I will let Kevin have the last word on our back and forth, as I think we have both made our points on this, and not for the first time here, except to post and comment on the link to Vanessa Otero’s helpful and I think now famous chart on media bias (she is now up to version 4.0) that is fairly ubiquitous, at least on my social media feed, periodically: https://www.adfontesmedia.com/
She has two dimensions: Quality (62 to 0) and Bias (-42, Liberal to +42, Conservative). The AP is tied for #1 place both in terms of quality (62) and Bias (0). The AP happens to be my go to News App to check in the morning and throughout the day on my phone - but it earns that sweet Bias in rating in part, I think, because it is light on analysis and context. I read most of the other news sources that cluster in her First Tier, “Green” rectangle, that she classifies as “News”, both those that shade left and shade right. I think that is a fair working definition of mainstream news sites that provide reliable information. Her second Tier sites are what she called Fair Interpretation of News - Yellow. This includes MSNBC and CNN (MSNBC is slightly higher in quality, 34 vs 32, and significantly more biased, -19 vs -6). Fox News is right on the border between the Yellow and third Tier Red zone, which she describes as “Nonsense Damaging to Public Discourse” - FN’s numbers are 20 and +27. This captures pretty well my own experience with news sources. MSNBC should not be thought of as a liberal mirror of FN - it is significantly higher in quality and less ideologically biased. It is about equivalent on these two dimensions with CNN, though I much prefer MSNBC to CNN for stylistic reasons not addressed by Otero (less bombastic arguing and more quiet conversation). Neither of the two better cable news outlets should be relied upon as top tier sources of news. The three commercial networks are all in the top, green tier, all tied with a quality rating of 57 (NBC had a very light liberal bias score of -3, CBS a slight conservative bias score of +4, and ABC a 0 bias score). If you are only going to consume 30 minutes of TV News, you are better off getting your news from NBC (or CBS or ABC, not much difference) than from MSNBC (I am not going to count anything on the Today Show). It would be interesting if she gave scores for specific programs on that Cable News shows - I suspect Shepherd Smith, Brian Williams and Anderson Cooper have better ratings on both quality and bias than the averages for their respective networks. As a former college professor I periodically have old students ask me for advice on where to get their news. For casual news consumers, my response typically is to read the AP feed and the NYT at least once a day (I subscribe to the latter; for those who dont want to invest, I would rotate the WaPost and LAT to rely on free access throughout the month) and then watch NewsHour or one of the evening newscasts at least every other day (and whenever they notice a big story in the wind). I advise against watching any cable news for those who only consumer small to medium doses of news, because the ratio of news to interpretation is so thin it is easy to get an incomplete and biased sample of actual news. For those who consumer more than moderate amounts of news though, and are looking not just for a third and fourth version of the same information they have already seen, but want some deeper background and context, I think the two higher quality (or maybe, better, less lower quality) cable news outlets are useful, and as I have aid, I prefer MSNBC. On Tue, Jan 1, 2019 at 12:41 PM Kevin M. <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. > -- 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.
