The departure of Keith Olbermann from MSNBC is consistent with the trend towards moderation which I have been observing on the three cable news networks which I regularly watch - CNN, MSNBC, and FOX. This has been going on for some months, but it accelerated, and understandably so, after the Tucson tragedy. Polarizing and unbalanced analysis is no longer fashionable nor entertaining. And in this respect, few commentators were as polarizing as Keith Olbermann. One should revisit his rant against Senator Scott Brown if evidence of this is necessary.
Take CNN. During the last Presidential election it was crystal clear who the CNN commentators were supporting. They were fully behind President Obama and the Democratic ticket. More recently, however, the tone at CNN has changed. They are making a far greater effort to provide balanced coverage of American politics. In this they are led in particular by John King and Anderson Cooper, two persons who I have always admired at CNN. Witness for example Anderson Cooper's grilling of Rep Steve Cohen who recently compared the GOP's opposition to health care with the Nazi's "big lie" tactics. Cooper was unrelenting in his tearing apart of Cohen's pathetic efforts to explain himself for his use of such violent and polarizing rhetoric, noting that this was not the first time Cohen has engaged in such theater, while at the same time decrying the lack of civility in public discourse.
Then there is FOX, a network which many people consider the most unbalanced of the three. Funnily enough, when I question some of those who strongly hold this view they admit that they do not subscribe to FOX and never watch it. Their views however are shaped by stories they read about FOX and perhaps by the efforts, long ago abandoned by the WH, to isolate and marginalize FOX. I watch some programming on FOX, depending on the show time. I usually catch some of Bill O'Reilly, Hannity and Greta Van Susteren, rarely Glenn Beck. The thing about FOX is yes, they are a conservative/Republican news voice, but not exclusively so. They regularly have liberal and opposing views expressed, either by regular contributors or "one of" interviews. One can note Juan Williams, Democrat Bob Beckel, Alan Colmes and others among this group. They have Charles Krauthammer, who is, in my opinion, one of the smartest political analysts around. They also have experienced news people like Brit Hume and Chris Wallace. That FOX is losing its image as a crazy, marginal, illegitimate news network is becoming evident by the increased willingness of liberal favourites like Jon Stewart and Whoopi Goldberg to appear on FOX, and the impending interview of President Obama by Bill O'Reilly. FOX is becoming more mainstream, as is CNN. It however is moving from the right to a more middle point, with CNN moving from the left.
Then there is MSNBC. It has the most moving yet to do. As far as I can tell there are simply no alternative views expressed on MSNBC. Its motto is that it "leans forward"; by that I take it that it sees its mandate as being the progressive voice on television. That is fine if that is the role it wants to play; but it cannot have any pretense of balance. It also has to face the fact that ideological based shows generally are only preaching to the converted. Few others are watching. And with the American base moving to a more conservative position (as I believe President Obama himself is doing), the numbers of the converted for MSNBC are diminishing. Perhaps with a new owner and the departure of Olbermann, MSNBC will revisit what it wants to be and where it wants to go. It is after all a "for profit" commercial entity, and if the profits are diminishing, then the script will have to change. It will be interesting to watch MSNBC to see what happens, post Keith.
Sunday, January 23, 2011
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
from wikipedia re Senator Scott Brown: One week before the January special election, a controversy arose over a Coakley approved television ad. The ad referenced the conscientious objector amendment Brown had sponsored for inclusion in a 2005 proposed state measure on patients' rights.[42] This amendment would have allowed individual healthcare workers and hospitals to refuse to provide emergency contraceptive care to rape victims if they objected due to a religious belief."
ReplyDeleteIs he freakin' kidding? How would HE like to carry some rapist pervert's kid for nine months?
Who cares if Olbermann "ranted?"
The real question is: "Did he speak the truth or not?"
Who cares if Olbermann "ranted?"
ReplyDeleteThe real question is: "Did he speak the truth or not?"
Gosh, and here's me thinking that you're all about civility, Marnie.
LOL Okay, JDM, that's fair. And, I'm flattered at how closely you've been payin attention. lol
ReplyDeleteOf course, civility matters. But not at the expense of the truth.
Conversely, it is most often civility that makes it possible for others to HEAR the truth we're trying to convey.
And, rudeness is often an indication that the source of it has run out of reasonable argument.
cheers,
Have a nice week.