Network News

It's a little weird to be posting a video that features me as a guest on Washington Journal (not the least of which is that it feels really creepy to be writing headlines about myself), but here goes: On the whole, I'm happy with my segment. (Except for the part where I missed it that a caller said he was reading the Drudge Report to find out what was going on. Arggh. I missed a real opportunity to educate him.) You can see Parts 2 and 3 here. (Thanks, Heather!)

My favorite part is when I call Glenn Beck "a nut, we all know he's a nut".

Among the other issues addressed: Netroots "Will You Still Love Me Tomorrow" Syndrome; healthcare reform; network news "analysts," and much more. Enjoy!

And as I mention in the closing segment, I was interested to note that the Republican and Democratic callers all expressed similar concerns.



You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!
DOWNLOADS: (776)
Download WMV Download Quicktime
PLAYS: (1418)
Play WMV Play Quicktime

You know how when someone says, "Now, I'm not trying to be a jerk, but ...", you can be certain that what will follow is them being a jerk. Same with Bill O'Reilly last night in his Talking Points Memo segment: He declares that he's "not gloating, just reporting" the fact that Fox News is knocking the socks off its cable competition in the ratings wars, but then of course proceeds to gloat by claiming that Fox's big draw is its "fair and balanced" approach:

So why is this happening? Well, a major reason is the health care debate. While the other network news broadcasts downplay the dissent and promote the government takeover of the health care industry, FOX News highlights the intense debate. When we cover the town hall meetings, we don't describe the protesters as loons. We don't denigrate people who disagree with President Obama. That's the big difference between FOX News and all the others.

Actually, Fox News does more than just "highlight" the intense debate: It outright foments it, particularly in spreading such bogus claims as the notion that health-care reform means "euthanasia" for senior citizens. That is, Fox has been deliberately injecting irrational fears into the debate and stirring up paranoia and anger.

Now, some liberals will say we intentionally glorify the protesters. That doesn't happen here. We've said there's no doubt some of the dissent is organized by people who dislike President Obama. That's a fact, and we've reported it.

That may be so at The Factor -- though in fact O'Reilly has openly pandered to the claim that universal health care will mean discarding the elderly, did so later in the same broadcast -- but it is certainly not true elsewhere at Fox.

Moreover, nowhere at Fox (or anywhere else, for that matter) has there been any reportage about the empowerment of right-wing radicals that's become part of the whole "tea party" scene.

"The Factor" also gives voice to both sides, something you will never get on NBC News. So, fair-minded Americans know our reporting is honest, while much of the other TV news media is simply in the tank for the president.

Now you'd think that liberal Americans would flock to hear their side propped up, but that's clearly not happening. For libs, conservatives and independents alike, there's really no choice. They have to watch us if they want to know what's going on. And they are in record numbers.

Actually, a more logical explanation is that liberals don't need to hear their side propped up the way conservatives do -- they know what's right and what's wrong in this debate. And there may indeed be more of them watching Fox News because they also know that this is the wellspring of the opposition -- the place where people are getting ginned up and angry enough to throw up anything that might stick as a roadblock to reform. It's important to know what's being thrown up next.

So yes, we do need to watch Fox to know what's going on -- but not the way O'Reilly thinks.


TOPICS Newstalgia

A Critique Of The Evening News Shows - 1974

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!
DOWNLOADS: 126
WMV
PLAYS: 22

tv_20news_76dd8.jpg
("Same as It Ever Was . . . .Same As It Ever Was")

Believe me, I'm not singling out 1974 as a focal point for things gone wrong. But with all due fairness, most indications point to this being around the time of the Great National Nervous Breakdown and the long painful assessment of "where did we go wrong?". Call it Navel Gazing, call it Overwhelming Guilt, America was truly bothered by a lot of things - and Television News was viewed as a biggest culprit.

The problem then, as is the problem now with Mainstream News, particularly with Network News, is getting any useful information out of the half-hour format that's been the standard since the inception of Television News in the early 1950's. The problems were wide and varied, from advertising influence to the nature of Television being a visual medium and some news stories just weren't visual.

It hasn't changed and, if anything has become less and less relevant over the years as news has become more focused on entertainment, rather than a place of hard (and useful) information.

In this broadcast, again part of the National Town Meeting series, features New York Times Correspondent Harrison Salisbury, Journalist David Halberstam, former FCC Chairman Nicholas Johnson and former head of CBS News Sig Mickelson from November 3, 1974. The audience consists of Yale University students (where the Town Hall was held) who ask a number of pointed questions.

Bruce Burke (Student): “I kind of wonder about the whole notion of the Fairness Doctrine. As I understand it, the Fairness Doctrine tends to apply to hard news broadcasts . And it seems to me that, while the Fairness Doctrine to apply to Editorial type content would in fact be a wise thing, considering the immediacy of the impact and the availability to other speakers outside those of the Network organizations. It seems to me questionable for the various networks to be monitored, by either private organizations or others as to the fairness content of their hard news broadcasts. I was wondering what the speakers would think about the abolition of the Fairness Doctrine as it concerns hard news.

Sig Michelson: “I think the Fairness Doctrine is about as required for the human being as a tail, which we long since got rid of when we quit living in trees. I think as long as our broadcasting is operated on the basis of a trusteeship principle which was written into the Federal Radio Act back of 1927 and under the Federal Communications Act of 1934, that the licensing process in of itself is quite adequate to keep a reasonable degree of fairness as long as the broadcaster is a trustee of the public interest. On the other hand, I think it’s a very dangerous commodity as Mister Whitehead tried to use it in his speech out in Indianapolis in 1973 when he suggested that this was a wedge, a weapon the local stations could use to force the networks to knuckle down with their news broadcasting. I think it’s a very dangerous weapon and I would like to see it eliminated, and I’d like to see us go back to where we were before 1949, and operate on the Trusteeship Principle and maintain our fairness on that basis.

Bear in mind that this is before the wave of deregulation during the Reagan years gutted the FCC, converted entire networks into propaganda outlets, turned the Fairness Doctrine into a worthless piece of paper,obliterated newspapers, dismantled Broadcast News Divisions, converted the Trusteeship Principle into a very bad joke and replaced much useful news with team coverage of celebrity rehabs.

In short, made anything you could use pretty much impossible to find.