCarthy back in the 50’s, or more recently, when Beck started to ratchet up the crazy-o-meter on Faux News, they both lost sponsors for their shows. (in Murrow’s case, it shut him down)

If Keith or Rachel would go on the air tomorrow, and tell America the un-varnished, un-censored truth about the corporations, the Corporate Media, the war(s), et cetera: they would be silenced, instantly.

They know this damn well, as do we. It’s unfortunate that this is the way the Corporate Media works.

This is interesting as well: below is an example of what happens when Rachel pushes the envelope with her content; someone upstairs pulls her mic.

<iframe src="http://videos.mediaite.com/embed/player/?layout=&playlist_cid=&media_type=video&content=LFMH5S3LM8VS0XK9&widget_type_cid=svp" width="420" height="421" frameborder="0" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" scrolling="no" allowtransparency="true"></iframe>

[sabrina 1]

89. Ashley Banfield, another real reporter who was disappeared

because she told the truth about War and informed the public that what she was allowed to speak about and film while in Afghanistan, did not give the public a real idea of what U.S. bombs actually do to human beings.

So which part of their audience were they worried about losing by having a real Reporter, who btw, they viewed as one of their star reporters, until she actually reported the news?

Fox changed cable news in this country. They lowered the standards into the gutter and took the rest of the media by surprise. It took a couple of years before people realized that there was something wrong with the way they covered the 'news'.

They attracted a large audience, covering such tabloid stories as the OJ Simpson case eg.

You say we should develop our own brand, which I imagine would be reporting real news. I would agree with that.

If, eg, the MSM had reported on the Abramoff case, it would have had ratings that could not be beaten by Fox. That story was filled with everything that makes good television, betrayal, treason, sex, greed, foreign intrique, revelations of U.S. government officials engaged in corruption, murder, connections to 9/11, the world of Gambling, the slave trade, Indian affairs etc. etc. But it was hardly covered at all. Because it revealed massive corruption in our government and the MSM is not permitted to dig too deeply into just how bad things are in that regard.

So while it's nice to wish for something we have little chance of getting, we have to deal with what we have. What we have is a Media that, rather than countering Fox with real news they emulated Fox. CNN hired Glenn Beck, eg, trying to attract some of the Fox audience, and in the process lost their own audience.

And Fox kept on going. And few dared to contradict their faux patriotic theme and they roused up the fringe elements of this country and gave them a voice. While sane people were left with nowhere to go and no one to speak for them.

Then MSNBC, for some reason, decided maybe they could bring back some of the audience they lost by being a Fox imitator by producing shows like Keith Olbermann's. It took a while for people to tune back in, but it worked as a small, tiny counter to the daily trash that had taken over radio and television.

Until the MSM is no longer in the hands of Big Corps, that is how it will be. And I do not think that Keith needs to change a thing. We need MORE of him. He will 'tone it down' when the threat of propaganda is gone. Until then, I see no way to minimize the damage propaganda blaring from the media 24/7 can be dealt with.

[LibDemAlways]

111. Imagine a primetime investigative report on the mission of PNAC

and their desire for "a new Pearl Harbor." Had some network been brave enough to take that on in the run up to the Iraq War, America might have had a wake up call. A free press could do a hell of a lot of good. What we've got now is a bunch of useless corporate lackeys who spew lies and propaganda round the clock. I'm sure even Olbermann knows he can only push it so far. Today he announced no more" Worst Person in the World." Wonder whose idea that was.

[NYMdaveNYI]

156. ^^ A scary reiteration of what I just posted... ROFL...

here’s an excerpt from my post:
---
"Say, do you recall hearing ANYTHING on MSNBC about the GE Iraq kickback scandal this summer? No? Hmmm, I wonder why.

The main point here is that we can’t let the Corporate Media alone shape and tailor our thoughts each night; I’m so grateful for places like DU, where we can spread awareness about things that the Corporate Media can’t/wont cover.

Not to say Maddow and Olbermann are corporate cronies, though. However, they are subject to muzzling and content softening by their GE bosses, for the fear of losing advertiser money.

Look what happened to CBS when Murrow called out McCarthy back in the 50’s, or more recently, when Beck started to ratchet up the crazy-o-meter on Faux News, they both lost sponsors for their shows. (in Murrow’s case, it shut him down)

If Keith or Rachel would go on the air tomorrow, and tell America the un-varnished, un-censored truth about the corporations, the Corporate Media, the war(s), et cetera: they would be silenced, instantly.

They know this damn well, as do we. It’s unfortunate that this is the way the Corporate Media works.

This is interesting as well: below is an example of what happens when Rachel pushes the envelope with her content; someone upstairs pulls her mic.

<iframe src="http://videos.mediaite.com/embed/player/?layout=&playlist_cid=&media_type=video&content=LFMH5S3LM8VS0XK9&widget_type_cid=svp" width="420" height="421" frameborder="0" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" scrolling="no" allowtransparency="true"></iframe>”

---

But you’re EXACTLY correct!!!!! If they covered ANYTHING even BORDERLINE controversial, like 9/11, they’d lose sooooo many corporate sponsors they’d crash as an organization.

[LibDemAlways]

158. Yep, no way they'd ever investigate 9/11. I know a guy who was

working at the time in program development for the National Geographic Channel and History Channel. He had never heard of PNAC, so I directed him to their website and told him I thought there was a blockbuster untold story there.

He was afraid to even look at the website, and, when he did, he told me flat out no network would ever touch it. He was right.

[sabrina 1]

161. That would be must-see tv. The intrigue, the spies, the traitors

the obsessions ~ the real news is better than any Hollywood movie.

I am sure Keith knows he can only go so far and still have a voice. I think he probably made that decision himself but I think he felt pressured to do something to stop what was the beginning of targeting the few truthful voices we have left.

[Bette Noir]

92. Because Keith gets good ratings. He makes them money.

The Powers that Be realized that they had an underserved niche, liberals and progressives, right there in front of them.

[Bette Noir]

93. Because Keith gets good ratings. He makes them money.

The Powers that Be realized that they had an underserved niche, liberals and progressives, right there in front of them.

[SemperEadem]

123. no, it's the people who make decision of what gets on air

who have the biases, not all people working in the industry.

That much is evident by the outrage at ABC over their news management hiring breitbart to do color commentary tonight for the election.

The exec. producers, line producers, assignment desk managers and news executive/director--that's who makes the decision of what's covered/where crews are sent with cameras. The crews themselves do not decide what story they will cover. They're told what the story is and what they want to hear and the crew goes out and gets it. If the decision makers want to paint liberals as no better/the same as thugs, then that's the story that's going to get on air. They are not going to come back with "the truth"--they're coming back with what those decision makers (and paycheck signers) tell them they want.

[ooglymoogly]

152. +1...that is the fact that overrides any and all hyperbole.

and though he did not say it in those words, it was clearly said between the lines and that is what I came away with.

[tigereye]

70. I have to admit that I love an Olbermann rant - often because he is so

literate and cogent, and because it seems a great antidote to the blather of the Fox News crowd and the alleged lack of bias (clueless blandness?) of the other cable outlets.

[tigereye]

71. I have to admit that I love an Olbermann rant - often because he is so

literate and cogent, and because it seems a great antidote to the blather of the Fox News crowd and the alleged lack of bias (clueless blandness?) of the other cable outlets.

[valerief]

133. +666 trillion

[blondeatlast]

12. Disagree--it's just that most of the public never saw an actual objective (as opposed to "balanced")

press.

I remember getting more objective and more informative news in an hour a day than I get in a week or more of watching the likes of MSNBC. (I'm showing my age, but oh, well).

Goddamn shame what's happened--but given the choice, I think most Americans would LOVE that (again).

[BootinUp]

20. Well, like I said, not sure anymore

I would like to think you are correct. On the other hand it seems to me that the downfall of news was when profit became ok for the network news divisions. This was in the late 70's - early 80's IIRC. And since then it seems that the only way for them to make a profit is to hype shit. I would be glad to be proven wrong.

[SoCalDem]

153. At the end of the day, very few people are actually even watching MSNBC/CNN/FOXNEWS

as much as those cable experts want us to believe.

The stuff we obsess about daily, is not even ON most people's "menus".

If you stopped 20 random people and asked them to identify the following people, you would be stunned:


Nancy Pelosi
Harry Reid
Sharron Angle
John Boehner
Mike Pence
Hugo Chavez
Nicolas Sarkozy
Rupert Murdoch
name their own congressperson
name 2 Supreme Court Justices

[blondeatlast]

8. One of the best posts I've seen on the subject. The gist of the insults were squarely at the m$m--

hence the m$m's pouttery since it happened (and even BEFORE).

If we here at DU would look at the big picture of the rally, we'd be happier, but instead we nitpick.

[NYCGirl]

18. So I guess Comedy Central is not part of the media?

'Cause it was one big commercial for them.

[blondeatlast]

23. Of course it iw--but TDS and CR seem, like The Simpsons, to be powerful enough

on their own to deflect the corporate redact patrols.

[tigereye]

72. yes

:thumbsup: Comedians are very good at asking questions no one else seems to be allowed to ask, or even wants to! :D

[Winterblues]

27. Of course it is not, it is a comedy channel

And comedy and satire have always been effective weapons in politics...Just because a comedian mentions politics in their routine, that does not make them a pundit nor a politician... Neither Stewart nor Colbert are political pundits nor do they claim to be.. They are, and they claim to be, comedians and nothing more...

[NYCGirl]

30. But everybody is treating them like they are political pundits

[JuniperLea]

60. That says more about "everybody"

Than it does about Colbert and Stewart.

[nadinbrzezinski]

103. To paraphrase Stewart at the Crossfire smack down

I come after a show with PUPPETS! You call that news?

It is about the targets of the satire. Why they are pointing at the king and screaming... the king is NEKKIDDD!!!!!

[SemperEadem]

124. that is something that neither Colbert or Stewart can control

it is beyond unreasonable to expect someone to control how another person esteems them.

[Bette Noir]

94. No, Stewart is the best interviewer in the business, edging out Rachel.

And, according to at least one university study, his viewers are as well-informed as those who get their news from newspapers.

But he shouldn't have dissed Keith.

[JuniperLea]

59. No, it's absolutely NOT part of the media. It's a comedy show...

I thought everyone got that.

I guess not... and that explains a lot.

[tigereye]

73. the spoof of the media has become the media (in the most broad sense)

It's kind of funny, actually.

[JuniperLea]

78. It really is funny, but scary too...

No one gets sarcasm and satire anymore without the emoticon. Perhaps Colbert and Stewart need to make little :sarcasm: signs to carry around so they can whip it out at the appropriate moment.

[tigereye]

85. you would think the "pretend news show" shtick and set would be sufficient!

:rofl:

[ShamelessHussy]

9. the same could be said about this post

the criticism i have seen on the msg of the rally (which i attended and throughly enjoyed with my family) is the same one i heard John Stewart adeptly make himself on CNN, that saying both sides do it, or trying to be 'fair-n-balanced' by stretching to find examples of such are empty calories, and does not help us get closer to the truth of what is really going on.

i point that i have always held, and a fair criticism.

we do not need to walk in lockstep with anyone... that is what the reTHUGs do, and is why i am a liberal who leans dem... however all this kind of over the top reaction to any criticism to any of our own sacred cows is off putting.

but i will get over it ;)

[whatchamacallit]

13. +1 n/t

[pinboy3niner]

11. K&R

[SidDithers]

14. K&R...nt

Sid

[JNelson6563]

15. K&R

Well said.

[CrownPrinceBandar]

16. Yup.......

pretty much.

[sinkingfeeling]

17. +100

[NC_Nurse]

19. I agree. Wasn't overreacting what the rally was about? There's a reflexive

Reaction to every move in the political landscape these days. It's ridiculous.

[tigereye]

75. yes, the culture has become totally reactive. It's bizarre and unhealthy, I think

[mike_c]

22. I'm curious-- If Stewart and Colbert believe that "24/7 cable media has had a destructive effect..."

"...on our national dialogue" then why do they continue to participate in that dialog? Why do they persist in adding to the noise?

It's not a snarky question. I utterly agree with your premise about the destructiveness of cable media, but my response is to simply turn it off and pay attention elsewhere. THAT seems like the most effective response. Why don't Stewart and Colbert-- admittedly comic geniuses-- stop adding their own voices to that noise? To those who respond that life would be somehow less fulfilling without their contributions, I'd preemptively suggest that, from my own experience, no it isn't. Life without cable media noise is MUCH BETTER, in fact.

[blondeatlast]

25. With all due respect to your point, I think it's because it provides endless

comedy fodder for them.

The genius of them both is that they realize people are apying serious attention to them--but the "press" still doesn't understand why and gets absolutely pouty about that fact--which leads to more comedy fodder, and so on...

[CakeGrrl]

24. K/R - on this and many other hot topics. n/t

[seabeyond]

31. yes. i find myself saying simply yes to so many OPs, cause they all have a point

they are all right....

even though they are all looking at it from different angles.

here is another "yes" op

[Joe Fields]

33. Absolutely and wholeheartedly k&r.

Thank you for you voice of reason.

[sabrina 1]

35. So what is his solution? Was he clear about how all this got started?

Does he want Rachel et al to go away because they are contributing, and just leave it the way it was during the Clinton administration when no one was countering Fox? Fox isn't going anywhere, so what is his suggestion? Back to the 'nineties when Fox controlled Cable opinion making or counter them with intelligent people?

I mean if there is an enemy at your doorstep that you didn't invite, causing trouble, no one disputes there is a problem and we would prefer they weren't there.

But the reality is, Fox is THERE. How does he propose we deal with them? We tried ignoring them for a decade, that didn't work. So now what? He doesn't like having people counter them either. So he must have another plan. I'd like to hear it.

We could ban all of it, that is the only solution, but not possible. I am at a loss. I'd like to her his ideas.

[BootinUp]

37. please note

the BootinUp theory is presented higher in this thread as to how all this started. ;)

[sabrina 1]

86. Okay, I'll go check it out. But you didn't offer a solution to Fox,

Hannity, Limbaugh, Savage, O'Reilly, G. Gordon Liddy, Dick Morris and a whole host of others who have been blasting away at Democrats for more than 15 years, with no one calling them on their lies. A whole generation grew up thinking what Fox does is news.

Now, we get a few crumbs in the form of Ed and Keith and Rachel finally making some inroads to those who use TV to get their news, and they give them facts, and some people are throwing a fit.

The bottom line is there is simply no comparison to be made. If someone hits you on the head and then comes after you with a knife, should you try to compromise or stand your ground and deal with them in whatever way is best suited to the situation?

The propagnda was WORKING. Democrats were losing, the country believed that no Democrat ever served in the military, that all Republicans did, Democrats were 'weak on security' Republicans were 'strong' and on and on. There is simply no denying that ten years of propaganda changed, as it was intended to do, politics and people's perceptions of the political parties. It was not until there was something to balance these 24/7 lies that things began to change.

So, my question for Jon Stewart is, should we return to letting them own the airwaves again, or should we correct the lies they tell as Keith et al are currently doing? Or is there some other way that he knows about but has yet to share with us?

It's really a simple question. I know what I think, but I'd like to know what those who agree with Stewart think.

1) Get Keith and Ed et al off the air?

2) Leave the field to Fox as it used to be?

What is the solution?

[BootinUp]

88. Keith has already addressed it tonight, I think he done good.

I never suggested he needed to consider doing anything more than a slight adjustment to word choices occasionally.

As far as the solution to Fox, the only one I know of is to build our brand by doing things as smart as possible. There are times when getting angry is appropriate and necessary, but if that is everyday we probably aren't looking at how we are perceived by the broader electorate. By all means we need to continue getting the facts out there about what we stand for and what the republicans stand for and all the other important stuff Keith and the rest of the liberal media report.

As I mention upthread there is some benefit to Keith unleashing his famous special comments, and I don't expect or want him to stop making excellent commentary.

[rpannier]

117. And I would take opposition to your concern about what the broader electorate thinks

I've been hearing about how the public hates this or finds that disquieting for 20+ years now.
Don't go too negative because polls say the public hates it -- we back off the Republicans go full bore and they get the votes. Because in the end, they look more confident.
We've listened to polls of what the public thinks and got our heads handed to us.
The polls showed the public by large margins wanted more bipartisanship -- Obama gave it and the Republicans did not. Now we're in danger of losing one or both houses of Congress.

Face it -- polls of what the public thinks are Bull sh*t. The broader public opinion is worthless because it's not what they're really thinking.

James Carville was right when he said, "Hit 'em. Hit 'em hard. Hit 'em dirty and often. That's how you win."

[Odin2005]

36. K&R

[Uzybone]

40. people take camps and just sit there

Its foolish and Neanderthal thinking. Stewart was absolutely right about the amplification of all nonsense over serious issues.

[bullwinkle428]

41. I disagree with your take, but I'm pretty sure you're not Hitler!

;)

Sorry...couldn't resist!

[rucky]

43. I see way more of that black/white thinking than I did in 2003

I think the psychops of the cable nooz cycle is getting to us more than we'd care to admit.

[Posteritatis]

77. Could be that, y'know, we're responsible in part as well

It's comforting to pass the buck for that sort of thing, since it exempts us from the problem, but you're responsible for your behaviour, I'm responsible for mine, and so on and so forth.

After a certain point we really don't get to shrug and point at the media's orbital mind control lasers to excuse problems in our own attitudes, political or otherwise.

[Spazito]

44. Well said!

:thumbsup:

[madfloridian]

45. Don't talk down anymore to those of us who believe we should speak out.

It is hurting this country for everyone to tell us to shut up.

The right wing does NOT do nuance, and those saying we are equal to them are doing great harm.

Great harm.

[LostInAnomie]

47. I even posted a link to the speech.

Take a moment to listen to it and find me where he tells liberals to shut up. Nor does he say that the left wing and right wing are equivalent.

He's pointing at the media, not the citizens.

[bettyellen]

67. you missed the point, it;s the media incitement to lunacy and shouting that shld end

not the people themsleves protesting. It's not about you!

[Bette Noir]

95. I'm with you, Madfloridian.

Jon doesn't do nuance, either, if he can't tell the difference between Keith and Beck.

[nadinbrzezinski]

104. Nobody has told you to shut up

and if that is what you got from the screed... I recommend you re-read it... start with the cross fire smackdown by the way.

[Goblinmonger]

128. "Worst Person in the World" is nuance?

I kind of pegged it as hyperbole.

[DevonRex]

148. You didn't even understand Stewart's point, or you chose not to understand it.

One way or the other you're flat out wrong.

[madfloridian]

46. It was not his speech. It was the videos ridiculing Ed and Keith.

I am sick of this condescension.

[LostInAnomie]

48. You mean the 2 second clips in a montage...

... where they were part of a exceeding long example of cable news trying to scare us by using hyperbole and sensationalism?

If Keith and Ed can accept the fact that they use hyperbole from time to time they really need to grow up.

[madfloridian]

49. It was insulting to see Ed and Keith presented that way.

It's insulting to me to have people here and other forums talking down to those of us who believe in what Democrats have traditionally believed in like women's rights, public education, Social Security and Medicare....when our party right now is not standing up for those things.

We voted the best we could here in a difficult situation. But our Democrats locally rejected those of us who were supporters of Dean. We had to learn to toe their narrow line or not being considered part of them.

[LostInAnomie]

50. And, Stewart's Rally had nothing to do with any of that.

Jon was focusing the spotlight on the media and its destructive influence on our national dialogue. Instead of doing the job of investigating and informing, the media prefers to sensationalize everything for the purpose of higher ratings.

The clips of Ed and Keith weren't to draw a comparison between them and Beck. It was to demonstrate how the media's use of hyperbole to gain viewers.

[madfloridian]

51. Not really. He was playing both sides, dissing Keith and Ed

in order not to look like he was taking sides.

[LostInAnomie]

57. Did you even watch the "fear montage" that you are complaining about?

[bettyellen]

68. I'm guessing no

[madfloridian]

53. Another thing. Saying we don't do "nuance" here is also insulting.

Most of us here are quite intelligent, believe it or not.

So that is really another way of being condescending to us.

[Name removed]

54. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

65. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Posteritatis]

76. Insults can be accurate. (nt)

[BootinUp]

55. I enjoyed your well written OP. K&R

[CrawlingChaos]

61. Nuance is in the eye of the beholder

And what I picked up is clearly different from what you perceived.

I felt the rally was about sending a message to simmering potential malcontents that it's uncool to get unruly. "Use your indoor voice" and all that crap. TPTB don't want us behaving like Europeans and actually pushing back. "Sanity" is defined as never having a strong reaction to anything. God forbid. Take a Paxil and watch TV, like a "reasonable" person.

[JonLP24]

101. I agree with this. nt.

[AspenRose]

62. K&R

:kick:

[Number23]

64. hey!

:hi:

[AspenRose]

125. Kiss that baby for me

:hi:

[Number23]

63. Really great post! Happy to rec

[CommonSensePLZ]

66. No, he did what he did

Jon made it pretty clear that he cares more about tone than context. Keith might get loud sometimes, but he speaks the truth and he gets mad about legitimate issues, not "death panels". FoxNews yells and lies, so they're not worth anything.

If Jon's too skittish to be around angry people or if he finds a person screaming scary truths at him browbeating, how the hell does he survive New York and Jersey? There's millions of things (people) to be angry at here!

I say Keith and Ed's anger is usually justified, and if someone doesn't scream at the right to tone it down they tend to take it to mean everyone else is too much of a punk to stand up to them.

[tavalon]

69. Ain't that the truth!

There are ants exploding around here, everywhere!

[laughingliberal]

74. Would seem to require an understanding of nuance to see Keith and Ed aren't the same as Beck. nm

[Canuckistanian]

79. Nuance is a fascist plot

Designed to keep us happily confused.

Give me stark obviousness slapped across my face like a dead fish. It's all my reptilian brain really understands.

:D

Good post. Rec.

[CLANG]

80. Hey, we had a recent president you would have loved!

:sarcasm: :rofl:

[Canuckistanian]

81. Sorry. For a minute there, I had a craving for pretzels

I'm all right now. :D

[kurtzapril4]

82. Yeah, but.....

Yes, he made the point that the 24-7 media circus was bad. He didn't say why he was including Keith and Ed...it was a quick cut montage of people saying bad things...out of context, with no explanation, making the left look as bad as the right. And I'm sorry...the left is not as bad as the right. Stewart is the King of false equivalency, and I've felt this way for a long time.

If he felt that Keith and Ed weren't the same as Beck, Limbaugh, Savage, et.al, why didn't he CLEARLY spell it out?

[sam sarrha]

83. ed and kieth are the only people standing up to the Dominionists , they aren't the problem

[donheld]

84. +1

[defendandprotect]

87. Heard Schultz's complaints today ... both he and Olberman are rational people and so is Jon....

I'm sure they will all talk it out -- and tell us the results --

which I'm sure will be a readjustment of everyone's understanding --

apologies and everyone happy again. Would be crazy if it didn't happen!! :)


Meanwhile, anyone still watching Cable TV -- other than Olberman/Stewart/Maddow/Schultz ....

gets what they deserve!

I think we have to point to right wing violence -- and curb that -- IMMEDIDATELY.


In fact, we have 50+ years of in plein air political violence by the right wing and

certainly hope most Americans get that -- however, they still seem to be sitting in

front of their TVs waiting for some news reader to confirm that for them!!

As Jim Garrison explained our dilemna -- we are all "Hamlet's" wandering and questioning!!


There is only one way the right wing can rise -- and that is via political violence,

stolen elections -- and lies -- the old fashioned way for them!!

Computers -- both voting computers and LARGE computers used by MSM which gave them

NEW POWERS to PREDICT and CALL election -- began coming in during the mid-and-late 1960's --

coincidally just about the time America was passing The Voting Rights Act!

I'd question every election back to Nixon/Humphrey --

And what we saw in 2000 was simply a reversal of MSM's NEW POWERS!


:)

[MilesColtrane]

90. K&R

[Angry Dragon]

96. K&R

[Quixote1818]

97. K and R.

[barbtries]

98. i'm glad i missed most of those threads

i thought the rally was a great validation for the thinking people of the country and am so happy i went. loved stewart's speech.

[gtar100]

99. I disagree - DU does nuance because we are all individuals here

One thing you can count on here is people's independence of thought. We all have our better days, our worse days. We all have issues more important than others. But the wide range of lifestyles, experience and (key point) well-considered opinions makes this one place I go to in order to get a broader perspective on issues. I like the fact that there are no sacred cows here other than the truth. You say there's a lack of nuance...I'd say you just got bit by it.

[proteus_lives]

100. Big K/R.

[AtomicKitten]

102. Jon went after Crossfire in October 2004 with virtually the same complaint about the MSM.

------> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFQFB5YpDZE

We're on the same team and should probably try to walk off ruffled feathers so we don't forget that. Jon pulled off a brilliant indictment of the crap media. On CSPAN no less.

[JonLP24]

107. What I never understood

is why he wasn't like that when he was on the O'Reilly factor. Yes, Crossfire was a crap show but at least it had a Democratic viewpoint which other shows around at the time did not. If you recall he was on O'reilly around the same time he went on Crossfire but on O'Reilly's show he was very friendly.

[AtomicKitten]

109. Didn't see it but perhaps it was a quid pro quo reciprocal appearance.

It furthers Jon's point about being able to disagree without dissolving into an insane puddle of crazy. I think you are judging Jon's demeanor and misinterpreting his civilized behavior. He's really quite adept at taking a shot at someone with a smile on his face. Not many do it better: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ml_R9QisgRY

[JonLP24]

112. I'm not

but he could of told O'Reilly "you're hurting America" much like he told the Crossfire crew.

[AtomicKitten]

113. Faux Nooz apparently heavily edited the interview.

Keith Olbermann ---> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_UyaIR5XxNI
Liberalviewer ----> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xobA2MoDzDY&feature=fvsr

[rpannier]

118. He does it when he has that prick Dennis Miller on his show

He lets Miller spew his insane garbage and Stewart sits there and barely says anything to challenge him
It's always been my one criticism of Stewart -- he gets into this courtesy crap and loses the moment

[deacon]

105. Thats exactly how I saw it too. n/t

[VMI Dem]

106. Was that the Dennis Miller gig up in DC this past weekend?

Heh.

[Hissyspit]

108. Saying you have proof that DU doesn't do nuance...

is not doing nuance.

[Safetykitten]

110. I don't get it. Is that some Frenchy socialist thing?

[burning rain]

114. Where have nuance, a sense of irony & civility gotten the left?

Not so far. Conservatives understand that you get further by being fierce and militant, and lefties need to get that too. Good discussion of that here; I see no sense in just rehashing it. Now, it can be prudent for Democratic politicians and party figures to be more measured, but not so much for people on the left not acting as Democratic Party candidates or figures.

[tavalon]

115. Whoops

I wasn't a good DU citizen. I just wrote on this very topic. I added to what you said, but we didn't need a whole new topic on it. My bad.

[HEyHEY]

116. It's a useless argument here - I made THE SAME ONE last week

And was attacked until admin shut down the thread. No one gave two shits that I was saying we need to stop allowing media to tell us what we want to hear and start providing proper analysis. All people read was that I think Beck and Maddow are the same kind of person.

People here don't want to think, they want to be lead.

[crikkett]

121. Seems like your problem is poor communication

It is incumbent upon the person transmitting the message to make themselves understood.

[HEyHEY]

159. My message was clear, people are quick to react

[tavalon]

119. From my accidental copycat thread:

Jon Stewart skewered the 24 hour "news" infotainment media craptasm that masquerades as news. He and his cohort used mashups that included much from Faux "News" and a couple of bits from MSNBC. False perhaps, equivalent in no way. Just as Free Republic is not the polar opposite of DU though many low information folks on the web believe it to be so. They are wrong. We have facts and hyperbole and emotion and silliness and so does Free Republic but that's where the similarity ends. They have far fewer facts and far more hyperbole. And while we're all entitled to our opinions, facts are facts.

We are the ones who can get the nuance, sometimes, occasionally, well we could, before President Obama was elected. We can do it again.

See, here's the thing, Jon Stewart is a bleeding heart liberal. He doesn't realize that most people don't know it and since he lives inside that brain of his, I can't blame him for not realizing that most people don't know his political leanings. I know as well as he does that if people did know, they would discount him just like they discount everyone on the left. That's one of the reasons he spends so much time reassuring us that he's just a comedian - because he doesn't realize that most people really do think he is just a comedian. He's overcompensating so we'll listen to him. He has some really important things to say about the media and if middle America decides he's just another left leaning liberal commentator, he won't get to be heard. So he created a little false equivalency to cover his tracks. Nuance folks. 88.3% of what was communicated at that rally was liberal, disguised as funny middle of the road moderate stuff.

We're smart here. Really smart. But we're also really, really emotional and quick to FREAK OUT!!!! Go back and look at that montage. Then go listen to Guido asking God to send a flock of geese. Then look at that crowd. They got it. They really got it and so can you.

Even Keith Olbermann, who can be a bit thin skinned, got it. If he can, you can.

[crikkett]

120. Nor does Jon Stewart

and his and colbert's shows are nothing more than "Talk Soup" for cable news.

Remember that show? It was great.

[PVnRT]

122. K&R

[RoccoR5955]

126. I think that you are incorrect.

Because we live in a world of reality. We use actual facts to back up our arguments, where the other side does not. They simply parrot the lies of the Fox Propaganda channel.

[rainlillie]

127. ITA!

[glowing]

129. I do think Ed and Keith go over the top sometimes... But I think it's from passion, less about

Ratings... It's their character. And there are appropriate times for real outrage.

It would be a nice day to have a Rachel on speaking with facts and talking to everyone who dares. Facts normally have a liberal slant. When u have fox lying and creating issues; then Keith reaponding or Ed it keeps that microscope present. Makes issues a big deal. But u see the president even having to respond to ridiculous like birthers and secret Muslim crap because of fox.

And politico is one big fat stir the turd gossip rag that was created by republican ops.

The point I think Jon was making was it needs to stop. People want it to stop. People want real issues and policy that works discussed. The healthcare bill a was a BFD. Its not perfect, it needs work, and we should push for it... But it's better than we had. In a couple of years people will be glad it passed. States will begin building their models to deliver the mandate... A few will try single payer. And it will show a clear path of "what can work". Essentially, we got the Romney model... On MA, Scott brown was a protest to a model that is rather flawed... But they could evolvle and create a better path. Vt and ME seem to be seriously looking at single payer models. Canada is so close, the boogeyman ads don't work on them.

And for some time now I've been seriously thinking we need a regional level of govt. The Feds are too big, but states too small. A regional entity could create a system of in-between where issues that really effect a region could ban together to address the issues... Say like the souh east... Home owner insurance is expensive and hard to get... Create a regional insurance pot for homeowners. The individual states will go bankrupt being too small. Down here, we have a case where market refuses to compete, and the states are stuck with worrying over the big one hitting them... Regionalize the co-op and it may get done. On the federal level, people from the Midwest or northeast dont want to pay for our hurricanes.... They have other pressing issues that effect them more. We are so big and vast, I think it would make sense to add a level that can focus on similar regions and insulate protection from the senate where 2 votes, no matter the population size, stop progress.

Maybe I'm nuts for asking for more govt, but our constitution began with 13 colonies/ states... It's so much bigger. And there are sommany regional issues that dont begin to be addressed on a federal level... And the earmarks really aren't enough to address them.

[Goblinmonger]

130. Bravo.

The rich, rich irony of people going off on a couple seconds of Keith and Ed in a montage should feed thousands.

[Le Taz Hot]

131. Excellent points.

K & R. I think most of us DO get it. I think the blind partisans just yell louder and, therefore, get more attention. If one looks at the rhetoric (modern definition) from either side, one finds that both demand blind allegiance to The Party. Both sides believe they are more patriotic than pretty much everyone else on the planet and both think they have some great, personal insight into the various issues. Allow me to address that point: They don't. The opposite, of course, is true. Unquestioning loyalty to ANY cause is dangerous and I think history has proven that point thousands of times over.

Good OP.

[urgk]

132. I think Keith is hypersensitive about the issue...

...but his hypersensitivity has been earned.

I've heard over and over that the right has Limbaugh or Beck and the left has Olbermann, but it just isn't true. Keith is honest in his anger. His description of the distance from the truth for the right and for both Keith and Rachel is smack-on.

So, he was overreacting here. But, he has a point.

[bread_and_roses]

134. this rally was even more pointless than "One Nation"

I can't imagine why people are bothering to discuss it at all.

[Politicub]

135. My posts are in defense of the few progressive voices in broadcast news

If Stewart wants to throw them into the mix of everyone else out there, it doesn't mean that passionate DUers need to agree with his approach.

IMHO, his approach is dangerous since the right will use Stewart's own montage to bash the left. Nuance is lost on them far more than progressives in that they pick and chose what to show to build their case.

For people motivated by pithy messages and sound bites, most progressives' thoughtful approach to discourse can put us at a disadvantage with the middle and swing voters. And Stewart contributed to the body of sound bites that appeals to those who make choices based on two second clips on Fox News or CNN.

I prefer thoughtful discussions about issues with those who I don't agree with. In a strange way it feels freeing to have the ability to change how I think about an issue based on exploring the facts.

[Waiting For Everyman]

136. Why was it Keith and Ed, but not Scarborough?

Why them? Why them, when such a perfect no-brainer example from MSNBC could've been used instead? Wouldn't Scarborough come to mind in a heartbeat, instead of Keith or Ed?

Oh, is it that Keith and Ed say so many, much dumber things than Scarborough? :sarcasm: Or even Tweety?

Ask yourself... why those two in particular?

[LostInAnomie]

143. It wasn't those two in particular...

... not even close. They were two seconds of a montage that featured probably a hundred pundits, anchors, and commentators from every news channel. I'm pretty sure Scarborough and Tweety were both in there.

The only people saying that Keith and Ed were targets were people that probably didn't watch it and were relying on Ed's whining and Keith's comment for the tone of the Rally.

[Lexwasp]

137. Yes.

Olbermann and Schultz should have stayed out of it. Let Beck do the whining about it.

[Balderdash]

138. Yep, that's what I came away with

and if people like Keith Olbermann could put away their ego's for a second
they might learn something.

[MissMarple]

140. We certainly have a lot to learn about human nature. n/t

[Bluenorthwest]

141. DU hashes out the nuance, I'd say. Other than that spot on.

The only things I'd add is that even you frame this double act, this two lead show, as what 'Stewart' said and did. Everyone who says 'he' should be saying 'they' because all of it, including the montage, was intended to be showing the point of view of the Stephen and Jon characters. A point was being made in a complex way. But by two people, from two 'points of view'. I will add that comedy and theater can not take an exclusionary lexicon and still succeed, had this been a Stewart rally, it would have sucked, the genius was in the Double Act.
I will also say that everything they did on the screen failed to really work, because it was not fully integrated into the piece and the image was far too small for the scale of not just the event, but of the stage itself. I get why they wanted it, but they should have done it better. Nuanced comedy needs clearly told jokes, including the visual elements. It does not surprise me that the bulk of the confusion stems from material that was on the screen, not on the stage.
What I learned was that people can not tell theater from a political convention, and that is a tad disconcerting.

[DirkGently]

142. I thought people got the nuance, and made thoughtful criticisms.

The black / white view would be that Stewart was all right or all wrong in his approach. He made a valid point, which I thought was recognized, but it's also valid to point out that his commentary itself was an oversimplification. We hear a lot about how horrible "the media" is, and that was the thrust of Stewart's comments -- that every issue is over-hyped and over-sold and over-screamed.

Fair enough.

But it's also true that the nuttery is largely one-sided. "The professional left" does not have a Sean Hannity or a Glenn Beck. MSNBC and others are not even remotely the equivalents of Fox News, which Stewart did not say, but implied, and has implied in the past.

The most obvious proof of this is the makeup of the rally itself. No conservatives were visible at the "Rally to Restore Sanity."

Perhaps Jon preferred to let that fact speak for itself.

Either way, the fact is that the sane DO have to occasionally yell back at the insane, and the truth occasionally has to be shouted over lies. And yes, Jon, Tea Partiers are often "real racists."

I think Jon Stewart is one of the most spot-on social commentators we have. But he IS a liberal, and that is integral to why his own voice is important; a fact he chose to step neatly around in his comments.

That may have been the right choice for him and what he was trying to do. The man, is, as he keeps reminding us, a comedian, and if he can only make liberals laugh, he's less effective both as a funnyman and as a commentator.

But I think other liberal commentators who strive to keep a sane, honest tone took some righteous offense at the implication that they are equally to blame for the dishonesty and fake rage we see on television, and it's neither simple-minded nor wrong for them or others to have spoken to that.


Edited syntax for.

[AngryOldDem]

144. K&R

[avaistheone1]

145. k&r

[X_Digger]

146. K&R!

It really is a lack of nuance.

*sad face*

[vanbean]

147. This is why we lose elections.

[Deep13]

150. Eating our own? nt

[Deep13]

149. Nuance--good for finding the truth, bad for electioneering.

I think most of us right now are mostly concerned with hanging on to our majority. And with the deck stacked against us to the extent it is, we naturally react defensively to the few reasonable voices on cable TV being compared to the massive RW lie factory. I heard what Stewart said and he painted with a pretty broad brush. I wish I could embrace his message without reservation. I just don't think the facts support that view. At least not without reservations.

[madrchsod]

151. i was there and did`t hear a word he said....

so i have no idea what he said nor do i care.

the message was out in the crowd not on the stage....

the best sign- "lizzy married two gay guys--why can`t i?"

[onlyadream]

154. I, too, was surprised to read the posts about the rally on DU

Stewart's speech reminded me of the Pastor in Florida who wanted to burn the Korans. This idiot got so much publicity that it became ridiculous (especially when it increased the threats on American soldiers).

[Shining Jack]

157. K&R

Recommended earlier, 1 minute before the deadline. :)

[woo me with science]

160. Kick. nt