Left, Right, and Nowhere

[sunnyside]

A great article from The Week (no link I'll have to type)

If it's true we get the media we deserve, what does it say about us that good old reliable, earnest CNN is in a tailspin? According to the latest Nielsens, CNN lost nearly half its prime-time viewers in the last year-coming in fifth place among cable networks in some time slots. So what's gone wrong at the network that pioneered the all-news format? For starters, with news now a "commodity" on the Internet, a network that still brands itself as foremost about news is almost asking to be an afterthought. And a lineup in which Wolf Blitzer is considered the exciting anchor may just be too bland for our frenetic, short-attention-span culture. But NYU media professor Jay Rosen cut to the core when he observed that with Fox News pounding away from the right and MSNBC entrenched on the left, there's simply a dwindling audience for a network that offers "the view from nowhere." (Ouch.)

But must left, right, and nowhere really be our only choices? Every night on Fox and MSNBC, we can watch O'Reilly, Olbermann, and the rest preaching to their choirs, interviewing guests guaranteed to agree with them, and clobbering the other side (and often the other network) with the respective outrage of the day. Poor CNN, meanwhile, achieves "balance" by bringing in specimens from the two camps and letting them sputter at each other. How about if instead, CNN carved out a different niche, reality-checking all those alleged outrages, banning political hacks of all stripes, and reviving the notion that journalism can be sharp and have a point of view without degenerating into propaganda? I'd watch.

Eric Effron

Personally I think this highlights why we're seeing a lot of what we're seeing in the US from both sides.

Most don't seem to even want to really understand things. They just want to turn their radio to Cenk or Limbaugh and enjoy themselves. Or turn on their TV to Jon Stewart or.... well, the right is having some trouble with comedy stylings.

But I guess there is a new network about to launch that'll try and fill that niche and reap the massive rewards if they can do it well.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_mQPvKXw3U

They've even got a Kelsey Grammer ad running

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehMl-CztpnA

Sorry to wrap essentially two topics into one. But I ran into both things recently and felt like seeing how they struck the people here.

[Tyyr]

The downfall of the unbiased media, and I'm honestly starting to think of CNN as more and more unbiased as time goes on, not perfect but it's not Fox News or MSNBC, is the media's fault.

First off, back in the day CNN was it. If you wanted 24 hours news you watched CNN, that was it. The problem is that this was during the start of the cable boom before anyone who wanted one could have an entire channel to do as they pleased with. Back then you had CNN, each of the major networks had their own news programs, maybe one or two newspapers per city, and that was it. If you were biased then you'd drive off half your viewership and that hurt. So you cut it right down the middle. Well, everything took off. There are now hundreds of cable channels, many radio stations, and the entire freaking internet.

Now, a cable channel can have the option of being focused. There are enough people with cable that you can focus in tightly on an issue and still have the viewership to be profitable. Why can Fox News keep going? Because there are enough people out there who want to watch it, republicans looking to be told they're right and democrats looking to get pissed, to be profitable. So news groups went after this, Fox took the right, everyone else the left, CNN... mostly down the middle. The internet made it even easier. Screw just going after half the political spectrum, you can target individual issues and turn a profit. So they did.

The viewers have some blame in this. People like being right of course, so when the people on TV agree with them they like it. This is what makes Fox News and others so successful, they essentially tell the viewer they are correct. This makes them happy and they tune in again. The internet makes this even worse as you can located a group who thinks EXACTLY like you do, and engage in a big circle jerk of correctness. People decided to start catering their news to their tastes, the media then catered to this casting things like journalistic integrity to the wind.

The biggest problem with journalism is that it became profitable. Back in the day the news on TV was a loss. The only reason the networks did it was because they were legally obligated to do so. They had to spend X number of hours "serving the public interest," a day. If they didn't they'd lose their license. This meant that journalists were free to be journalists. They could go out and do stories that mattered because it was for the public interest and nothing else. Then, one day, the news turned a profit. Game-fucking-over. From then on the news became a commodity, a way to make a buck. Being a journalist had to take a back seat to viewership and keeping your ratings up.

[Mikey]

People like being right of course, so when the people on TV agree with them they like it.

This, to me, is the biggest factor. The corollary, of course, is also true - that people like to holler about other people being wrong. Johnny Backwoods doesn't want to hear the unbiased news - he wants to hear about how right (no pun intended) anti-abortionists and gay marriage bans are, and about Rick Santorum being the savior of mankind when he claims that gay marriage will destroy the fabric of American society; Nancy Cosmopolitan Metrosexual likewise wants to hear about leftist "progress," even if it contains no real progress, and about how horrible the evil conservatives are when they dilute a left-leaning bill.

[Sonic Glitch]

The biggest problem with journalism is that it became profitable. Back in the day the news on TV was a loss. The only reason the networks did it was because they were legally obligated to do so. They had to spend X number of hours "serving the public interest," a day. If they didn't they'd lose their license. This meant that journalists were free to be journalists. They could go out and do stories that mattered because it was for the public interest and nothing else. Then, one day, the news turned a profit. Game-f***ing-over. From then on the news became a commodity, a way to make a buck. Being a journalist had to take a back seat to viewership and keeping your ratings up.

Also back in the day, networks (talk radio and later news) were required to give equal time to both sides. A little thing called the Fairness Doctrine? If you spent an hour talking about, or had a commentator with, a liberal slant you had to give over another hour or have another commentator with a conservative slant. Frankly, I think the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine was one of the worst things to happen to news media.

[sunnyside]

Also back in the day, networks (talk radio and later news) were required to give equal time to both sides. A little thing called the Fairness Doctrine? If you spent an hour talking about, or had a commentator with, a liberal slant you had to give over another hour or have another commentator with a conservative slant. Frankly, I think the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine was one of the worst things to happen to news media.

I like the idea, but you can make that into a joke.

For example I remember a video clip posted here from the other side of the pond about a debate over wether the Catholic Church was a force for good or something like that.

On one side you had some guy that wrote a whole book about how the Catholic church was a force for evil and had obviously been used to discussing the issue at length.

On the other side they pulled some pastor or bishop or something out of somewhere who was obviously used to saying that the Catholic church was good because the Catholic church was good, and wasn't ready by any stretch to be more than a fish in a barrel.

Actually I think Fox has some shows that work like that now, where they have some people who at least say they're liberals that, since they're on the payroll, are essentially professionally stupid.

[Sionnach Glic]

On the other side they pulled some pastor or bishop or something out of somewhere who was obviously used to saying that the Catholic church was good because the Catholic church was good, and wasn't ready by any stretch to be more than a fish in a barrel.

One was the head priest/bishop/whatever of Nigeria, and the other on his side was a seasoned politician. Both should have been well prepared to field tough questions, the politician in particular. That they both were unable to say anything but "It's the Catholic Church, of course it's good!" is no fault of the network.
The two opposing them were an author and a TV presenter. Hardly an unbalanced matchup.

[Mikey]

That wasn't the best example, but Sunny has a point. From the opposing view to his Fox News example, I could very easily have a leftist show - and to give equal time to the right, just keep interviewing Rush Limbaugh, Michael Steele, and Bobby Kindjal. Sure, they're prominent figures of the right-of-the-aisle, but they'd present a level of stupidity that's hardly representative of the GOP in general.

[Sionnach Glic]

Aye, I do agree with the argument he's making. I just took issue with his example.

[Reliant121]

The Archbishop of Nigeria and..Anne Widdicome wasn't it? In any case it was Steven Fry and someone else. Frankly, The Archbishop I can sort of understand lack of aptitude. but Widdicombe has built her entire career on being able to slant opinions, and oppose others in theres. She should have done MUCH better.

[Mikey]

I'm not sure I can understand the Archbishop's lack of prowess either. Part of a clergyman's training, and job description, is public speaking and suggestive oratory. Add to that the political savvy necessary to rise to archbishop, and he should have done better too.

[sunnyside]

One was the head priest/bishop/whatever of Nigeria, and the other on his side was a seasoned politician. Both should have been well prepared to field tough questions, the politician in particular. That they both were unable to say anything but "It's the Catholic Church, of course it's good!" is no fault of the network.
The two opposing them were an author and a TV presenter. Hardly an unbalanced matchup].

The two bolded bits are self contradictory. I think if it was a debate contest and you happened to draw having to represent the church out of the hat that you'd have done a better job than either of those two.

And as I recall the author wasn't just an author, he was an author of a book that I think might have had the same title as the debate in which he was taking part.

Now I don't know how much of that was stacking the deck on the part of the network, or if they were trying to get some big sounding names to go against the author and they just happened to get two people who did a surprisingly poor job.

In any case I think we all get the idea of what could be done.



What I'm not sure about is what could be done about the current polarizing trend. The problem being that unless we start clipping people's eyes open clockwork orange style they have the option of reading and watching what they want. So the solution would seem to have to be with the people. I guess one could say schools should do more about teaching kids more about critically evaluating their positions, valuing others positions, and seeking a variety of sources of information.

However I think schools would say they already try to do that when generally they do a horrid job of it. I learned early on that it's best to figure out what the teacher believes and roll with that, despite any claims they might make about open mindedness at the beginning of the semester.

[Sionnach Glic]

The two bolded bits are self contradictory. I think if it was a debate contest and you happened to draw having to represent the church out of the hat that you'd have done a better job than either of those two.

That they performed poorly in the debate itself hardly means they were picked purely because they were expected to perform poorly. Both had extensive backgrounds in public speaking. Both had experience, to at least some extent, in politics. Both were well familiar with the Catholic Church. Both are undoubtedly well aquianted with criticisms levelled against the RCC. Anne Widdecombe was most likely picked because she's a well known former (?) politician who's professed a great faith to traditonal Catholic beliefs. The archibishop of Nigeria was most likely picked....well, because he's the archbishop of Nigeria.

I'm not exactly sure just what part of the above leads you to believe that they were chosen because it was believed they'd give a poor performance. By all rights they should have been able to come up with some pretty strong points. One's a veteran politician (a Brit politician no less, a group well known for having all sorts of stuff thrown at them) and the other's a fricking archbishop - one of the highest ranks of the RCC. That their argument was as strong as wet tissue paper is not indicative of bias on the behalf of whoever organise the debate.

I suppose it couldn't simply be that the reason their arguments were so poor was because their position was indefensible, right? Their poor performance must instead indicate bias?

[sunnyside]

That they performed poorly in the debate itself hardly means they were picked purely because they were expected to perform poorly.

Now I don't know how much of that was stacking the deck on the part of the network, or if they were trying to get some big sounding names to go against the author and they just happened to get two people who did a surprisingly poor job.

I suppose it couldn't simply be that the reason their arguments were so poor was because their position was indefensible, right?

I was about to say that we were getting off topic. And on the specifics of that one debate we are (and I can't even talk on it more specifically as the links in that thread are dead now, but in any case the details of it are beside the point.)

But I think your statement there is typical of what I'm seeing more and more of. Even if you don't agree with something, even if it is ultimately incorrect or a worse course of action, the idea there there is absolutely no merit to the other side of a contentious point is almost invariably wrong. But dismissal and a call to the choir of your demographic is all the rage these days.

In the not so great amount I've seen of Cenk and Glen Beck I think they've even said they don't get what the other side could be thinking, and then laughed it off like their not getting it means that the other side must just be bonkers because they were extra super correct. But even without changing their positions, I didn't think it should have been hard for them to at least "get" the other side.

[Sionnach Glic]

But I think your statement there is typical of what I'm seeing more and more of. Even if you don't agree with something, even if it is ultimately incorrect or a worse course of action, the idea there there is absolutely no merit to the other side of a contentious point is almost invariably wrong. But dismissal and a call to the choir of your demographic is all the rage these days.

Excuse me?

[

I'm in full agreement with your position. I take issue with the example you give because your statement regarding it is nonsense.

[Sionnach Glic]

But I think your statement there is typical of what I'm seeing more and more of. Even if you don't agree with something, even if it is ultimately incorrect or a worse course of action, the idea there there is absolutely no merit to the other side of a contentious point is almost invariably wrong. But dismissal and a call to the choir of your demographic is all the rage these days.

Excuse me?

Aye, I do agree with the argument he's making. I just took issue with his example.

I'm in full agreement with your position. I take issue with the example you give because your statement regarding it is nonsense.