Re: [TV orNotTV] Review: "Patriot Act with Hasan Minaj" on Netflix

[Steve Timko]

Netflix drops episode in Saudi Arabia critical of government for
journalist's murder.

https://www.npr.org/2019/01/01/681469011/netflix-drops-hasan-minhaj-episode-in-saudi-arabia-at-governments-request


On Thu, Nov 1, 2018, 7:46 PM Steve Timko  Hah! Phineas and I agree on something. Maybe there's hope for Republicans
> and Democrats.
>
> .
> .
> .
> Nah...
>
> On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 7:24 PM PGage  wrote:
>
>> I am not trying to put words in your mouth or pick a fight - just trying
>> to understand your point. I thought you were saying his show was
>> intentionally only enjoyable by South Asians and Muslims (and those who for
>> some reason already were knowledgable about those cultures). THat does not
>> seem plausible to me. But if all you mean is that he is hoping that South
>> Asians and Muslims, who have been long ignored by US pop culture, will be
>> attracted to his show in a special way, along with as many other people as
>> possible, then - well, yes I’m sure that’s true.
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 7:14 PM Steve Timko  wrote:
>>
>>> I never said exclusively. That's setting up a strawman to knock down.
>>> But it seems to be a deliberate effort to target an audience not
>>> addressed by other media. A south Asian addressing Arab culture seems to be
>>> a stretch.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 3:06 PM PGage  wrote:
>>>
 You really think his plan is to develop a Netflix show in the US aimed
 exclusively at Indian, Pakistani and Bengali Muslims?

 Seems more likely he is trying to do a show that is unapologetically
 based on his experience. Perhaps he is confident that in the same way that
 non-white, non-Christian Americans are expected to acquaint themselves with
 elements of WASP culture to consume many products of US Pop culture, white
 Christians (at least young ones) will be motivated to do the same.

 On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 7:16 AM Steve Timko 
 wrote:

> Chris Rock does not make jokes so obscure you need to Google it to
> understand it. Clearly this is a calculated effort on Minaj's part.
>
> Not sent from an iPhone
> On Nov 1, 2018, at 5:43 AM, PGage  wrote:
>>
>> Chris Rock is not really targeting an African-American audience.
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 9:42 PM Steve Timko < steveti...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Two episodes of Hasan Minaj’s “Patriot Act” have dropped. Although
>>> he’s a fairly recent defector from “The Daily Show,” it most closely
>>> resembles John Oliver’s “Last Week Tonight.” But Minaj seems to be
>>> targeting south Asians and Muslims with the show. Also, targeting an
>>> especially young audience.
>>> In the first episode. Minaj spends the whole episode talking about
>>> affirmative action. In the second episode, he talks mostly about Saudi
>>> Arabia before switching topics, finally closing with a taped bit that 
>>> has
>>> kids dropping F bombs.
>>> They attempt a different look with the show. The audience is close
>>> to the stage. But in the first episode especially, they sound like a 
>>> laugh
>>> track. In the second episode he calls attention to all the brown faces 
>>> in
>>> the crowd.
>>> The other issue is instead of a green screen or a large TV monitor
>>> behind him, they build a wall of a monitors, Minaj calls it a wall of
>>> iPads. They seem to be working out the kinks. Letterman’s new Netflix 
>>> shows
>>> were plagued with odd camera angles and cuts for the first few episodes.
>>> “Patriot Act” caught the same bug. There’s odd profile shots that almost
>>> seem to be shooting him from behind. In the Saudia Arabia presentation, 
>>> the
>>> monitor goes dark, Minaj walks to his spot and then the photo of MBS 
>>> fades
>>> in behind Minaj. Somehow it looked too rehearsed and lacked impact.
>>>
>>> [image: minajmbs.jpg]
>>>
>>>  The director is Richard A. Preuss. IMDB lists some impressive
>>> credits. I think he needs to smooth it out. Conan O’Brien had a rough 
>>> start
>>> and it took months for him to figure it out.
>>> A bigger problem is that Minaj doesn’t seem to have the charisma or
>>> comic stamina or something to carry a whole half hour. Sometimes his 
>>> jokes
>>> seem good but he steps on the punchline. It makes your appreciate a John
>>> Oliver, Jon Stewart or Stephen Colbert, who can keep up the pace for a 
>>> full
>>> half hour. The latter two benefit from commercial breaks.
>>> Minaj is also making references to south Asian and Muslim cultural
>>> items. Like some kind of test I guess Indian kids take, and some sort of
>>> toiletry tactic he feels is superior to toilet paper alone and to Saudis
>>> not owning dogs. He notes the Saudis have invested heavily in Wag.com, 
>>> the
>>> dog-walking web site, and said Saudis don’t own dogs. I did a me

[TV orNotTV] Re: So long, Don Lusk

['Bob Jersey' via TVorNotTV]

It is 105. I can't see through these cruddy glasses. B

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"TVorNotTV" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to tvornottv+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[TV orNotTV] So long, Don Lusk

['Bob Jersey' via TVorNotTV]

A prolific animator originally hired by Disney in the 1930s, he worked on 
*Pinocchio* and other iconic features before moving on to the *Peanuts* TV 
specials and theatricals in the 60s and 70s, and to Hanna-Barbera in the 
80s. In San Clemente, CA; 103.

THR 

 
(link)

B

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"TVorNotTV" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to tvornottv+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[TV orNotTV] Netflix Censors For the Kingdom...

[PGage]

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/netflix-patriot-act-with-hasan-minhaj-saudi-arabia_us_5c2b8947e4b0407e9085ad5d

“Netflix confirmed for the Financial Times

that it removed the episode in Saudi Arabia last week, “after the country’s
Communications and Information Technology Commission made a request to take
it down because it allegedly violated the kingdom’s anti-cyber crime law.”

“We strongly support artistic freedom worldwide and only removed this
episode in Saudi Arabia after we had received a valid legal request — and
to comply with local law,” a Netflix spokesperson told HuffPost.

According to the Financial Times, Netflix said the Saudi telecoms regulator
cited Article 6 of the law as the reason for the complaint, which states
that “production, preparation, transmission, or storage of material
impinging on public order, religious values, public morals, and privacy,
through the information network or computers” is a crime punishable by up
to five years in prison and a fine not exceeding 3 million riyals (about
$800,000).

The episode is still available on Netflix in the United States, and Saudi
users can still find it on the show’s YouTube page.”
-- 
Sent from Gmail Mobile

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"TVorNotTV" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to tvornottv+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [TV orNotTV] Louis CK thinks he’s served his time

['Bob Jersey' via TVorNotTV]

Pete Davidson, after a disturbing Instagram post many took as a prelude to 
suicide, resurfaced NYE in Boston for two shows... and among other things, 
changed a joke originally aimed at Aziz Ansari to instead refer to CK...  
THR 

 
(link)

B

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"TVorNotTV" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to tvornottv+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

RE: [TV orNotTV] New channels, dropped channels on your cable or satellite?

[Brad Beam]

From: 'Bob Jersey' via TVorNotTV [mailto:tvornottv@googlegroups.com] 


>So what have any of you gained or lost as of Jan 1st?
 
Suddenlink by Altice tends not to abide by the calendar when 
moving/dropping/adding channels; most recently, two of three subchannels from 
our CBS affil were added early last month. (Grit [13.4] was left out.)
 
But of note was a switch from Music Choice to Stingray Music this morning. For 
the time being, the music neighborhood of the DVR channel guide is in disarray, 
providing listings of various subchannels from around the country, ISD channels 
from Texas, and – to Adam’s joy – E4, among others.
 
_   _
|_>|_>  Brad Beam- Belle WV
|_>|_>  http://www.facebook.com/74bmw

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"TVorNotTV" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to tvornottv+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [TV orNotTV] MSNBC: Good News

[Kevin M.]

You’re correct I’m not a routine watcher anymore, I feel for good reason. I
can only go by the stuff that goes viral... the stuff that gets ratings...
the stuff the network itself promotes... the stuff that isn’t newsworthy.
If there is substance to be found on the network, I have to assume it is
tangential if not accidental to the format of loud talking heads.

I don’t deny there is value in putting reporters on TV, but I maintain they
aren’t being used for their expertise in the field, rather to comment or
opine as any other man-on-the-street interview, albeit better informed than
the average.

I completely gave up on Maddow a year or so ago when she and MSNBC made a
big deal about obtaining some of Trump’s tax records. Promoted the hell out
of them, describing them as a bombshell. Turned out no bombs, not even
empty shells. It was really the last time I sat and attempted to watch the
network. They betrayed my trust as a viewer, and I don’t see them ever
making up for that.

Maybe as you suggest they are improving in news coverage, but I cannot
reward them now for finally getting around to doing what they have failed
to do since 9/11. News can be retrieved from more reliable sources (AP,
Reuters, and BBC have their own respective apps) without the personality
and ego driven fluff. There’s no reason for me to tune back to MSNBC on the
off chance they take a break from people shouting over each other and
actually present the facts of the day’s events.

As for MSNBC being to the left what FoxNews is to the right, again I can’t
state they still are, but I will state they have been throughout most of
the network’s existence. Each network existed at one point merely as a
place to villify the words and actions of a political party (I suppose
MSNBC also had a side business entrapping sexual predators, but they
probably ought not brag about that). Each network was focused less on the
facts of the day and more how to spin those facts to tarnish the image of
politicians and other public people. Their tactics surely differed, but the
goals and motivations were essentially equal and opposite.

The way you or I might perceive Tucker Carlson or Sean Hannity is exactly
how conservatives perceive MSNBC (and CNN) hosts. And frankly there are
valid reasons for those perceptions. The hosts and producers of shows on
both networks have a history of coddling those whose opinions they agree
with and going for the jugular when those they disagree with screw up.
There are exceptions naturally, but they are rare.

The last point I’ll make about the subject is this: FoxNews is not
responsible for President Trump; MSNBC and CNN are responsible. Those two
networks more than anybody else made Trump. And if they are changing now,
it is only due to the massive guilt felt by the people involved. They were
so caught up in the frenzy they created they ignored the potential
consequences. Only now, as they see children dying in custody at our
borders or journalists being attacked in American newsrooms, only now are
they seeing the aftermath; if they have any humanity at all, that has to
eat away at them. And I just can’t recommend tuning back in and giving them
a chance to do it again.


On Tue, Jan 1, 2019 at 1:56 PM PGage  wrote:

> Three things: 1) the print journalists do not proffer their opinions, they
> explain the details of the day’s events. They are basically beat reporters,
> and they know the background. Often they correct or nuance the opinion of
> the host 2) there is always details that have to be cut from the word limit
> if a story. Often a reporter will say something like “it didn’t make the
> story, but...”  3) in a more perfect world, TV news departments would have
> lots of reporters on the beat, working legal, financial, international,
> organized crime etc aspects of the story. We don’t live in that more
> perfect world. But using beat reporters from NYT, WaPo, Axios, AP etc
> allows MSNBC to approximate that.
>
> Again, I am not saying it’s perfect - it ain’t. I am saying MSNBC is the
> best source of for-profit news and context on television, and its recent
> ratings success is justified. Those who dismiss it as nothing but a liberal
> version of FN propaganda or bread and circus CNN melodrama have not been
> paying attention in recent years.
>
> On Tue, Jan 1, 2019 at 9:38 AM Kevin M.  wrote:
>
>> Not to scoff, but what is the merit of print journalists appearing on TV
>> to discuss the day’s events as part of a panel of pundits? If they have
>> facts to report that didn’t make their print deadline, there is substance
>> there, but their opinion of facts isn’t newsworthy (at least no more or
>> less so than all the other talking heads I try to ignore), and in most
>> cases it isn’t even interesting. They aren’t the ones who make news, merely
>> report it (or purport to). Proffering opinions to Rachel Maddow is the last
>> thing a journalist ought to be doing, especially in 2019.
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 1, 2019 at 11:08 AM

Re: [TV orNotTV] CBS, Nielsen fail to reach new deal

[Adam Bowie]

Warning: Media Ratings is a specialist subject!

Once again, I'm led to thinking that CBS should get other networks onside
with it and create their own ratings body. They might still get Nielsen to
actually collect the data, but *they *would dictate themselves what data is
collected. And if Nielsen can't do the job, then another company like
Comscore or Edison (names at random) could do it.

I think I've mentioned before that in the UK, the ratings system is called
BARB and it's owned by all the major broadcasters - public and commercial.
So the BBC, ITV, C4, Sky etc all pay for it, and they dictate what gets
measured and how its measured. Like everywhere else, there's a massive
interest in on-demand streaming platforms, and including that. Catch-up is
becoming more important than overnights. BARB itself is relatively small,
but it just hires a big research company to actually do the ratings to its
specifications.

I know a lot more about radio ratings which in the UK are measured in a
similar manner by RAJAR, again owned by the radio industry - commercial and
BBC. RAJAR is just half a dozen people, and they commission research
companies to carry out the research for them to their specifications.

If US TV ratings are broken - and they might well be - then this would seem
to be the best way to fix them. Of course, I'm sure that while CBS is out
of contract, other networks probably have their contracts running to
different times. Otherwise there might be a chance of things changing.

Side note: Of course, none of this is true for online where everyone gets
to "mark their own homework." Which is why every so often, Facebook or
whoever will admit, "Er guys, we counted video views wrongly, and you need
to deduct 60% from the numbers we told you. Sorry about that advertisers
who bought off those dodgy numbers." And, "Yes we count viewers differently
to YouTube, but our way is better."

For some reason, advertisers put  up with that!



Adam

On Tue, Jan 1, 2019 at 3:31 PM 'Bob Jersey' via TVorNotTV <
tvornottv@googlegroups.com> wrote:

>
> The ratings service still hasn't reached the levels of nonlinear
> measurement the network seeks, apparently.
>
> Variety
> 
> (link)
>
> B
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "TVorNotTV" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to tvornottv+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"TVorNotTV" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to tvornottv+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [TV orNotTV] MSNBC: Good News

[PGage]

Three things: 1) the print journalists do not proffer their opinions, they
explain the details of the day’s events. They are basically beat reporters,
and they know the background. Often they correct or nuance the opinion of
the host 2) there is always details that have to be cut from the word limit
if a story. Often a reporter will say something like “it didn’t make the
story, but...”  3) in a more perfect world, TV news departments would have
lots of reporters on the beat, working legal, financial, international,
organized crime etc aspects of the story. We don’t live in that more
perfect world. But using beat reporters from NYT, WaPo, Axios, AP etc
allows MSNBC to approximate that.

Again, I am not saying it’s perfect - it ain’t. I am saying MSNBC is the
best source of for-profit news and context on television, and its recent
ratings success is justified. Those who dismiss it as nothing but a liberal
version of FN propaganda or bread and circus CNN melodrama have not been
paying attention in recent years.

On Tue, Jan 1, 2019 at 9:38 AM Kevin M.  wrote:

> Not to scoff, but what is the merit of print journalists appearing on TV
> to discuss the day’s events as part of a panel of pundits? If they have
> facts to report that didn’t make their print deadline, there is substance
> there, but their opinion of facts isn’t newsworthy (at least no more or
> less so than all the other talking heads I try to ignore), and in most
> cases it isn’t even interesting. They aren’t the ones who make news, merely
> report it (or purport to). Proffering opinions to Rachel Maddow is the last
> thing a journalist ought to be doing, especially in 2019.
>
> On Tue, Jan 1, 2019 at 11:08 AM PGage  wrote:
>
>> https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2018/12/31/msnbc-is-surging/
>>
>> I know many here (e.g., Kevin) will scoff, but in the Age of Trump I find
>> that MSNBC has been the platform for some of the best news accessible on
>> television (and I get most of my news from papers and magazines). Yes, it
>> is still more opinion-heavy and ideologically driven than I would prefer,
>> but it is also where, on a daily basis, many of the top newspaper and
>> online journalists come to discuss stories published that day (and often to
>> be published the next day). Most of the time, both the hosts and the guests
>> are impressively knowledagble, and the guests are able and willing to push
>> back on any narrative the host might be trying to impose. And, as the
>> linked article explains, MSNBC almost never has one of the clowns from the
>> WH on to do their circus act, so viewers are spared both the butt kissing
>> from Fox, or the ritualized combat of CNN (though MSNBC is quite willing to
>> show the juicier clips from CNN and Fox when warranted).
>>
>> Rachel Madow has really distinguished herself over these last two years;
>> she is at her best when a story is breaking just as she is coming on air,
>> and she is able to think through its complexities, live, with the viewer.
>> She is not always right, but she is right far more than anyone has a right
>> to be, and she has a stable of legal, historical and policy experts that
>> she brings in after her explanatory segments and invites them to correct
>> her. She asks the best questions in all of journalism - not of the
>> prosecutorial, Tim Russert, gotcha variety, but of the kind I use to love
>> from smart students sitting in the front row, designed to shed light on
>> neglected dimensions and further and deepen the conversation. I would also
>> highlight Brian Williams show, at 8:00 pm PT (the last three shows are
>> repeated out West) which is both a great recap of the days news, and often
>> where newspaper reporters come to discuss stories which have just been
>> posted online for the next day’s paper. But I also give high marks to day
>> time anchors like Nicole Wallace and Katy Tur (though I dont get to see
>> them as often).
>>
>> Part of what has enriched MSNBC during the Trump Occupation has been its
>> decision to open its doors to Never-Trumpers and other refugees from the
>> Republican Party. Not only does this add credibility, eloquence and
>> expertise to the overall critique of Trump (former Republican strategies
>> Steve Schmidt will go down as the Poet Laureate of the Trump Resistance),
>> but it brings a welcome balance to their overall coverage. Bill Kristol and
>> Jennifer Rubin are still very conservative, and while they may be coming to
>> MSNBC to bash Trump, they stay to articulate their new-con, pro-market,
>> anti-progressive agenda (which is fair enough). I would not be surprised if
>> one of the top three phrases in any foreign policy panel on MSNBC over the
>> last two years is literally something like “Eight years of Obama leading
>> from behind was bad enough, but...”, while discussions of the health care
>> debate on MSNBC are often peppered with “ACA is deeply flawed, but what
>> Trump is doing is even worse” I will be interested to see if th

Re: [TV orNotTV] MSNBC: Good News

[Kevin M.]

Not to scoff, but what is the merit of print journalists appearing on TV to
discuss the day’s events as part of a panel of pundits? If they have facts
to report that didn’t make their print deadline, there is substance there,
but their opinion of facts isn’t newsworthy (at least no more or less so
than all the other talking heads I try to ignore), and in most cases it
isn’t even interesting. They aren’t the ones who make news, merely report
it (or purport to). Proffering opinions to Rachel Maddow is the last thing
a journalist ought to be doing, especially in 2019.

On Tue, Jan 1, 2019 at 11:08 AM PGage  wrote:

> https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2018/12/31/msnbc-is-surging/
>
> I know many here (e.g., Kevin) will scoff, but in the Age of Trump I find
> that MSNBC has been the platform for some of the best news accessible on
> television (and I get most of my news from papers and magazines). Yes, it
> is still more opinion-heavy and ideologically driven than I would prefer,
> but it is also where, on a daily basis, many of the top newspaper and
> online journalists come to discuss stories published that day (and often to
> be published the next day). Most of the time, both the hosts and the guests
> are impressively knowledagble, and the guests are able and willing to push
> back on any narrative the host might be trying to impose. And, as the
> linked article explains, MSNBC almost never has one of the clowns from the
> WH on to do their circus act, so viewers are spared both the butt kissing
> from Fox, or the ritualized combat of CNN (though MSNBC is quite willing to
> show the juicier clips from CNN and Fox when warranted).
>
> Rachel Madow has really distinguished herself over these last two years;
> she is at her best when a story is breaking just as she is coming on air,
> and she is able to think through its complexities, live, with the viewer.
> She is not always right, but she is right far more than anyone has a right
> to be, and she has a stable of legal, historical and policy experts that
> she brings in after her explanatory segments and invites them to correct
> her. She asks the best questions in all of journalism - not of the
> prosecutorial, Tim Russert, gotcha variety, but of the kind I use to love
> from smart students sitting in the front row, designed to shed light on
> neglected dimensions and further and deepen the conversation. I would also
> highlight Brian Williams show, at 8:00 pm PT (the last three shows are
> repeated out West) which is both a great recap of the days news, and often
> where newspaper reporters come to discuss stories which have just been
> posted online for the next day’s paper. But I also give high marks to day
> time anchors like Nicole Wallace and Katy Tur (though I dont get to see
> them as often).
>
> Part of what has enriched MSNBC during the Trump Occupation has been its
> decision to open its doors to Never-Trumpers and other refugees from the
> Republican Party. Not only does this add credibility, eloquence and
> expertise to the overall critique of Trump (former Republican strategies
> Steve Schmidt will go down as the Poet Laureate of the Trump Resistance),
> but it brings a welcome balance to their overall coverage. Bill Kristol and
> Jennifer Rubin are still very conservative, and while they may be coming to
> MSNBC to bash Trump, they stay to articulate their new-con, pro-market,
> anti-progressive agenda (which is fair enough). I would not be surprised if
> one of the top three phrases in any foreign policy panel on MSNBC over the
> last two years is literally something like “Eight years of Obama leading
> from behind was bad enough, but...”, while discussions of the health care
> debate on MSNBC are often peppered with “ACA is deeply flawed, but what
> Trump is doing is even worse” I will be interested to see if these
> traditional Republican voices stick around once the long Trump night is
> over.
>
> Yes - weekends at MSNBC are a lot more reminiscent of the pre-Trump
> liberal echo chamber (though it does at least provide a forum for POCs
> (“Pundits of Color”) to get more attention than they otherwise would, some
> of whom have important things to say. And Morning Joe is still a surreal
> shit show that SNL is incapable of exaggerating. But I encourage those who
> have been disdaining MSNBC based on its aroma in the post Bush v Gore era
> to sample it again. It is far from perfect, but I challenge anyone to cite
> a better TV source of news not PBS.
>
>
>
>
> --
> Sent from Gmail Mobile
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "TVorNotTV" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to tvornottv+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
-- 
Kevin M. (RPCV)

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"TVorNotTV" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and sto

[TV orNotTV] MSNBC: Good News

[PGage]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2018/12/31/msnbc-is-surging/

I know many here (e.g., Kevin) will scoff, but in the Age of Trump I find
that MSNBC has been the platform for some of the best news accessible on
television (and I get most of my news from papers and magazines). Yes, it
is still more opinion-heavy and ideologically driven than I would prefer,
but it is also where, on a daily basis, many of the top newspaper and
online journalists come to discuss stories published that day (and often to
be published the next day). Most of the time, both the hosts and the guests
are impressively knowledagble, and the guests are able and willing to push
back on any narrative the host might be trying to impose. And, as the
linked article explains, MSNBC almost never has one of the clowns from the
WH on to do their circus act, so viewers are spared both the butt kissing
from Fox, or the ritualized combat of CNN (though MSNBC is quite willing to
show the juicier clips from CNN and Fox when warranted).

Rachel Madow has really distinguished herself over these last two years;
she is at her best when a story is breaking just as she is coming on air,
and she is able to think through its complexities, live, with the viewer.
She is not always right, but she is right far more than anyone has a right
to be, and she has a stable of legal, historical and policy experts that
she brings in after her explanatory segments and invites them to correct
her. She asks the best questions in all of journalism - not of the
prosecutorial, Tim Russert, gotcha variety, but of the kind I use to love
from smart students sitting in the front row, designed to shed light on
neglected dimensions and further and deepen the conversation. I would also
highlight Brian Williams show, at 8:00 pm PT (the last three shows are
repeated out West) which is both a great recap of the days news, and often
where newspaper reporters come to discuss stories which have just been
posted online for the next day’s paper. But I also give high marks to day
time anchors like Nicole Wallace and Katy Tur (though I dont get to see
them as often).

Part of what has enriched MSNBC during the Trump Occupation has been its
decision to open its doors to Never-Trumpers and other refugees from the
Republican Party. Not only does this add credibility, eloquence and
expertise to the overall critique of Trump (former Republican strategies
Steve Schmidt will go down as the Poet Laureate of the Trump Resistance),
but it brings a welcome balance to their overall coverage. Bill Kristol and
Jennifer Rubin are still very conservative, and while they may be coming to
MSNBC to bash Trump, they stay to articulate their new-con, pro-market,
anti-progressive agenda (which is fair enough). I would not be surprised if
one of the top three phrases in any foreign policy panel on MSNBC over the
last two years is literally something like “Eight years of Obama leading
from behind was bad enough, but...”, while discussions of the health care
debate on MSNBC are often peppered with “ACA is deeply flawed, but what
Trump is doing is even worse” I will be interested to see if these
traditional Republican voices stick around once the long Trump night is
over.

Yes - weekends at MSNBC are a lot more reminiscent of the pre-Trump liberal
echo chamber (though it does at least provide a forum for POCs (“Pundits of
Color”) to get more attention than they otherwise would, some of whom have
important things to say. And Morning Joe is still a surreal shit show that
SNL is incapable of exaggerating. But I encourage those who have been
disdaining MSNBC based on its aroma in the post Bush v Gore era to sample
it again. It is far from perfect, but I challenge anyone to cite a better
TV source of news not PBS.




-- 
Sent from Gmail Mobile

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"TVorNotTV" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to tvornottv+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [TV orNotTV] Louis CK thinks he’s served his time

[PGage]

Atlantic think pieces are increasingly tiresome, but this one by Megan
Garber gets at what I was trying to express yesterday.

https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2018/12/louis-ck-leaked-tape/579220/

“But while offense, in that sense, has always been an element of C.K.’s
comedy—offense as a means of inflicting discomfort, and thus, the promise
went, of illuminating awkward realities—offense, now, is all there is. The
layer of alleged truth-telling is entirely missing from the new material.
C.K.’s new set, according to its leaked version, doesn’t merely punch down;
it stomps, pettily, to the bottom. None of it is smart or brave; it is
simply cruel. And yet it tries to justify itself by suggesting that C.K.
himself has been the recipient of cruelty.”

On Mon, Dec 31, 2018 at 2:33 PM PGage  wrote:

> He strikes again.
>
> I have a high tolerance for comics saying offensive things as part of
> their act, and these days more than ever I think we need to safeguard that.
> But as Dan Rather notes in the link, I think mean-spirited attacks on
> children who survive mass shootings is one of the places we are going to
> have to draw the line.
>
> But something else is disturbing me here too; I admired a lot of the more
> uncomfortable aspects of his FX show, which I took to be a ruthlessly
> honest exploration of his own deep flaws. But now it seems it was just his
> way of indulging his misanthropic and creepy inclination. What s disturbing
> is that I did not detect that at first. I don’t want to conclude from this
> that we should assume comics really mean the things they joke about, and
> that we should hold them accountable accordingly. But...
>
>
> https://www.newsandguts.com/video/louis-c-k-returns-to-standup-promptly-finds-himself-in-hot-water-again/
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 8:41 PM Kevin M.  wrote:
>
>> Louis CK did another late night set at the Comedy Cellar last night
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 4, 2018 at 4:38 PM Tom Wolper  wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 1:03 AM Steve Timko 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 As others have said, there is no easy answer. I think Louis CK should
 be able to rehabilitate himself, but if this is a return and not just
 testing the waters it may be too quick. People ripped on him for doing a
 routine and not mentioning the allegations. If he had done a routine and
 mentioned the allegations people would accuse him of being insensitive.

>>>
>>> Katie Kilkenny talked to Noam Dworman, the owner of the Comedy Cellar,
>>> last week for The Hollywood Reporter. She asked Dworman the right questions
>>> about Louis and the circumstances of his appearance at the club and he gave
>>> some really thoughtful answers.
>>>
>>>
>>> https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/comedy-cellar-owner-discusses-surprise-louis-ck-performance-1138109
>>>
>>> --
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>> Groups "TVorNotTV" group.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
>>> an email to tvornottv+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>>
>> --
>> Kevin M. (RPCV)
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "TVorNotTV" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to tvornottv+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>
> --
> Sent from Gmail Mobile
>
-- 
Sent from Gmail Mobile

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"TVorNotTV" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to tvornottv+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[TV orNotTV] New channels, dropped channels on your cable or satellite?

['Bob Jersey' via TVorNotTV]

After they inexplicably got moved to "full basic" a few years ago, the 
C-SPANs are now available to "economy basic" users such as moi, said 
Service Electric. (Two others that a brochure postally sent me a few weeks 
ago said would also be added, so far haven't.)

More chances to see Combover before they finalize an impeachment case.

So what have any of you gained or lost as of Jan 1st?

B

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"TVorNotTV" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to tvornottv+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[TV orNotTV] Re: Carriage Wars: Tribune vs Charter

['Bob Jersey' via TVorNotTV]

Moi, Monday (12/31):
>
>
> A midnight deadline looms for the multi-station owner and the "Spectrum" 
> cabler to renew their deal, before it blacks out things like NFL playoffs 
> in some areas... Bloomberg via Inland Valley Daily Bulletin 
> 
>  
> (link)  Verizon Fios and The Mouse narrowly averted a similar scenario...
>
>
> Not over yet... current deal extended, but only to tomorrow (1/2)...

Variety 

 
(link)

B

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"TVorNotTV" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to tvornottv+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[TV orNotTV] CBS, Nielsen fail to reach new deal

['Bob Jersey' via TVorNotTV]

The ratings service still hasn't reached the levels of nonlinear 
measurement the network seeks, apparently.

Variety 

 
(link)

B

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"TVorNotTV" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to tvornottv+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.