I noticed a lot of citations of Morning Joe and Hannity, below, as evidence of outrage at Lowery. I'm still in D.C., and this morning I cut on the TV to see what the talking heads were saying. In short order, I was treated to the morning show people over at Fox replaying a Joe Biden joke in slow motion and attempting to read Barack Obama's body language, and Scarborough asking Andrea Mitchell if Obama was more likely to listen to career CIA professional or a "left-wing law professor from Berkeley."
Cable talk is alluring--much like Hostess cupcakes are alluring, but more like how gossip mags are alluring. I get caught up all the time. In fact, one of the reasons I don't have TV is because I was consuming too much of the stuff. A significant portion of these folks' livelihood is based on the threat of loony left-wingers at Berkeley, Upper West Side salon-holders, and Georgetown socialites. It's half journalism, and half drama class. In discussion, let's treat it as such. Also, I'll do my part and stop linking to the stuff.
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
Jackasses like Hannity and the gang almost kept me from saying anything. Getting lumped in with those morons is a horrible fate.
I cannot lay claim to a religious motivation, but all I can say is...
AMEN!
Its' pretty much the crack of television, right? I can't even watch any of the American "news" channels because I know I'm going to be outraged at something ridiculous they say, and for some reason to show them how disgusted I am I will continue to watch. I thought it was just a problem with me ;)
Re: the loony left-wingers, I especially love that anyone less than halfway to the right of moderate is branded as such. On the one hand you've gotta hand it to them, they do a great job creating that "us against the world" mentality that so often works in sports. Hoping that this year is the end of it working in politics though!
I love how Berkeley becomes the de facto crazy liberal threat for every conservative. Don't forget that John Yoo, author of the torture memos, was a law professor from Berkeley. For better or worse, there's quite a bit of ideological diversity at that school.
I've long thought if those fools were ignored their power would diminish. Glad to see someone else is down for the idea. F**K Joe Scarborough.
These shows are three hours long, so they have so much time to fill, but only have 15 minutes of interesting content or worthwhile guests. Scarborough's show reminds me of George Magazine where they tried to bring politics to a People Magazine crowd and throw in some Hollywood names.
Though when it comes to shallow political media, none of them will ever measure up to the Queen of all shallow, Maureen Dowd
The Republicans, God bless 'em, seem to have decided that Torture, of all things, is going to be their pet issue for the next few weeks. From Holder's confirmation to closing Gitmo, we're going to be hearing a lot more from the right about how the only thing keeping us safe at night is the CIA's God-given mandate to torture the shit out of some Afghani cab drivers. The Looney Left(tm) just doesn't understand! We don't torture because we like it. Not because it satisfies a primal and brutal desire to inflict pain on a fellow human being. We do it because it's the only way to find those Ticking Time Bombs. My God, it's almost like they don't even WATCH 24!
I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and assume they actually believe that garbage, and some of them are probably genuinely afraid that by eschewing waterboarding the country will be endangered. But I can't help but wonder if there are political calculations here as well. What if Obama is able to unequivicably end torture as a US policy, and four years later, we're all still alive?
Coates
While agree with your assessment of cable news, I respectfully disagree with how we should handle it. One thing that is indisputable is that no matter what kind of clowns these people are, they help to shape public opinion. And ignoring them will not change that nor make them change their ways.
Now of course we can't jump all over every single thing they say or thats all we would talk about every single day. However there are some stories that they move as a group that should and sometimes must be challenged. A site I like to visit a few times a week is the dailyhowler. The reason being is because take liberal and conservative journalists alike apart when they are full of shit. I think it was yesterday that they pointed out (again) that during the Gore/Bush election it wasn't really the conservative media who were throwing Gore under the bus, it was our supposedly liberal pundits who kept the focus on Gore's sighs during the debate or his supposed "I created the internet" comment. And the thing about it is that it worked. Instead of people focusing on how dumb Bush was, and make no mistake about it some if not most of his answers during those debates and comments during that election season could only be described as dumb, the country was steered by our media to focus on superfluous bullshit about Gore. Think about if we had blogs back then that could have pointed out how superficial this stuff was that was being discussed on CNN and helped to steer the discourse back to policy issues.
The cable shows and print media are inextricably linked now, not just because many times the company owning the cable network also owns print media outlets, but also because they feed off of each other. Now did the Lowery situation rise to the level of needing to be refuted by posting a video of Morning Joe? I don't think so because in the end Joe Lowery's legacy will survive any and all of these attacks. But fast forward back to when you posted the video of Joe Scarborough getting PWNED by Dr Brzizenski. Now as entertaining as that video was, it was also informative. And Dr B educated a lot of people who for years have been misinformed about what happened with Arafat and Clinton and Barack not just by the Scarboroughs of the world but also the NYTimes, the WSJ and other more "reputable" sources. In light of the fact that the I/P conflict has and will continue to affect our foreign policy I personally think that was a good and responsible thing to do. Who knows, maybe just maybe by doing so you turned a handful of people on to the fact that there was more to the story that never gets talked about in our MSM.
Another thing is the running torture memes flying around the cable shows that we SHOULD torture if there is a "ticking time bomb" situation. Today there was a poll out that says 58 percent of Americans surveyed said we should never torture. That is a majority of course but what does it say about the effect of these talking heads that now 40 or so percent of people in this country think its fine to torture in the "right situation". I don't believe they came to that mindset all on their own. And thats why at times it serves us all to expose situations on these shows where they are putting out bad information.
Don't forget that Barack Obama himself said that he would be leading by at least 2 more points if not for FoxNews. That wasn't a tongue in cheek remark, that was reality. The "Obama's a socialist" meme was pushed early and often on that network and eventually it got picked up by the other networks I suppose not wanting to "miss a scoop". And to this day there are average everyday people who aren't wingnuts or face painters who truly believe Obama might be a socialist because the newsfolks told them so and thats with a significant push back from the campaign and from a few Liberals/Progessives on Tee Vee like KO and Maddow.
IMHO if we start ignoring when these meme's get thrown around and pounded into the public at large's brains we risk falling right back into a situation where we allow the opposition to define us. It is what it is.
Sorry in advance for the long ass post.
turned off the network news after seeing Network when it came out in 1976.
Have never paid to watch TV unless you count renting a motel room.
Moved to a place with no TV reception back in 1999.
I mean no disrespect, but how does what bloggers do differ from these cable news personailty types? Blogs are just as gossip filled and do not go through all the fact checking cable news requires. I understand people dont have to read your blog but they also dont have to watch these media personalities either. How are you different than Joe or Hannity? You have your opinion and view and express it just the same.
I watched the inauguration on a jumbotron at the Mall. I did have the thought, "Why did I drive 4 hours to stand in the freezing cold for six hours to watch the inauguration on a big TV?" But one thing I realized afterward was that although I was watching it on a screen, I didn't have David Gergen or Mark Shields or whoever telling me what I was watching, which phrases and soundbites I should remember, and what I thought about it. Later, when I did see some of the TV commentary, it was surprising how it differed from my actual perceptions of the event.
buyproduct
As for blogs vs Joe or Hannity I will say this, one reason I value Coates' blog is because he opens it up for comments unlike some other blogs on this site. That is the essential difference. Hannity and Joe try to stifle any dissent thrown at them by yelling over folks and or name calling. Here dissent, even when wrong or wrong headed is presented in its entirety (unless its a troll) Therefore a reader of this blog is also treated to the opinions and or rebuttals of fellow commenters. Many times on a blog the commenters can act as more accurate and non partisan fact checkers than any "producer" on a talking head show. Even and especially if their fact checking refutes the author of the blog. Many commenters have no loyalty/financial link to the blog owner so if they are wrong they have no compunction about calling the blog owner on it. Now thats not to say that every person who has a blog acknowledges when they are wrong and makes corrections, but the comments stand for all to see and make up their own decision about who is right and who is wrong. The day that Scar or Hannity start allowing actual dissent to be presented in opposition to their bullshit without interruption, is the day you can draw an equivalency between them and this and many other blogs.
AMEN Mr. Coates. To finish your analogy, that crap does for your brain and rational thinking ability the same thing those Hostess cupcakes do to your body. Once a day is probably too much, unless you exercise heavily with a debate class or some similar intellectual exercise (maybe blogging?) to work off the added ignorance.
In addition to the points Sg made, bloggers (and use commentors) also have the luxury of choosing their topics and can avoid talking about things they just don't understand, don't care about or just don't want to discuss. TV folk pretty much have to cover the topics of the day whether they want to or not. Bloggers also have the luxury of self editing that someone on a live show does not.
And on this blog especially, Ta-Nehisi reads the comments , repsonds in thread, and even starts new posts based up them at times.
Half-journalism is being generous.
I've found that the best way to absorb cable-news meme is through comic mirrors like the Howler, the Daily Show or the invaluable Jason Linkins (formerly of Wonkette, now at HuffPo). The strength of character it takes to actually WATCH - that's true service.
sgw and Doug, I understand your points, but I have always felt that this blog was more like a thread on some forum where people engage in discussion. I find this blog to be different and was not talking about this blog in specific, but to bloggers in general like Sullivan, who have strong opinions, post about things they only have a superficial understanding of and do not allow comments. I am not trying to bash Sullivan here, but I dont see the difference between blogs like Sullivan's and media personalities like Hannity and Joe.
Bloggers can do that, too, of course.
Buyproduct, I can't argue with your example there. It depends upon the blog and the blogger's policy. Also depends upon if the commenters are bootlickers or have independent voices. Some are just echo chambers.
Joel, I would think it depends upon the show, I remember Michael Kinsley saying how tiring it was doing Crossfire because he had to defend the liberal position, even if it was something he didn't necessarily believe in. So topics were forced upon them. On other shows, hosts may have more control.
buyproduct
Notice that in a backhanded sort of way I agreed with you in my initial response to your post. There is definitely a reason I hover here instead of over at other blogs on this site. But to your point in general about blogs I think you have to take it case by case. There are definitely blogs on both the left and right that do not allow dissent. The difference is you have such a wider range of choices on the web than you do with cable networks. Other than CNN, FoxNews or MSNBC you really don't have many other choices other than some great shows on pbs/CSPAN but those are few and far in between.
For instance it would be GREAT if we could put this link into the comments section of a different blogger here at the Atlantic to show her the error in one of her recent posts.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/01/22/abject_ignorance/index.html
Dammit. Now I want cupcakes.
IMHO if we start ignoring when these meme's get thrown around and pounded into the public at large's brains we risk falling right back into a situation where we allow the opposition to define us. It is what it is.
But there's a line between responding to a meme with countering facts (e.g. the "Obama's inauguration, including security, costs more than Bush's inauguration not counting security" thing) and helping a little morning angst fest live on and on.
Later, when I did see some of the TV commentary, it was surprising how it differed from my actual perceptions of the event.
Very true. I found that just in the C-span coverage vs anyone else, even my trusty NPR (and they have an excuse to talk between speeches, since listening to people filing onto the stage isn't enlightening on radio).
Deborah
Perhaps you missed this in the second paragraph of my long ass post
I totally agree with you.
It's half journalism, and half drama class.
It's actually more like 90% WWE, and maybe 10% journalism.
If you actually went back to the past year from election season and watched what were actually considered "stories" you'd laugh:
- Obama's working white problem
- PUMA's(remember them?)
- Obama can't close the deal
And those are just the most obvious I could think of, im sure most of us could add a lot more. I seriously treat cable TV "news" talk shows like I do wrestling. It's scripted entertainment that has to continuously reinvent itself to remain relevant.
"- Obama's working white problem
- PUMA's(remember them?)
- Obama can't close the deal"
Only to be replaced by "Obama's moving to the David Broder-defined "center" and pissing off his base, insulting the netroots" etc., ad nauseum - unfortunately Glenn Greenwald didn't get the message, if you read his column in Salon today, despite his not getting to cook dinner for Barack like George Will's kitchen staff.
Morning Joe is more of a "reality show" like Real World than it is news. It's basically "what happens if you put a bunch of silly, narcissistic people together in the same room for hours on end?"
The scary thing about that show is that more often than not Pat Buchanan is the most cogent person on the set.
Here's a new cable talk cupcake flavor: "black is in." Thank you Larry King.
Yet another glorious example of saturated fat. Turn off the idiot boxes.