On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 12:06 PM, Joe Hass <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 9:42 AM, Kevin M. <[email protected]> wrote: >> 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. >> >> (snip) >> >> 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. > > Indeed, this is where I battle with my wife. She believes that > journalism allows for absolutely no analysis, where I believe that's > one of the areas when good journalism shines brightest. But there's > only so many times you can call out James Carville or Ed Rollins > before I think, "Okay, so exactly how are you giving me real analysis > when it's the same 30 retread voices over and over again?"
There are countless media consultants and media workshops teaching people how to get their message across in the media. The discussions with experts tend to become ritualized and devoid of content. And people who know lots of content may not come across well on TV or may just be uncomfortable and may decide not to appear or may not be asked back after an appearance. For political consultants like Carville and Rollins, TV appearances are like calling cards as they help to drum up business. Every viewer could be a potential candidate or campaign manager and imprudent answers could cost them business. For some pundits, their foundation jobs may need a certain number of appearances to continue the employment (though I will admit no knowledge of whether that is the case). As easy as it is to say that CNN should drop their go-to list of analysts, any new analysts they get will soon enough hire media consultants to help their appearances and in due time they will resemble those they replaced. A lot of what analysts are asked to do is to determine the consequences of current decisions or pending decisions: will the healthcare plan create more jobs or cost jobs? Would a tax on soda lower the obesity rate? How will state cuts in education funding affect students graduating three years from now? The easiest answers are content-free, cautiously predicting one way while hedging, or being a hack and spouting the party/foundation ideological line without going into particulars. -- 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
