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 <[email protected]> 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. <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 [email protected]. >>> 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 [email protected]. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> > -- > 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 [email protected]. > 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 [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
