[TV orNotTV] Re: J. Stew sits with Rachel Maddow on just what the heck he meant
The problem with the below is that the traditional media are too lazy (and corporate) to go beyond the one side (usually Fox and the Republicans) does it, so we must find equivalent evidence to 'prove' the other side (usually MSNBC and the Democrats) does it as well. Fox is all about advocacy for the right and the GOP. MSNBC slants toward the Democrats, but comes nowhere near the level of Fox's propaganda and outright fund raising. What irritated me about the interview was Stewart's mantra of neutrality and we just present the clips, we don't take sides. Bullshit. They've slammed Fox and the GOP far harder than their occasional swipes at Obama and the Dems, which is fine with me; there's far more fodder. But, on the other hand, Obama's sellout of his base and his embrace of some of the worse parts of the Bush agenda or the Democrats' general spinelessness could get far more attention from TDS, but gets ignored when Palin says something stupid -- again -- or Hannity or O'Reilly or Beck show themselves to be hypocrites -- again. --Dave Sikula On Nov 13, 9:43 pm, PGage pga...@gmail.com wrote: But can't we get beyond this simple dichotomy? There are more points on the continuum than simply like Fox News or paragon of journalistic integrity. The defenders of MSNBC have to stop relying on the FN is worse than us defense - we know they are, but that is irrelevant. But media critics need to stop arguing that because MSNBC falls short of the journalistic ideal they are really nothing but a variant of FN. -- TV or Not TV The Smartest (TV) People! You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups TV or Not TV group. To post to this group, send email to tvornottv@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to tvornottv-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
Re: [TV orNotTV] Re: J. Stew sits with Rachel Maddow on just what the heck he meant
More stuff like this? http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-june-15-2010/respect-my-authoritah I won't claim any equivalence in the amount or frequency of content between administrations, and not just because of the number of years the show has been on under Republicans vs. Democrats. I will suggest that a focus on the hypocrisy of various FNC personalities is consistent with the professed emphasis of the show on media criticism. That and spineless Democrats is a pretty played out humor vein. David From: Dave Sikula dsik...@yahoo.com To: TVorNotTV tvornottv@googlegroups.com Sent: Mon, November 15, 2010 3:21:09 PM Subject: [TV orNotTV] Re: J. Stew sits with Rachel Maddow on just what the heck he meant What irritated me about the interview was Stewart's mantra of neutrality and we just present the clips, we don't take sides. Bullshit. They've slammed Fox and the GOP far harder than their occasional swipes at Obama and the Dems, which is fine with me; there's far more fodder. But, on the other hand, Obama's sellout of his base and his embrace of some of the worse parts of the Bush agenda or the Democrats' general spinelessness could get far more attention from TDS, but gets ignored when Palin says something stupid -- again -- or Hannity or O'Reilly or Beck show themselves to be hypocrites -- again. --Dave Sikula -- TV or Not TV The Smartest (TV) People! You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups TV or Not TV group. To post to this group, send email to tvornottv@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to tvornottv-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
Re: [TV orNotTV] Re: J. Stew sits with Rachel Maddow on just what the heck he meant
On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 11:45 PM, Wesley McGee wesley.mc...@gmail.com wrote: If Keith wasn't politically partisan, when Obama capitulated and Americans ended up with a health care bill that helped nobody and omitted a public option, why wasn't Keith calling for his immediate impeachment and removal from office? Why hasn't he accused Obama of war crimes the way he accused Bush? Keeping them honest would not work, in covering Bin Laden and Al Qaeda I would disagree. Couldn't someone have kept Bush and his administration honest when it came to how much they knew of the potential threat and when? Instead, everybody including the mainstream media wrapped themselves in the flag and stopped asking questions and demanding answers. They claimed that to support the president is an expression of patriotism, whereas I claim the opposite. or a devastating storm causing destruction, Again, the ACoE could have been kept honest during Hurricane Katrina since it was their shoddy, antiquated workmanship -- and not the weather -- that led to deaths. or the actual facts of Climate Change. (Unfortunately, there needs to be such a segment regarding *coverage* of Climate Change.) Whenever I hear a politician say he or she studied or read up on climate change, I know they are full of crap. I took a meteorology class in college, thinking it was How to be a weatherman 101, but it was not an easy A. The science of the weather is probably among the most difficult to master because of all the variables involved. I'd love to ask every politician what they know about the science, and if they know nothing (as I suspect most do), demand they abstain from any vote or debate surrounding the issue. There are many issues where there are an actual ideological difference in opinion and we can't wish it away, just because party partisans use and abuse ideological disagreements to gain power. True, but the focus not on the issues, rather the (typically extremist) voices in favor of or against an issue. A few months back, when Keith's father was in the hospital, he offered a poignant commentary on health care. It covered the issue on a personal yet professional level, presenting problems and solutions. But instead of continuing in that manner, the next show featured talking heads babbling about how the Republicans want to kill poor people (that same night, FoxNews talking heads stated Democrats wanted to kill old people). The substantive debate faded in favor of name-calling and hyperbole. However, you can't really separate that from the politics of the issue as that is an obstacle as is pointing out why the system is the way it is and who benefits from keeping the status quo. If that is genuinely the case, then the politics need to be overhauled. If the politics interfere with the process, a revolution is in order. I keep saying, if someone figures out a way to lead a non-violent revolution against this government, I will join them. The politics do not promote the health and well being of the citizenry. The politics impede true debate and reform. No politician I've seen in the last 30 years has acted in the best interest of the American people. But we have nobody in the media willing to challenge the status quo. The Tea Party wants the America of old, but have you noticed the Tea Party's spokespeople tend to be younger than average Republicans, and older Republicans distance themselves from the Tea Party? The Tea Party is operating under a sense of false nostalgia, the same thoughtless way teenagers are embracing the music and fashion of the 1980s. It wasn't better before, and it isn't good now, but we lack any viable means of making it better in the future. But such debate doesn't happen in the media, and it can't happen because everyone in the media has chosen sides. The lines have been drawn, and they'll be no true debate as a result. -- Kevin M. (RPCV) -- TV or Not TV The Smartest (TV) People! You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups TV or Not TV group. To post to this group, send email to tvornottv@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to tvornottv-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
Re: [TV orNotTV] Re: J. Stew sits with Rachel Maddow on just what the heck he meant
On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 12:45 AM, Kevin M. drunkbastar...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 11:45 PM, Wesley McGee wesley.mc...@gmail.com wrote: If Keith wasn't politically partisan, when Obama capitulated and Americans ended up with a health care bill that helped nobody and omitted a public option, why wasn't Keith calling for his immediate impeachment and removal from office? Why hasn't he accused Obama of war crimes the way he accused Bush? Huh? I must have dropped a stitch somewhere in this thread. How is compromising on a Health Care Bill the same as violating the US Constitution and UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights? It is quite likely I have missed something here (are you being sarcastic here in some way?), and I apologize if I have. But to take the above paragraph at face value for a second, it illustrates the point I have been trying to make. Forcing a false equivalence on the political discourse in this country results in absurd conclusions like this. You may or may not like Obama's Health Care Plan (extreme conservatives and liberals both tend to hate it, I think it still is the most significant piece of domestic legislation since Medicare) but there is no plausible basis for accusing Obama of a war crime, or committing an impeachable offense based on it. OTOH, while there were those who liked and disliked Bush's war and torture policies, there clearly was a plausible basis for accusing him of both war crimes and impeachable offenses. It simply is not true that liberals calling for the Impeachment of Bush for conducting an illegal war and authorizing torture are the equivalent of conservatives calling for the impeachment of Bush for signing an expensive Health Care Plan that enlarges the scope of Government significantly (or liberals who call for Obaman's impeachment for not signing a more expensive Plan that would enlarge the score of Government even more). I am not a defender of Keith, and not a fan of MSNBC. But it is just ridiculous to put them in the same bag with FN. Someone else posted today several examples of competent, respected media outlets that produce reliable and useful journalism even though they have a clearly ideological point of view (on both the right and the left). MSNBC is trying to be like The Nation. It is being criticized because too often it falls short of that mark, not because it is successful. MSNBC isn't too partisan or political to be a credible news organization, they are either too neurotic (Keith), too mainstream (the NBC News hands who slum on MSNBC) or too stupid and shallow (almost everyone else - except Rachel, who I think for the most part is a credible journalist). Fox News is not even trying to be like the National Review - and it is criticized for not even trying, not for trying and falling short. Fox News is more like a newsletter for the RNC. Keith actually is no huge fan of Obama - but that is besides the current point. What gets in the way of Keith being a fully credible journalist is not that he has a point of view, or that he donated money to a political campaign. His problem is that he is not as transparent as he should be all the time, and he is an arrogant egotistical thin-skinned asshole (who is also brilliant and funny and occasionally profoundly insightful). What keeps Sean Hannity from being a fully credible journalist is that he does not want to be a credible journalist - and he is not even trying to be one. Jon Stewart's problem is that he can't acknowledge that Sean Hannity is trying to be more like Jon Stewart than he is trying to be like Walter Cronkite. Equating Hannity (or the other clowns at FN) with Keith or Rachel helps give the the former the journalistic credibility they are not even really looking for, while it invalidates and marginalizes the latter unfairly - the equivalent of giving them the death penalty for stealing a car. ** -- TV or Not TV The Smartest (TV) People! You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups TV or Not TV group. To post to this group, send email to tvornottv@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to tvornottv-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
Re: [TV orNotTV] Re: J. Stew sits with Rachel Maddow on just what the heck he meant
On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 1:26 AM, PGage pga...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 12:45 AM, Kevin M. drunkbastar...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 11:45 PM, Wesley McGee wesley.mc...@gmail.com wrote: If Keith wasn't politically partisan, when Obama capitulated and Americans ended up with a health care bill that helped nobody and omitted a public option, why wasn't Keith calling for his immediate impeachment and removal from office? Why hasn't he accused Obama of war crimes the way he accused Bush? Huh? I must have dropped a stitch somewhere in this thread. How is compromising on a Health Care Bill the same as violating the US Constitution and UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights? How many different times in Bush's eight years did Keith call for his removal from office? That's what you missed. If he set a standard for all politicians and then reacted the same way regardless of who let him down, I could accept that. But here was a situation where Keith openly crusaded for an issue near and dear to him and was let down by a man he supported, but he just shrugged it off. Why wasn't Barack Obama declared The Worst Person In The World? Obama had a majority and the support of the American people; why didn't Keith condemn him when he let the nation down so spectacularly? Because it isn't about ideology -- it is about politics, and that is just crap. there is no plausible basis for accusing Obama of a war crime, or committing an impeachable offense based on it. OTOH, while there were those who liked and disliked Bush's war and torture policies, there clearly was a plausible basis for accusing him of both war crimes and impeachable offenses. And Obama's continuation of Bush's wartime agenda (including his expansion into Afghanistan -- and eventual move into Pakistan) doesn't earn him a visit to the Hague? The continued torture and illegal detention of people? The denial of basic freedoms to American citizens? No, it is easier to make lame Sarah Palin jokes. MSNBC isn't too partisan or political to be a credible news organization, they are either too neurotic (Keith), too mainstream (the NBC News hands who slum on MSNBC) or too stupid and shallow (almost everyone else - except Rachel, who I think for the most part is a credible journalist). Did you watch the interview? Because she believes she and Stewart are doing the same job. Which means either she thinks Stewart is a journalist (which he isn't) or she doesn't think she is (which she is supposed to be). Jon Stewart's problem is that he can't acknowledge that Sean Hannity is trying to be more like Jon Stewart than he is trying to be like Walter Cronkite. Equating Hannity (or the other clowns at FN) with Keith or Rachel helps give the the former the journalistic credibility they are not even really looking for, while it invalidates and marginalizes the latter unfairly - the equivalent of giving them the death penalty for stealing a car. Again, I'd say your political views are clouding the issue. You say Rachel Maddow is a credible journalist, though in the interview she cannot distinguish between her job and the satire done on The Daily Show. I would suggest Sean Hannity would not consider himself more akin to Stewart, though that is how you perceive him. Both FoxNews and MSNBC are producing shoddy journalism, albeit using vastly different approaches, targeting vastly different audiences. Until (and please forgive the cliche) both sides take off their partisan blinders, the condition will only get worse. Right now, I agree and have never denied that there are differences between FoxNews and MSNBC, but that gap is closing rapidly. -- Kevin M. (RPCV) -- TV or Not TV The Smartest (TV) People! You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups TV or Not TV group. To post to this group, send email to tvornottv@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to tvornottv-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
Re: [TV orNotTV] Re: J. Stew sits with Rachel Maddow on just what the heck he meant
On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 2:00 AM, Kevin M. drunkbastar...@gmail.com wrote: How many different times in Bush's eight years did Keith call for his removal from office? That's what you missed. If he set a standard for all politicians and then reacted the same way regardless of who let him down, I could accept that. But here was a situation where Keith openly crusaded for an issue near and dear to him and was let down by a man he supported, but he just shrugged it off. Why wasn't Barack Obama declared The Worst Person In The World? Obama had a majority and the support of the American people; why didn't Keith condemn him when he let the nation down so spectacularly? Because it isn't about ideology -- it is about politics, and that is just crap. I give up - how many times did Olbermann name Bush the WPITW? I have Obama on that list at least once (though before he was elected President). I think that segment gets entirely too much attention in the discussion about KO - it is obviously an exercise in hyperbole. But that is besides the point. You said Keith should have called for Obama's impeachment, and labled him a War Criminal, because he signed a Health Bill that you think Keith disagreed with, apparently because Keith did call for the impeachment of Bush, and labeled him a War Criminal, for launching an illegal war and authorizing torture. My point is that this is absurd, and obviously not the same thing. KO was not simply using terms like impeachment and War Criminal to describe Bush whenever he did something he didn't like, and he simply was not a political hack willing to stretch any truth to any length to score political points. Now, if you want to make the very different argument, that Obama is continuing an illegal war in Iraq, and continuing to authorize torture, and because of this should be impeached and labeled a war criminal, you at least have a plausible case (though you would have to actually go through the process of making the case). I may disagree with your interpretation of the actual facts, but the structure of the argument would make sense - something like: KO called for the impeachment of Bush when he conducted an illegal war in Iraq, so it is hypocritical of him not to call for the impeachment of Obama when he continues that illegal war. But it is not plausible to argue that since KO called Bush a war criminal whenever he did something KO didn't like, KO should also call Obama a war criminal whenever he does something KO doesnt like. That is what is absurd. Did you watch the interview? Because she [Rachel Madow] believes she and Stewart are doing the same job. Which means either she thinks Stewart is a journalist (which he isn't) or she doesn't think she is (which she is supposed to be). That is not what she means. She means both she and Stewart are calling for the media to be more responsible watchdogs of political leaders (he in his role as a satirist, she in her role as a journalist). Perhaps you don't think Stewart is a satirist, or don't think Rachel is a journalist - reasonable people can disagree about such things. But the fact that satirists and journalists have some common functions does not necessarily mean that either the satirist is really a journalist, or the journalist is really a satirist. Again, I'd say your political views are clouding the issue. You say Rachel Maddow is a credible journalist, though in the interview she cannot distinguish between her job and the satire done on The Daily Show. I would suggest Sean Hannity would not consider himself more akin to Stewart, though that is how you perceive him. Both FoxNews and MSNBC are producing shoddy journalism, albeit using vastly different approaches, targeting vastly different audiences. Until (and please forgive the cliche) both sides take off their partisan blinders, the condition will only get worse. Right now, I agree and have never denied that there are differences between FoxNews and MSNBC, but that gap is closing rapidly. My political blinders have nothing to do with this particular point. There are lots of conservatives who make the same point about Fox News that I do (including many at legitimate conservative journalism shops, like National Review). And as I have posted on this list for several years now, I am not a fan of MSNBC, and was very critical of their coverage of the 2008 Presidential campaign. But the analogy between Fox News and MSNBC is simply false, as in not true. The problem is not that FN is 5 points to the right of ideological neutral and MSNBC is 4 points to the left. They are not both simply shoddy news operations, with one being a little shoddier than the other. Only one is a shoddy news operation (MSNBC), the other is a very good political communication operation. The two organizations exist on completely different dimensions. MSNBC is a television news operation, with a particular ideological point of view, that is too often not good enough (I would give
Re: [TV orNotTV] Re: J. Stew sits with Rachel Maddow on just what the heck he meant
Kevin asked... How many different times in Bush's eight years did Keith call for his removal from office? On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 2:49 AM, PGage pga...@gmail.com wrote: I give up - how many times did Olbermann name Bush the WPITW? I have Obama on that list at least once (though before he was elected President). I think that segment gets entirely too much attention in the discussion about KO - it is obviously an exercise in hyperbole. Okay, I did a little more surfing this morning. I thought there must somewhere be a list on the internet of all of the W.P.I.T.W. awardees, but if so I can not find it. I could not find a google hit to Bush being named WPITW. But I did find in the wiki article about KO's book a mention that Bush had been named WPITW several times after the book had been published in 2006. So, I am going to go with 3 as my guess; my guess for Obama is 1. But Bush's 3 seem to all have happened in years 6, 7 and 8 of his presidency. I can only hope that Obama has a chance to get that same treatment. -- TV or Not TV The Smartest (TV) People! You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups TV or Not TV group. To post to this group, send email to tvornottv@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to tvornottv-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
[TV orNotTV] Re: J. Stew sits with Rachel Maddow on just what the heck he meant
Kevin, you're engaging in strawman tactics. I believe what I wrote. On Nov 13, 11:33 pm, Kevin M. drunkbastar...@gmail.com wrote: So Donz, you believe that MSNBC is nonpartisan and its hosts offer nonbiased news and information? Because I don't think Stewart is claiming MSNBC is like FoxNews, but the claim is they are not producing journalism free of a political slant, and the political slant does more harm than good. At some point along the way, MSNBC abandoned being a source of journalism in favor of being a showcase for opinionated pundits. And that is fine -- the network has the right to do that. What it does not have the right to do is claim to be a source of journalism when its ranking host is contributing to candidates and another host believes her show is no different than a satirical show on the Comedy Channel. On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 10:42 AM, donz5 do...@aol.com wrote: Sorry, but the false equivalency lives on. Fox is known to have (1) doctored its clips to have them appear to express one thing when, in fact, they express the opposite; (2) morning chat morons who introduce myths that are then handled as news later in the day and night; and (3) employ known potential 2010 presidential candidates on its tv schedule. There's absolutely no comparison with MSNBC to the sort of propaganda that Fox utilizes in its greater cause for political power. On Nov 13, 1:22 pm, Bradford bradfo...@dwx.com wrote: You've communicated exactly what I was trying to say better than I did. I don't think anybody on MSNBC's weeknight lineup would deny that they lean left (as opposed to the network's new asinine lean forward slogan) but none of them have come out and endorsed a candidate on the air. - Original Message - From: K.M. Richards richard...@gmail.com To: TVorNotTV tvornottv@googlegroups.com Sent: Saturday, November 13, 2010 10:43 AM Subject: [TV orNotTV] Re: J. Stew sits with Rachel Maddow on just what the heck he meant A nitpick, if I may, Kevin. On Nov 12, 8:53 pm, Kevin M. drunkbastar...@gmail.com wrote: And whereas Maddow stated neither she nor any other member of MSNBC's news team has endorsed a candidate, Keith's recent newsmaking revealed that to not be the truth. Strictly speaking, Keith did not endorse a candidate. There is a big difference between giving to a campaign as a private citizen and going on camera to make a public statement of endorsement. KMR (who usually follows in the footsteps of the late Edwin Newman in insisting that words be used in conformance with their literal definitions) -- TV or Not TV The Smartest (TV) People! You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups TV or Not TV group. To post to this group, send email to tvornottv@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to tvornottv-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en -- TV or Not TV The Smartest (TV) People! You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups TV or Not TV group. To post to this group, send email to tvornottv@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to tvornottv-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en -- Kevin M. (RPCV) -- TV or Not TV The Smartest (TV) People! You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups TV or Not TV group. To post to this group, send email to tvornottv@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to tvornottv-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
[TV orNotTV] Re: J. Stew sits with Rachel Maddow on just what the heck he meant
It sounds like not many here actually _watch_ Keith on any sort of regular basis. He discontinued his Worst Person in the World weeks ago. -- TV or Not TV The Smartest (TV) People! You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups TV or Not TV group. To post to this group, send email to tvornottv@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to tvornottv-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
Re: [TV orNotTV] Re: J. Stew sits with Rachel Maddow on just what the heck he meant
On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 11:17 AM, donz5 do...@aol.com wrote: It sounds like not many here actually _watch_ Keith on any sort of regular basis. He discontinued his Worst Person in the World weeks ago. True, though to be fair to Kevin I believe he has acknowledged that somewhere in this thread, or one of the related ones. Keith announced, I think on November 1, and in the wake of Jon Stewart's lumping him in with with FN crowd at his Rally: As of right now, I am unilaterally suspending that segment with an eye towards discontinuing it. We don’t know how that works long-term. We might bring it back. We might bring back something similar to it. We might kill it outright.Today given the serious stuff we have to start covering tomorrow, we think it’s the right time to do it short-term and then we’ll see what happens.” I am not sure if he has announced a permanent termination of the segment over the last two weeks. I don't watch Countdown anymore regularly, and have not since the 2008 election coverage. I do review selected segments on his website fairly often. But Kevin's argument was that, if Keith were a fair journalist, he would have made Obama one of his WPITW for the 22 months or so that he was president before suspending the segment, since he did make Bush his WPITW several times when he was President. I have tried to explain why I think that is a faulty analysis. http://dailycaller.com/2010/11/01/olbermann-stopping-%e2%80%98worst-person-in-the-world%e2%80%99-segment/#ixzz15I2uzXVz -- TV or Not TV The Smartest (TV) People! You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups TV or Not TV group. To post to this group, send email to tvornottv@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to tvornottv-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
Re: [TV orNotTV] Re: J. Stew sits with Rachel Maddow on just what the heck he meant
On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 3:27 PM, PGage pga...@gmail.com wrote: I am not sure if he has announced a permanent termination of the segment over the last two weeks. I don't watch Countdown anymore regularly, and have not since the 2008 election coverage. I do review selected segments on his website fairly often. On Friday, they posted a poll on Countdown's website asking what should happen to that segment. I think voting is closed, but the link was this. http://on.msnbc.com/b2Or3h -- Wesley McGee http://www.ambivi.com http://drawing-a-blank.tumblr.com -- TV or Not TV The Smartest (TV) People! You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups TV or Not TV group. To post to this group, send email to tvornottv@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to tvornottv-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
[TV orNotTV] Re: J. Stew sits with Rachel Maddow on just what the heck he meant
donz5, to PGage and Kevin: It sounds like not many here actually _watch_ Keith on any sort of regular basis. He discontinued his Worst Person in the World weeks ago. I was about to tell him that Saturday, but the hour got late and I was pooped... -- BOB -- TV or Not TV The Smartest (TV) People! You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups TV or Not TV group. To post to this group, send email to tvornottv@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to tvornottv-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
[TV orNotTV] Re: J. Stew sits with Rachel Maddow on just what the heck he meant
A nitpick, if I may, Kevin. On Nov 12, 8:53 pm, Kevin M. drunkbastar...@gmail.com wrote: And whereas Maddow stated neither she nor any other member of MSNBC's news team has endorsed a candidate, Keith's recent newsmaking revealed that to not be the truth. Strictly speaking, Keith did not endorse a candidate. There is a big difference between giving to a campaign as a private citizen and going on camera to make a public statement of endorsement. KMR (who usually follows in the footsteps of the late Edwin Newman in insisting that words be used in conformance with their literal definitions) -- TV or Not TV The Smartest (TV) People! You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups TV or Not TV group. To post to this group, send email to tvornottv@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to tvornottv-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
Re: [TV orNotTV] Re: J. Stew sits with Rachel Maddow on just what the heck he meant
You've communicated exactly what I was trying to say better than I did. I don't think anybody on MSNBC's weeknight lineup would deny that they lean left (as opposed to the network's new asinine lean forward slogan) but none of them have come out and endorsed a candidate on the air. - Original Message - From: K.M. Richards richard...@gmail.com To: TVorNotTV tvornottv@googlegroups.com Sent: Saturday, November 13, 2010 10:43 AM Subject: [TV orNotTV] Re: J. Stew sits with Rachel Maddow on just what the heck he meant A nitpick, if I may, Kevin. On Nov 12, 8:53 pm, Kevin M. drunkbastar...@gmail.com wrote: And whereas Maddow stated neither she nor any other member of MSNBC's news team has endorsed a candidate, Keith's recent newsmaking revealed that to not be the truth. Strictly speaking, Keith did not endorse a candidate. There is a big difference between giving to a campaign as a private citizen and going on camera to make a public statement of endorsement. KMR (who usually follows in the footsteps of the late Edwin Newman in insisting that words be used in conformance with their literal definitions) -- TV or Not TV The Smartest (TV) People! You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups TV or Not TV group. To post to this group, send email to tvornottv@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to tvornottv-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en -- TV or Not TV The Smartest (TV) People! You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups TV or Not TV group. To post to this group, send email to tvornottv@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to tvornottv-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
[TV orNotTV] Re: J. Stew sits with Rachel Maddow on just what the heck he meant
Sorry, but the false equivalency lives on. Fox is known to have (1) doctored its clips to have them appear to express one thing when, in fact, they express the opposite; (2) morning chat morons who introduce myths that are then handled as news later in the day and night; and (3) employ known potential 2010 presidential candidates on its tv schedule. There's absolutely no comparison with MSNBC to the sort of propaganda that Fox utilizes in its greater cause for political power. On Nov 13, 1:22 pm, Bradford bradfo...@dwx.com wrote: You've communicated exactly what I was trying to say better than I did. I don't think anybody on MSNBC's weeknight lineup would deny that they lean left (as opposed to the network's new asinine lean forward slogan) but none of them have come out and endorsed a candidate on the air. - Original Message - From: K.M. Richards richard...@gmail.com To: TVorNotTV tvornottv@googlegroups.com Sent: Saturday, November 13, 2010 10:43 AM Subject: [TV orNotTV] Re: J. Stew sits with Rachel Maddow on just what the heck he meant A nitpick, if I may, Kevin. On Nov 12, 8:53 pm, Kevin M. drunkbastar...@gmail.com wrote: And whereas Maddow stated neither she nor any other member of MSNBC's news team has endorsed a candidate, Keith's recent newsmaking revealed that to not be the truth. Strictly speaking, Keith did not endorse a candidate. There is a big difference between giving to a campaign as a private citizen and going on camera to make a public statement of endorsement. KMR (who usually follows in the footsteps of the late Edwin Newman in insisting that words be used in conformance with their literal definitions) -- TV or Not TV The Smartest (TV) People! You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups TV or Not TV group. To post to this group, send email to tvornottv@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to tvornottv-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en -- TV or Not TV The Smartest (TV) People! You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups TV or Not TV group. To post to this group, send email to tvornottv@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to tvornottv-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
Re: [TV orNotTV] Re: J. Stew sits with Rachel Maddow on just what the heck he meant
So Donz, you believe that MSNBC is nonpartisan and its hosts offer nonbiased news and information? Because I don't think Stewart is claiming MSNBC is like FoxNews, but the claim is they are not producing journalism free of a political slant, and the political slant does more harm than good. At some point along the way, MSNBC abandoned being a source of journalism in favor of being a showcase for opinionated pundits. And that is fine -- the network has the right to do that. What it does not have the right to do is claim to be a source of journalism when its ranking host is contributing to candidates and another host believes her show is no different than a satirical show on the Comedy Channel. On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 10:42 AM, donz5 do...@aol.com wrote: Sorry, but the false equivalency lives on. Fox is known to have (1) doctored its clips to have them appear to express one thing when, in fact, they express the opposite; (2) morning chat morons who introduce myths that are then handled as news later in the day and night; and (3) employ known potential 2010 presidential candidates on its tv schedule. There's absolutely no comparison with MSNBC to the sort of propaganda that Fox utilizes in its greater cause for political power. On Nov 13, 1:22 pm, Bradford bradfo...@dwx.com wrote: You've communicated exactly what I was trying to say better than I did. I don't think anybody on MSNBC's weeknight lineup would deny that they lean left (as opposed to the network's new asinine lean forward slogan) but none of them have come out and endorsed a candidate on the air. - Original Message - From: K.M. Richards richard...@gmail.com To: TVorNotTV tvornottv@googlegroups.com Sent: Saturday, November 13, 2010 10:43 AM Subject: [TV orNotTV] Re: J. Stew sits with Rachel Maddow on just what the heck he meant A nitpick, if I may, Kevin. On Nov 12, 8:53 pm, Kevin M. drunkbastar...@gmail.com wrote: And whereas Maddow stated neither she nor any other member of MSNBC's news team has endorsed a candidate, Keith's recent newsmaking revealed that to not be the truth. Strictly speaking, Keith did not endorse a candidate. There is a big difference between giving to a campaign as a private citizen and going on camera to make a public statement of endorsement. KMR (who usually follows in the footsteps of the late Edwin Newman in insisting that words be used in conformance with their literal definitions) -- TV or Not TV The Smartest (TV) People! You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups TV or Not TV group. To post to this group, send email to tvornottv@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to tvornottv-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en -- TV or Not TV The Smartest (TV) People! You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups TV or Not TV group. To post to this group, send email to tvornottv@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to tvornottv-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en -- Kevin M. (RPCV) -- TV or Not TV The Smartest (TV) People! You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups TV or Not TV group. To post to this group, send email to tvornottv@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to tvornottv-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
Re: [TV orNotTV] Re: J. Stew sits with Rachel Maddow on just what the heck he meant
On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 11:33 PM, Kevin M. drunkbastar...@gmail.com wrote: [T]he claim is [MSNBC] are not producing journalism free of a political slant, and the political slant does more harm than good. At some point along the way, MSNBC abandoned being a source of journalism in favor of being a showcase for opinionated pundits. This does not necessarily follow. You can produce journalism while advocating a position. This is generally what they feel that they're doing at The Nation (from which MSNBC finds many of its contributors and analysis), The New Republic, The American Prospect, The National Review, Reason Magazine, The Weekly Standard, etc. You can argue that there is an implicit slant in reporting from The Washington Post and New York Times (maintain the current status quo and to keep it working, prevent a revolution, safeguard the constitutional republic and regulated capitalism). But having a point of view does not negate journalism, as long as you report all of the fact relevant and honestly. Where Fox fails frequently (and MSNBC with Maddow and Olbermann fail occasionally) are the latter two points. -- Wesley McGee http://www.ambivi.com http://drawing-a-blank.tumblr.com -- TV or Not TV The Smartest (TV) People! You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups TV or Not TV group. To post to this group, send email to tvornottv@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to tvornottv-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
Re: [TV orNotTV] Re: J. Stew sits with Rachel Maddow on just what the heck he meant
On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 8:33 PM, Kevin M. drunkbastar...@gmail.com wrote: So Donz, you believe that MSNBC is nonpartisan and its hosts offer nonbiased news and information? Because I don't think Stewart is claiming MSNBC is like FoxNews, but the claim is they are not producing journalism free of a political slant, and the political slant does more harm than good. At some point along the way, MSNBC abandoned being a source of journalism in favor of being a showcase for opinionated pundits. (SNIP) But can't we get beyond this simple dichotomy? There are more points on the continuum than simply like Fox News or paragon of journalistic integrity. The defenders of MSNBC have to stop relying on the FN is worse than us defense - we know they are, but that is irrelevant. But media critics need to stop arguing that because MSNBC falls short of the journalistic ideal they are really nothing but a variant of FN. -- TV or Not TV The Smartest (TV) People! You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups TV or Not TV group. To post to this group, send email to tvornottv@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to tvornottv-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
Re: [TV orNotTV] Re: J. Stew sits with Rachel Maddow on just what the heck he meant
I think (emphasis on I think) what J. Stew was trying to do was argue that the focus of the cable channels on the horse race (who loses and who wins politically) was a problem, and not the most beneficial for the country. By shifting to something like the corruption/anti-corruption angle he brought up with Maddow, it might be easier to get past the ideological fights and get to more beneficial stories. In that way, Stewart might think cable TV could get stuff done like all those cars at the rally merging into the tunnel. David From: PGage pga...@gmail.com Subject: Re: [TV orNotTV] Re: J. Stew sits with Rachel Maddow on just what the heck he meant On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 8:33 PM, Kevin M. drunkbastar...@gmail.com wrote: So Donz, you believe that MSNBC is nonpartisan and its hosts offer nonbiased news and information? Because I don't think Stewart is claiming MSNBC is like FoxNews, but the claim is they are not producing journalism free of a political slant, and the political slant does more harm than good. At some point along the way, MSNBC abandoned being a source of journalism in favor of being a showcase for opinionated pundits. (SNIP) But can't we get beyond this simple dichotomy? There are more points on the continuum than simply like Fox News or paragon of journalistic integrity. The defenders of MSNBC have to stop relying on the FN is worse than us defense - we know they are, but that is irrelevant. But media critics need to stop arguing that because MSNBC falls short of the journalistic ideal they are really nothing but a variant of FN. -- TV or Not TV The Smartest (TV) People! You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups TV or Not TV group. To post to this group, send email to tvornottv@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to tvornottv-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
Re: [TV orNotTV] Re: J. Stew sits with Rachel Maddow on just what the heck he meant
I would agree, and go further to state that political parties (at least the two party system in place) hinders the process, as does any advocacy of it. I firmly believe that it no longer matters whether a Republican or Democrat wins a given election, because ultimately America will continue to lose. While there may be ideological differences between the two parties, their methods of operation make them identical inasmuch as both are ineffective and only serve themselves. Republicans laughed whenever Democrats used the word change, and Democrats laughed whenever Republicans used the word reform. Both were right in laughing, because neither party is capable of reform or change -- both are too vested in keeping things broken. Bringing it back to news coverage on television, both FoxNews and MSNBC (because SOMETIMES the two can be lumped together) place too much emphasis on political parties. Can the party survive the new political climate? What does this mean for the party? How will things change when the party is in charge? When they mention the American people at all, it is either as an afterthought or they are treated as victims -- as if the American people aren't complicit in all of this. As for the differences between the two networks, I think FoxNews is less obtuse in its advocacy role because its viewers do not generally dispute the role it plays in partisan politics. I believe FoxNews can more shamelessly throw its collective support for or against something or someone (health care being a prime example), omitting facts or inflating numbers to fit its cause. But I also believe the only thing stopping MSNBC from doing the same is its reluctance to admit its clearly partisan stance. MSNBC's bias will be displayed in more oblique ways, though its position on an issue will be just as clear to viewers (again, look at the issue of health care and tell me MSNBC did not advocate a point-of-view). MSNBC's viewers (and this message board seems to demonstrate this point effectively) are reluctant to concede the point of partisanship, as though MSNBC's sh*t doesn't stink. Or they concede the point while defending it as somehow working on a higher moral ground than others who do the same. As for me, I don't see the need to keep pointing out different ways in which FoxNews is shameless and unethical because I've never been a fan and don't even have low expectations of that organization. But I do wish MSNBC (and its supporters) would acknowledge its mistakes and take corrective action. Keith could lead a team of journalists who root out corruption (as Stewart suggests) or showcase good ideas. It could be done simply by not talking about either political party, not talking about anyone at FoxNews, and focusing instead on individual merits and failings of ideas and the people in power who support or reject them. -- Kevin M. (RPCV) -- TV or Not TV The Smartest (TV) People! You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups TV or Not TV group. To post to this group, send email to tvornottv@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to tvornottv-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
Re: [TV orNotTV] Re: J. Stew sits with Rachel Maddow on just what the heck he meant
When Jon Stewart went on to to talk about ideology and partisanship and Fox News and MSNBC, by way of comparing cable news to his show he came up with the analogy which -- I may be the only person who thinks this but -- I think is not a great analogy. One of my favorite things..Anderson Cooper, I think he does a really nice job, and he's fun to watch. He's got a bit on his show that I love called 'Keeping Them Honest,' which is just so funny to me, because...it'd be like me [saying] I've got a new segment called 'Telling Jokes To An Audience'...isn't that what this whole thing is. I actually don't think so, but I think it is being presented here as an alternative to which we can use to save MSNBC/cable news. There are a lot of issues, and a lot of events that are not problems of corruption or dishonesty. Keeping them honest would not work, in covering Bin Laden and Al Qaeda, or a devastating storm causing destruction, or the actual facts of Climate Change. (Unfortunately, there needs to be such a segment regarding *coverage* of Climate Change.) There are many issues where there are an actual ideological difference in opinion and we can't wish it away, just because party partisans use and abuse ideological disagreements to gain power. I know Keith Olbermann believes changing the health care system is a good idea given how much he has spent in advocacy of it on his own show. However, you can't really separate that from the politics of the issue as that is an obstacle as is pointing out why the system is the way it is and who benefits from keeping the status quo. -- TV or Not TV The Smartest (TV) People! You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups TV or Not TV group. To post to this group, send email to tvornottv@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to tvornottv-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
