On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 6:52 AM, Joe Coughlin <[email protected]> wrote: > Neutral's worse than having a point of view, I think. It gives rise to false > equivalency, the idea that there are two equally valid points to every > argument.
The problem I have with the way CNN claims neutrality is twofold. First, it assumes there are ONLY two points of view. Second, (as Joe pointed out), it assumes the two views have equal validity. During the primaries, many people tend to scoff at having a stage filled with a dozen or more different candidates, but not me. As we are stuck with a two party system, it is nice to see the difference between John McCain, Mike Huckabee, and ten of their fellow rivals. The world is nuanced and people are nuanced, too (the Republican party can contain both Meghan McCain and the Teabaggers, so there is wiggle room in there for sane differences of opinion). CNN fails to recognize nuance, and the problem lies in the lack of beat reporters and salaried experts in the newsroom. There should be a team of people in Atlanta devoted entirely to covering terrorism and its effects on a national and global society. There should be another team devoted to what is going in Congress, and yet another team dedicated to probing the decisions made by the Supreme Court. Instead, whenever news breaks in a given area, CNN dashes around to find some partisan pundit from the Whatever Center for Whogivesacrap to appear via satellite and be interviewed by an unprepared newsreader. It is the difference between covering the news and frantically chasing after the news. They'll spend millions of dollars to project a hiphop artist in the studio in 3D, but they won't find room in the budget to hire anybody with a freakin' brain. Correction: There are days when I watch AC360 when I see his frustration. I've seen him cut interviews short upon learning the "expert" has his or her head up his or her ass. Brian Williams also used to react that way back when he hosted the one hour newscast on MSNBC, even commenting "Well, that was a waste of time" or words to that effect. > And yet, that's part of what bothered many about the Stewart/Colbert rally. > Showing Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow in the same light as Glenn Beck > and Bill O'Reilly. Sorry, but they are. Their methodology may be different, but their contempt for the opposition is equally grandiose and displayed with equal vulgarity on screen. The vitriol they spew with snide commentaries and smirks to the camera are fine for a comedy show like Stewart and Colbert have, but these people are purported journalists. Throwing on-air temper tantrums is not what a journalist is supposed to do. As Dave pointed out, MSNBC refuses to concede partisanship, which actually makes the behavior of their hosts worse -- their hosts shouldn't take politics personally if they are to be taken seriously as a news gathering organization. > Do check out Bill Maher's New Rules closing about this. It was really well > done. All I've seen so far was Bill's kid-glove handling of O'Reilly. I look forward to the complete show podcast, assuming HBO doesn't screw it up like they did last week's show. -- 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 [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
