Media Note Anderson Cooper 360 Playing To Liberals, Ignore Playing To Conservatives
By Nicole Belle Monday Oct 12, 2009 2:00pm
(h/t Heather at VideoCafe)
Granted, it's hard to hear because the voices speak over each other, but the graphics are pretty clear: this ad for Anderson Cooper 360 was meant to claim that Anderson Cooper challenges the status quo and goes beyond partisan spin. Whether the ad is true or not is arguable, but the fact that it mentions both the right and the left is not.
Which makes this op-ed in Time Magazine by Michael Scherer that much more puzzling:
White House Communications Director Anita Dunn appeared Sunday morning on Howard Kurtz's CNN show Reliable Sources to discuss her comments in my TIME magazine story this week. She continued her criticism of Fox News[..].
The ironic part came later, during the commercial break. All morning, CNN has been intermittently running a promo for Anderson Cooper 360, a show that has long billed itself as a classic straight news program with an investigative front man who digs "beyond the headlines" with "many points of view, so you can make up your own mind." The new promo, by contrast, consists of a woman's voice, pitching Cooper's show as, essentially, a liberal alternative to Fox News: "I'm a lifelong Democrat," she says, "and that's why I watch Anderson Cooper." Hmmm. The voice goes on to say that Cooper is the person she can turn to hold "right wing" conservatives accountable. Cooper is not exactly aiming for the political middle ground here.
But then who is? MSNBC's Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow and Ed Schultz are committed liberals, increasingly focused on the dual project of holding President Obama to a liberal line and attacking his detractors. Fox News, on the other hand, is, well, Fox News. Dunn, on Kurtz's show, made a point of criticizing Fox News Sunday's Chris Wallace for "fact checking" an Obama administration official but not its other Republican guests. So it goes.
Interesting. So Scherer thinks that Cooper is playing to the left like those other "committed" liberals on MSNBC. And lemming-like, here comes Dan Abrams, tweeting from his new gig at Mediaite:
UPDATE to WH-Fox 'Gloves off' post: CNN promo calls Anderson Cooper left's answer to FNC.
The only problem? There's no there there. Cooper wasn't playing to the left, as Scherer was forced to acknowledge in an update:
CORRECTION: Ahh, the pitfalls of technology. In the post below, I wrote about an ad that kept running Sunday morning on CNN, which I watched in the background as I scribbled away at my office. Several times, I heard an ad for Anderson Cooper's show that included a woman's voice talking about being a "lifelong Democrat" and watching Cooper because he called out the "right wing." But that's not the whole story. I was told Monday by CNN that I only heard half the ad, which was dubbed in stereo. (Apparently my television is mono.) The other half of the ad had a male voice saying he was a Republican who turns to Anderson Cooper because he holds accountable "left wing politicians." The two voices are recorded to be talking over each other, reaffirming CNN's place in the center of the cable news spectrum. This makes my subsequent analysis largely wrong. Cooper was not signaling a shift to cater to a left-wing audience. He was signaling that he wanted both a left-wing and a right-wing audiences at the same time. The CNN dream of post-partisanship, in other words, is still alive.
Actually, Michael, your analysis is not largely wrong, but completely wrong. As polarized as this country is now (a fact for which I hold the media mostly accountable), it is not the desire of the entire country to get their news filtered through ideological lenses, confirming their pre-conceived notions. Fox unapologetically fills a niche for a select few, who cannot stand to have their ideas challenged. But MSNBC, despite shows with Maddow (the only self-professed liberal listed), Olbermann and Schultz does not cater to the left. If they did, would they fill 15 hours every week (the same as Maddow, Olbermann and Schultz put together) with Scarborough?
And for what its worth, I actually watch Maddow not for a liberal slant, but because she strives to actually present the news, not propaganda. But that seems to be a dying breed in your industry, doesn't it?
Login or Register to post comments.
The difference between Liberal and Conservative is pretty much the same as the difference between Fact and Fiction.
Just give me the honest and true facts, I don't need a translator.
I like Rachel, she is as good as there is, but it is still the Corporate Media.
Do not imagine that there are not prohibitions there. What will you not hear is the question.
MSNBC is part of NBC Universal, essentially an entertainment entity, which is a unit of GE, Forbes #1, and the largest defense contractor. They have a financial services unit.
I like to watch the Maddow show too and I don't think she's at all influenced by Corporate Media. She seems to be a show unto its own and doesn't take direction from anyone. By watching her, you don't have to hear both sides of an issue by checking in on Fox since you only get lies there. With Rachel, you get fair and balanced (i.e. the truth) as she explains what's really happening. Yes, she opinionates by since I respect her intellect I do want to know what she thinks on an issue and either agree or disagree with her - such as when she asked Alan Grayson three times if he should had used the word holocaust when he addressed the House about health care reform.
I remember when Air America first started and I was listening to Mike Papantonio on Ring of Fire who was going on and on about the Bill O'Reilly/Andrea Makris matter and he asked at that time that anyone who had ever worked for BOR to let Mike know of any sexual harassment encounters that they had endured with BOR and Mike would report about them on his next show. As I recall, when Ring of Fire came around the following week (and the week after that and after that), Mike did not mention this issue at all, and I can't help but believe that the 'Corporate Media', whether it was FOX or BOR's lawyers put the kibosh on Mike's idea. Fortunately, although Rachel doesn't go as far as Mike tried, she still appears to be giving us the truth with no holds barred.
First, you missed my central point entirely.
Second, I said I like Rachel, but I didn't say I watch her show. In fact I never watch TV, period. I only see occasional clips. I go through many dozens of links a day, sometimes hundreds, and that is my source of information.
I don't think I missed your point at all. And since you don't watch Rachel (you said you like her which made me believe that you watch her - sorry for that), I don't know how you can comment on her being controlled by Corporate Media. I am simply responding that she's not.
Show me where she says that GE is a criminal war profiteer exploiting the obscenely bloated war budget, or that their financial services unit is part of the massive financial fraud perpetrated on this country.
Or that they, along with the other too big to jail outfits have captured the government. Show me any of that and I will be astonished.
Rachel holds a PHD in Political Science, she is extremely articulate. But she is not super human.
My point is, it is what you will NOT hear that is the issue. Even she cannot supersede the fact, she works for one sub unit of a multi national conglomerate, the top one of Forbes' 500.
---
At Alternet, Amanda Marcotte here
Correct me if I’m wrong (maybe it’s my audio)….
I listened to this ad a few times. There are both a man and a woman speaking. One is a professed Dem, the other a Repub. Both listen to AC 360 because “whenever one of those *RIGHT* wing politicians plays with the facts…” (at 7 seconds)
Did they BOTH say “RIGHT WING POLITICIANS”?
It's at :23 in / :07 from the end.
I'll also add that the notion of being "dubbed in stereo" might be true - but it's not AT ALL an excuse for what was basically a very bad idea (or at the very least least sloppy, amateurish audio production / post) that was allowed to go all the way through the pipeline and to air.
Thanks here4 - probably my audio. I couldn't hear the difference.
the way it works is, if you have a mono television, the right and left channels are combined into the single mono speaker. There's no reason he shouldn't have heard both the man's and woman's voice. I know this both because I've had a mono TV in the past and just based on the way the electronics work.
If you think about it, it practically has to be this way or folks that have mono TVs would potentially miss half of the dialogue or sound on many shows.
It's a badly produced piece, or it's subtly trying to fish for "left leaning" audiences. The female's voice is louder, and the human ear picks up higher frequencies, and the blue of the democrat was superimposed on the red republican.
I can understand why some people might think that it's a right-bashing ad.
And now, a whole load of free publicity for AC. Yay.
It certainly sounds like it. The image on the screen at the time tells the other side of the story, so somebody operating under mono might get a nice bout of whiplash watching that ad.
CNN's re-recorded the ad, so there should be a touch less confusion on that angle. A vid is up at Mediaite:
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/cnn-alters-audio-a...
anymore. I don't know how she can stomach being part of it.
The corporate control of the media is best displayed by various shows covering the same exact story each and every day. Do we really need 3 different shows doing a segment on the same exact story? If you watched Hardball, I bet at least 9 times out of 10 you can expect to see Ed Schulz, Rachel Maddow, and Keith Olbermann cover the same exact topic. I only include these shows on MSNBC because I watch some of them. This pattern is true across all the cable news outlets.
Someone forgot to mention the O'Donnell Bimbos as not being anywhere near left or the center.
the Andrews Sisters?
Or Noron as the former is sometimes called.
You will not hear "bloated war industry budget & slave soldiers."
or "pay to play government."
or "media consolidation."
'shares rose sharply Monday after it raised its third-quarter profit outlook because of cost-cutting and lower prices for parts, as well as a lower tax rate.'
. . Reported net profit due to cost-cutting measures. . etc, etc.
Doesn't the truth still have a liberal bias? Colbert says it does. ;o}
AC is a pretty boy token. I can tell by the way he purses his lips.
/snark off
Either it is liberally biased or the image is being transmitted in 2 dimensions and my computer screen only displays one dimesion.
Do they even make mono TVs anymore? Does this guy still listen to his music via 8-track? Sorry, that bit made me laugh a lot because I'm a tech geek. (However, if a person is an audiophile, she might prefer mono.)
On a more serious note, I would prefer for my news to have as little bias or opinion as possible. I think Ms. Maddow's program does this at times, but I would just like less opinion altogether with my news. I can use my own mental faculties to form my own opinions on issues; I don't need the people on the idiot box for that.
Thank goodness for the internet, or I might never actually get any real news.
When did cooper or anyone else during the last eight years ever hold a retards feet to the fire or call the liar a liar?
Don't worry they are all bought and paid for by their owners.
republicanism is a mental illness!
Sounds as credible as Campbell Brown's bullshit claim of "no bias, no bull"---which she eventually dropped. How laughable and absurd. These dopes mistake a thin veneer of respectability for real substance. Like we're really fooled by their lying and manipulation.
But I guess some of the sheeple that watch them are.
deserved the NPP more than Obama (on today's radio program)!!
Oh Sean, you petty, ignorant man.
{ That was very irresponsible of you to post. That's someones private business. Lets leave that up to them. SiteMonitor}
I will grant that Maddow sometimes has people w/opposing points of view on her show but she does not 'present the news' -- she is a commentator framing every segment with her viewpoint.
When Fox "News" stops calling themselves "News" then we'll talk.
If a network or news show reports the facts and tells the truth then they are leftist and liberal , that's what it amounts to .Truly the facts and the truth are the enemy of the Repugs and of the right . Hitler's Propaganda minister Goebbels : " the truth is the enemy of the state " and "repeat a lie often enough and the lie becomes the truth " . CNN has become a joke , strictly a ratings and commercial endeavor , I don't waste my time anymore .
It wasn't that long ago the Right Wingers were calling FOX "Liberal Media". Here's why! Any "news" story that requires an IQ higher than 10 to understand it is "LIBERAL". As long as FOX does nothing but promote HATE, BIAS, ANTI-American ranting, War mongering, POOR bashing and KILLING, they will get along and pull in those whose IQ hits the mark.
It's unfortunate that 25% of our population fits that mark. But those are the ones who have called for the elimination of PUBLIC SCHOOLS while systematically defunding EDUCATION and DUMBING DOWN THE CURRICULUM and STOMPING FOR VOUCHERS so they could control what their "kids" were allowed to learn. That's how we got so many of the minus-10s who still believe the earth is flat and only a few thousand years old and that men and dinosaurs were playmates. REALLY, if PALIN says it then it HAS TO BE!
Login or Register to post comments.