The Case For Liberals To Back Off MSNBC (Yes, that includes Chris Matthews)

We don't need our own Fox News.

This post is not going to address the well-known fact that Fox News enjoys its own version of the truth. I'm going to address only the idea of Fox News's hard political slant and why, if we are to be better, if we are to win the hearts and minds of the sane, we don't need our own version of it.

That is not to say MSNBC needs to be apolitical. It's not the CBS Nightly News. It's an infotainment channel. But if MSNBC is to remain a credible source of news, it needs to keep a truly "fair and balanced" mix of commentators, with panelists from both sides, interspersed with "straight" newscasting. We have Chris Matthews, who is a centrist at best, Dylan Ratigan, a populist, Ed Schultz, a primarily commentating liberal, Keith Olbermann, who does a mix of news and commentary, Rachel Maddow, a journalist in the truest sense of the word, and Tamron Hall and the daytime crew that sticks to "just the facts, ma'am" newscasting.

This is GOOD for us. If we were to have 24 hour 100% left-of-center commentary, we would be better than Fox News only in having the facts. It would drive away those who aren't looking for a political message in every sentence. It's a diverse line-up that not only gives people several points of view, but also retains a sense of credibility.

I have believed for some time that the place to go for strictly political programming, right and left, for public is the radio. In the mornings, you have Stephanie Miller and Bill Press. If you don't like MSNBC's daytime programming, listen to Thom Hartmann. At night, instead of catching the twenty-second Hardball rerun, listen to Malloy. On the weekends, instead of seeing a two-year old rerun of some prison show (which I hate), listen to Ring of Fire.

MSNBC doesn't need to go far left. It won't truly do so anyway, because it's a corporate-run channel. But I would posit that it's a great thing that MSNBC has a diverse cast of characters, one that does not simply tell people everything they want to hear in a 24/7 echo chamber format.

like CNN used to be before Ted Turner turned it over to Time Warner. I really don't want any political bias at all.

don't fall into the typical American cable news channels.

There's PBS's stuff, Bill Moyers who is sadly retiring, Frontline, Democracy Now!, *some* of NPR's stuff (I like All Things Considered, it seems pretty fair), and foreign channels like the BBC and al-Jazeera.

Foreign stuff in general seems to be more serious than American TV, dunno why. It's the same reason why I never watch CNBC's American broadcasts.

The "real deal" is out there, just not for general consumption on the TV in America. It's too bad.

fox then I see no problem. We need a place where we can watch the news without screaming at the TV every 2 seconds. My stomach couldn't take it - not having a place where we have a positive representation instead of constant hits.

Look at us on DU. We can't agree on LOTS of things. We value our ability to think independently and abhor "groupthink." We're the polar opposite of the devout RWINger.

Think about it...

especially when what they clearly do not know has been common knowledge among the general public for days.

So yeah, no one's holding a gun to anyone's head and saying "WATCH HARDBALL!"

Truth is I haven't had cable in 3 years, so my only exposure to Tweety these days is via Web clips and transcripts.

With Matthews, it's not so much a matter of his political leanings as the fact that he is an overpaid, overrated, unskilled idiot. Occasionally he manages to control the impulses I laid out in my subject line, but when he's in full bloom with those shortcomings, I see no reason to "back off."

art these days. MSNBC is almost exclusively commentary. It's not a news channel, really. News isn't hard to find, either. It's around in many places. Most people just ignore it, in favor of commentary on the news.

Personally, I want to know what happens, not to have it interpreted for me by some pundit. So, I simply ignore the commentary and dig for what is happening and figure it out for myself. That can be done in many places.

We must be our own filters. You can get the news in many places by simply filtering out all that is commentary and spending some time researching the actual news.

Blogs aren't news. MSNBC isn't news. Huffington Post certainly isn't news. This site is usually not news. But, the news, in its raw form, is out there. The front pages of newspapers like the NYT, the LA Times, and others are still pretty much unfiltered and uncommented information. The network and local news programs also provide the news, as do local newspapers.

You just have to go look at what is news and leave the commentary out of it. We still actually have some news gathering going on in this country. We have far more commentary, though, on the news stories that appear in actual news sources. We tend to forget which is which.

The fact that GM is ramping up production in a plant in Michigan is news. What that news means is commentary. The fact that BP fucked up and spilled millions of barrels of oil in the Gulf is news. The fact that the oil is no longer coming out is news. What it means is commentary, and is subject to interpretation.

News is what happened. Commentary is a discussion about what the news means. There is a difference.

The criticism I've read of MSNBC hasn't been that it "isn't left enough", it's that it spouts bullshit. We should always call bullshit.

I don't know how many liberals want that Hartmann/Malloy/Randi Rhodes stuff. I know I don't, on TV or on the radio.

MSNBC is not even close to a version of anything other than
Fox news on a good day.

Chris Matthews is an irrational tempermental blowhard, so it doesn't really matter what he thinks....cause it ain't news or even commentary; it's entertainment.

As for Dylan Ratigan being a "Populist"....only if you put
"faux" in front of it. :eyes:

You see, the problem is two-fold; the corporate producers of news show get to decide what's news....and most times, they are wrong.

The other problem is once the news has been decided, the commentators
get the interpretation of what they've decided to call news pretty
wrong as well.

In otherwords, they manipulate just like the rest of the corporate news.....
they're just not as obvious.

Apart from Rachel, I see little redeeming value listening
to the talking heads pontificate on politics.

Who thinks they are, for pete's sake. Both are commentary channels, with a distinct political concept.

You want news? Watch the news. The minute someone tells you what they think about the news, it's commentary and not news. Listen to what happened and think about what it means for yourself.

Jeez. I'll listen to whomever I damn well please. And think while I do it.