We live now in a cable news universe that celebrates the opinions of Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, Chris Matthews, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly - individuals who hold up the twin pillars of political partisanship and who are encouraged to do so by their parent organizations because their brand of analysis and commentary is highly profitable.Much more at the link.
The commercial success of both Fox News and MSNBC is a source of nonpartisan sadness for me. While I can appreciate the financial logic of drowning television viewers in a flood of opinions designed to confirm their own biases, the trend is not good for the republic...
Beginning, perhaps, from the reasonable perspective that absolute objectivity is unattainable, Fox News and MSNBC no longer even attempt it. They show us the world not as it is, but as partisans (and loyal viewers) at either end of the political spectrum would like it to be...
...when our accountants, bankers and lawyers, our doctors and our politicians tell us only what we want to hear, despite hard evidence to the contrary, we are headed for disaster. We need only look at our housing industry, our credit card debt, the cost of two wars subsidized by borrowed money, and the rising deficit to understand the dangers of entitlement run rampant. We celebrate truth as a virtue, but only in the abstract...
Much of the American public used to gather before the electronic hearth every evening, separate but together, while Walter Cronkite, Chet Huntley, David Brinkley, Frank Reynolds and Howard K. Smith offered relatively unbiased accounts of information that their respective news organizations believed the public needed to know. The ritual permitted, and perhaps encouraged, shared perceptions and even the possibility of compromise among those who disagreed...
There is, after all, not much of a chance that 21st-century journalism will be adapted to conform with the old rules. Technology and the market are offering a tantalizing array of channels, each designed to fill a particular niche - sports, weather, cooking, religion - and an infinite variety of news, prepared and seasoned to reflect our taste, just the way we like it. As someone used to say in a bygone era, "That's the way it is."
A critical view of Ted Koppel and his biases is at this link (hat tip to Stan B.)
Photo credit.
Though I also mourn the days when the phrase "fair and balanced coverage" was an ideal rather than a FOX News joke, as well as a news cycle that was slightly longer than 24 hours and had not yet eradicated investigative journalism, I think Mr. Koppel is engaging in a bit of false equivalency here. Yes, the coverage of the names and shows he lists is partisan. But some of those names/shows traffic in outright lies, as well as piles of carefully edited and highly misleading factoids. Others, while partisan, are still concerned with actual truth and knowledge. To equate them is an oversimplification, and an insult to real policy wonks like Rachel Maddow, who -- unlike her counterparts on the other side of the partisan aisle -- regularly invites right-wing guests onto her show for actual interviews, not shoutfests. When one is armed with accurate information, one does not need to shout, talk over, or interrupt one's debate opponent.
ReplyDeleteA more critical take on Mr. Koppel:
ReplyDeletehttp://welcomebacktopottersville.blogspot.com/2010/11/grand-old-man-of-journalism.html
Thanks, Stan. Link appended to the post.
ReplyDeleteNetwork news and cable news (conservative conglomerate news) programs are horrible. Their idea of balance is to say a little bit of the right's spin and a little bit of the left's spin. OK, that's mostly simple reporting, but when something is so glaringly wrong, they need to point out all the facts. Instead they often dance around the truth. Fox is extreme right and MSNBC is to the left. MSNBC's commentator's don't distort the truth, like Hannity or Beck, they just lean left and target the right. There is a difference. These mega corporations just want to sell ad space, so they entertain and inform a little. Koppel need look no further than Brokaw, Williams, Couric, Wallace, etc. He was a hawk for George Bush, that's very true.
ReplyDeleteI think Koppel's misplaced his critique a bit, too.
ReplyDeleteI see the main enemy (and indeed what's created such blind partisanship in the media), is the 24 hour news cycle.
News isn't mere facts. News is a synthesization of facts. And, when journalists have to be reporting on things as soon as they happen (or be seen as sluggish, and poor competition to other organizations), then they can't actually craft stories.
As a poor substitute for well-researched articles with a proper amount of context, real synthesization has been replaced by simply pushing everything through a partisan lens (it's much faster, can be done on the fly as a new story breaks, gives the public the impression of context, and is utterly worthless).
Rant concluded. Soapbox retired.
Like so many, Kopple idealizes the post World War II "golden" era, when "everyone gathered before their electronic hearth" and listened to whichever aged white man was currently the anchor of the news on ABC, CBS or NBC and whatever news they chose to foist upon the public that night.
ReplyDeleteWell before the electronic hearth there were newspapers and I doubt Kopple would disagree that those newspapers were much like FoxNews and MSNBC, they had a point of view and they didn't make any excuses for it. What Kopple refuses to admit is that the network news back then had a point of view, too, and chose its stories accordingly.
For example, if the big three had reported on abortion and contraception as negatively as they did the Vietnam War, how many people would be alive today?