Televised news could easily top my list for “the biggest problem in American politics”. The feeling is particularly raw this week as my favorite political affairs show, MSNBC’s “Tucker”, will air it’s last episode tomorrow. This is upsetting not just because it was the one such show I could consistently stomach, but also because of what it indicates about the direction of televised news. MSNBC and other networks have been experimenting with a couple of different approaches to partisan coverage and the demise of Tucker Carlson’s gig signals a victory for a lesser option.
Since the first televised Presidential debate in 1960, which contrasted a vibrant John Kennedy with a sweaty Richard Nixon, the boob tube has heavily impacted political discourse. Over fifty years the flow of mass political thought in America has shifted from the deliberative written word to sound byte campaign spots and 527 ad-buys. With the advent of the Internet, even news-dedicated cable outlets are in a constant knife fight to retain an attention-spanless public.
The original paradigm, of course, was the evening news delivered in a steady impartial voice like that of Walter Cronkite. The obsolescence of that format was apparent the moment CNN provided 24-hour coverage of smart bombs flying through doorways during Desert Storm. In its place have sprouted various network attempts to capture the younger market.
First, there are the patronizing, overly hip, lifestyle shows with a heavy dose of human interest. I’m speaking of course of Anderson Cooper, who types awkwardly at his laptop while making pop-culture references. It’s like Hollywood producers in the 50’s cooking up wannabe Elvis Presleys so they could ‘get in on that rock n roll thing’. Yuck.
Even more odious are the verbal combat zones than began with CNN’s “Crossfire” and continue today in FOX’s Hannity & Colmes and the like. These are the shows where you already know what everyone will say before they say it. The host serves up questions to representatives of the “Left” and “Right”, who then take turns hurling insults, ‘spinning’, and otherwise trying to out sound byte one another. It was this unredeeming format that led Jon Stewart to plead, as guest on Crossfire in 2004, “Please stop hurting America.”
Stewart’s comment personified a growing disgust toward heavy partisanship, though not a disinterest in politics. Unfortunately, politics by nature are partisan and have been raucous in this country since before John Adams and Thomas Jefferson supporters hurled insults at one another in 1799. The networks are thus casting about for new models that might solve to dichotomy.
One approach, embodied in Tucker, is to provide coverage of partisan dealings without infusing unnecessary partisanship. Ironically, it was Tucker Carlson who represented the “Right” on that famous (or infamous, take your pick) Stewart appearance on Crossfire. However, unlike his CNN post, Carlson’s self-moniker show at MSNBC takes a refreshingly fair-minded approach.
Instead of providing equal ammo and killing time for both Left and Right, Tucker features two or more knowledgeable, often independent minded, guests. Libertarians and Moderates are as likely visitors as Liberals and Conservatives. When special guests include representatives of particular campaigns or heavily partisan bases, Carlson’s questions remain relevant but leave little room for tit-for-tat barbs. Even when the host acknowledges his own personal position on an issue, his questions remain fair to all sides. With touches of both humor and realism, Carlson holds a largely open-minded court without taking himself or anyone else too seriously.
In contrast to Tucker, another new model embraces an insidious kind of subjective mock-journalism, exemplified most notably by Lou Dobbs on CNN and Keith Olbermann on MSNBC (just so no one is left out, Bill O’Reilly on FOX probably fits the bill as well). These shows skip the step of partisan provided animosity and make themselves the story. Instead of reporting the news and asking fair questions, these anchors rant, rave, and accuse on any number of issues.
The biggest and most insulting hack is Dobbs. Wrapping himself in the banner of “tough, relentless, and independent”, Dobbs rages in a manner befitting Rush Limbaugh and Al Franken. Watch an example of Dobbs making himself the story and leaving journalism behind here:
For another example, check out the text of a poll appearing on his website today:
“Do you believe the Air Force should reverse its decision to outsource American jobs and national security and award the tanker contract to Boeing?”
Note the use of the buzzword “outsource” and reference to “national security” that leave no doubt where Dobbs personally stands on the issue. It makes sense; he’s only trying to push sales of his book Exporting America.
The commercial spot that CNN runs for Dobbs’ show is equally insulting. Serious images of Dobbs with his sleeves rolled up are interspersed with sound bytes like “Don’t the American people deserve a government that works”. Dobbs has as much right as anyone to advocate a position, but masquerading a biased radio talk show as a nightly news program is distasteful.
A close second to Dobbs is Olbermann’s Countdown on MSNBC. I happened upon the show the same day last month that President Bush threatened to veto wiretapping legislation if Congress failed to include certain terms. Olbermann went off for almost 10 minutes, an eternity in television time, overtly attacking the President. Literally looking into the camera and forcefully repeating, “Mr. President, you are a LIAR sir, a LIAR.”
Watch for yourself here:
My point here is not to defend the President. Check my February 18th post The Audacity of Arrogance: Bush’s Relentless War On Personal Freedoms and you’ll see I happen to disagree with the Administration on this one. But since when does a mainstream journalist get to tee-up and insult a President in prime time? Dobbs and Olbermann are both exploring subjective style formats that supplant partisan crossfire with pseudo-journalism. Unfortunately for Tucker Carlson (and me) their ratings are better.
And with that, television’s degradation of American political discourse continues…
Sphere: Related Content
2 responses so far ↓
1 Temple Stark // Mar 13, 2008 at 1:48 am
So .
I think you expect slightly too much of the cable shows they are not trying to be impartial and they know it. Fox News entire “fair and balanced” line-up is a lie.
They are, in fact, what you decry, radio talk shows on TV. I’ve never watched the Tucker Carlson show, though am aware he has moments of honesty that cross partisan lines.
NPR actually does a good job of just-the-news and perhaps the network news programs do, too. I’ve never watched them either.
Even fair now is viewed as partisan by those who can’t except reality other than their own. It’s tricky.
-temple
2 S.W. Anderson // Mar 13, 2008 at 2:42 am
I share your dissatisfaction with much of what passes for journalism on TV today, but I think you misread what Dobbs and Olbermann are all about.
Cable TV has for years been heavily tilted toward the right, with CNN and MSNBC competing for the eyeballs that ratings leader Fox News amassed with its perverted rendition of “fair and balanced” news coverage.
With the coming of the Bush administration, network TV has largely followed suit. For example, former ABC News political affairs director Mark Halperin (now with pro-conservative, Republican-friendly Time magazine) is a self-declared neoconservative and proud of it. His slant made itself apparent, among other areas in how consistently “This Week” features wall-to-wall Republican interview guests, after which a panel of Republican-friendly conservatives and conservative-leaning moderates discuss various topics that bear a strong resemblance to GOP talking points of the preceding week.
Likewise, Democrats and their talking points have become a relative rarity on other Sunday-morning network interview shows such as “Meet the Press” and “Face the Nation.”
Media Matters for America did a study based on a running tally of the party affiliation and leanings of Sunday morning interview show guests. The favoritism toward Republicans and conservatives reflected in guest bookings was as blatant as it was consistent.
Dobbs is definitely working one side of the street, railing against the new world order of free trade and globalization — the selling out of American jobs, industries, national security and autonomy. It’s a side of the story precious few others in today’s corporate media consistently and critically report on and appraise. God bless him for doing that.
Keith Olbermann has repeatedly stated he is not a journalist. Yet, if you watch him over time, even with a critical eye, you’ll see that when addressing serious straight-news stories, as he sometimes does, Olbermann plays it down the middle. He is exacting, takes care to present both sides of an issue, and is thoroughly professional, both as a broadcaster and in a journalistic sense. Olbermann is courteous to a fault with his guests, no matter how strongly he might disagree with their views. He lets them have their say, asks probing but not insulting questions, lets them answer those questions, and thanks them for appearing on his program — night-vs-day different from what O’Reilly and Hannity routinely do.
And quite the opposite of “Crossfire,” Olbermann enforces one strict rule with an iron hand: no talking or shouting over him or another guest will be tolerated. One evening, Olbermann politely but very firmly told one guest that if he tried to shout over the other guest one more time, the segment would be over and he (the obnoxious guest) would not be invited back. It was a unique moment in cable talk show history, one that other programs would do well to emulate.
Just as a newspaper has its news pages and its editorial page, “Countdown” has its news and interview segments, and Olbermann’s commentary segment. He clearly states he’s presenting a commentary, his opinion, as opposed to doing a news story. I fail to see where there is anything wrong with that.
Regarding partisanship, you apparently missed the times when Olbermann has delivered withering criticism of Democrats.
Olbermann’s commentaries do run long. But in presenting them, he’s giving voice to the strong disagreement, simmering resentment and, often, boiling-over outrage that’s been building for seven and a half long years by about half the adult population of this country, myself included. Olbermann’s commentaries are, as much as anything, cathartic. But they also provide a long-overdue measure of balance for all the right-slanted bloviating of the Limbaughs, Hannitys, Kristols and Blankleys (to name but a few) that fill the radio airwaves and TV channels.
As for Carlson, I never quite developed an appreciation for his right-wing-friendly approach or his often snidely rendered conservative judgments. I will say, he’s much more gentlemanly and fair than any of the right wingers I mentioned in the preceding paragraph.
Leave a Comment