3/21/09 11:50 PM

Thursday Links & Open Thread

Latest cable news links [5:56 pm]:

Olbermann: management OK'd his Special Comment before it aired!

Wednesday's numbers.

VIdeo: Greta's hem.

CNN filching photos?

Bill the "Irish bully"? Beck the hypocrite?

Profile: Janice Dean (via TVN).

Video: More CNBC fireworks.

Olbermann helping McCain? Keith is "scum"?

Video: Doocy confused.

Stelter: Olbermann turns against Hillary.

Video: Fireworks on Abrams.

Fox rocks! Backstage Maiden access.

Hotline quotes.

MSNBC's entire lineup reviewed.

Video: Greta comes bearing trinkets.

Video: Kurtz w/Colbert.

Cable news degrades our politics?

Keith Olbermann is "the enemy"?

Robert Shaffer in Iraq.

Who attended the NLGJA benefit?

An internet hoax about FNC? Shocking!

Use our valuable bandwidth to post your comments about any and all cable news topics in today's open thread. Standard rules apply.




Missy
O'Reilly was right last night - you CANNOT mention Obama's race, no matter what. NEVER! Under NO Circumstances. Just don't do it. DON'T! Forget about it.
 
I'm just being overly emphatic in case anyone who is famous enough to be quoted happens to read this post. So don't mention Obama's race. Get it? Just say no.
March 13, 2008, 10:06:06 AM EDT – Like – Reply


On The Mark
There is something to be said about cable news negatively impacting upon the political process. I don't fault cable news for this, in one sense. Americans are accustomed to print and broadcast news having a certain objectivity. As such, when we hear bombastic statements from a Dobbs, Hannity, Olbermann or O'Reilly, we tend to take them as true if they somehow mesh with our own proclivities or predispositions. Long ago, we learned to dismiss Limbaugh as a buffon, but that is radio. Radio has always been the home to both solid journalism and the Coughlin/Limbaugh type nuts. So, what I argue is that the sophistication we as news consumers need to have is lagging. It will come Where cable news is accountable is in exploiting our lack of sophistication and setting up a false dichotomy for ratings. Americans, be they Democrat or Republican, Progressive, Moderate, Liberal or Conservative, agree on many, many core issues. On most issues, in fact. That doesn't create good "gotcha" journalism. That doesn't build ratings. Our society might be far better served if FNC were to say, we're conservative and Republican, and we disagree with our fellow Americans of different political orientations on these points, or, if MSNBC were to say, we're progressive/moderate/liberal and Democratic and these are our points of difference. The resulting conversations would not be enthralling, but they would be informative.
 
Merely two (2) examples of how cable news is exploitive:
 
Last night Greta introduced her show with a breaking news alert, pictures of (one of) the prostitutes in the Spitzer saga. That's not breaking news. That is shameless exploitation for which Greta and FNC ought to be shamed.
 
The Ferraro story on MSNBC. That is a minor misunderstanding. That's not a story of breathtaking import. MSNBC ought to be ashamed.
 
As news consumers, we ought to reject both, and we ought to demand more of those charged with providing us news. That day of reckoning will come, I am sure. This is still an infant and enfantile industry, and we are all more than a bit naive.
March 13, 2008, 10:07:22 AM EDT – Like – Reply


Kirk
On The Mark,
You have to be kidding, "Americans are accustomed to print and broadcast news having a certain OBJECTIVITY". America has never had true objective news, every person has their bias weather they admit it or not some just hide it better. One of the best way to deal with this reality is to have both sides of any issue. I think you are confusing a commentary show (Gretta, O'Reilley and all of MSNBC etc) for news.
March 13, 2008, 11:07:32 AM EDT – Like – Reply


Shakesy
Wait, we learned to dismiss Limbaugh? Crap, when did that happen? I missed that memo.
March 13, 2008, 11:09:14 AM EDT – Like – Reply


david smawley
On The Mark, posting you're opinions as fact is revealing. Who do you think you are, Keith Olberman?
March 13, 2008, 11:38:53 AM EDT – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
Let's not get too literal. I don't think everyone has to post IMHO after every sentence when it's clear they are opining. I could tell as soon as he resurrected the old canard that FNC is "Repubilcan" that he was giving opinion rather than facts.
March 13, 2008, 11:48:23 AM EDT – Like – Reply


Mike Chimeri
I gave up on that NYT story on KO when it said that his ratings have increased since he started the Special Comments. They have, and it's scary, but outside of isolated freak/fluke demo wins, he can't compete with "The Factor."
March 13, 2008, 12:40:21 PM EDT – Like – Reply


On The Mark
I have to hand it to you, Johnny. I do not consider you the last true believer. In fact, I know you are bright enough to realize that FNC is and has always been little more than the Propoganda Ministry for the RNC (see, just one letter different), you are wholly devoted to your cause. I admire that in anyone.
March 13, 2008, 1:19:38 PM EDT – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
Just keep repeating that and it will become true. Don't forget to click your heels three times.
March 13, 2008, 1:23:05 PM EDT – Like – Reply


david smawley
anyone who names himself On The Mark usually misses. " The audacity of audacity"
March 13, 2008, 2:41:35 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Missy
On The Mark, I was ready to respond to you respectfully until your latest comment re: FNC and J$.
 
To respond to your first post, I agree with some of what you say. But hopefully most of us who have been watching cable news a while can sort through everything and can see which venues are more fair to whichever side, which present more than one part of a story, etc. And I do NOT side for or against each network at all times, and have often disagreed even with my favorite program hosts at times.  
 
But ANY cable news watcher is still better informed than is the majority of the country. After talking with people, seeing Jay Leno's "all stars" and just seeing others on TV, it is clear that a majority of the country doesn't have a clue as to the positions of our those we elect to office.
March 13, 2008, 7:52:33 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Missy
J$ even has a "preview" button, and I ignored it! Apologies for grammatical errors in above post. Next time I'll proofread.
March 13, 2008, 7:54:14 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Scott
anyone who names himself On The Mark usually misses. " The audacity of audacity"
david smawley | 03.13.08 - 2:46 pm | #  
 
That's why I named him since the day he showed up, OFF YOUR MARK, aka OYM. He is a confused and trapped basement dweller that only comes out to watch Scrubadubmann.
 
Johnny every sentence of ole billy, OYM and FF must be taken literal or they will divert and claim the liberal spell check ground while hoping to distract and confuse due to being unable to defend their original post. It's like ole billy that you use to destroy weekly and as you still do Rubberduckiemann quasi-daily, they must have their sentence's picked apart so they have no defense.
March 13, 2008, 8:06:24 PM EDT – Like – Reply


A Running Commentary
The premise of my post was that TV has a negative corrosive affect on political discourse. Would FDR have won his first election bid if he’d run in any of the last few decades? The fact that there is only one photo of him in wheelchair known to exist is telling. More recently, would NY have a legally blind governor were it for the resignation of a formerly popular one above him? No, because TV adds a dimension and element of consideration way beyond pure policy issues and debate.  
 
Clamoring producers, anchors, and correspondents trample one another in their efforts to create and fuel the tit-for-tat exchanges b/w candidates and partisans because it makes good TV. Then all the anchors bemoan to their studio panels that the race has “gone negative”. Would Clinton and Obama have to be apologizing for everything their friends and former pastors said if they didn’t have cable news mics constantly shoved in their faces? No but TV people need something to report and tension makes good TV spots. It let’s the Van Susteren’s of the world have “breaking news” and engage in “tough reporting”. What a joke.
 
Everyone has preferences and tastes. I find Lou Dobbs most distasteful but then I actually LIKED Tucker (based on his ratings I guess I’m one of the 31 who did). But whether the format of a particular show is “news”, “commentary”, or “interviews”, etc., the net affect on quality political discourse is negative. I’m with Jon Stewart: “Stop hurting America.”
 
Anyway, thanks J$P for the link.
March 13, 2008, 9:12:29 PM EDT – Like – Reply


johnny dollar
No problem, and thanks to you for stopping in.
March 13, 2008, 10:07:54 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Mike Chimeri
So, according to Olby, now Michael O'Hanlon is a "Bush administration cheerleader"? That's OlbySpin for you. And did you notice how sports stats flowed so easily when making Billy Crystal, of all people, WPITW?
(I watched the video of that segment on MSNBC.com. I didn't bother watching the show as it aired. I watched the good guys.)
March 13, 2008, 10:14:26 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Missy
I see this Ashley (Spitzer's hooker) all over TV tonight.
 
This is one of the things wrong with cable news. Bad enough for Mrs. Spitzer and her daughters what Eliot (idiot) Spitzer did to their familiy, but now we have to watch this bimbo being plastered all over TV for the next several months. She says specifically that she's not a "monster", so to show remorse, she's now cashing in big time by selling her "story". She helped destroy the Spitzer family, and countless others much less famous. How nice.  
 
And to all you guys out there: I can't believe how these "other women" don't come near to what you're leaving at home! Mrs. Spitzer is a beautiful, accomplished woman, and a doting wife, from all accounts, and he cheats on her with this very unattractive, young, messed up girl? Just goes to show you what some good photography and "spin" on some website can do to make a guy go after an illusion.
March 13, 2008, 11:10:55 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Missy
God help me again! This time I proofread, but my first sentence makes it sound as if "Ashley" herself was on TV tonight. Not yet - just her picture, reference to her myspace page, her music and quotes from people her know her.
March 13, 2008, 11:13:15 PM EDT – Like – Reply


On The Mark
Missy @ 7:57 p.m., I agree with you.  
 
To focus on only one point you made: Yes, I also agree that cable news viewers are, despite the limitations of cable news, better informed than the public as a whole. If a cable news viewer also brings discernment, a critical mind to a program or even a network, he or she is demonstrably better informed. Yet, more is required. A background source of reliable information is necessary. Otherwise, what is the basis of the criticism, of the judgment? We can attain this information from network news (television and radio) and from journals, all of which, despite their own shortcomings, remain far more objective, far more detailed, far more probing than cable news. In other words, I don't view cable news as a reliable primary source, only an enhancement, an enrichment. If it is a primary source, we end up with people who hang on to every word of Dobbs, Hannity, Olbermann, O'Reilly, et al, whoever best affirms and confirms their own preconceptions, their own prejudices.  
 
The nature of your comments, in content, tone and construction, shows me that cable news can be valuable in a person's life. The contentless, hostile and illiterate comments of someone in the nature of Scott tells me cable news can be a primary source for divisiveness and the "dumbing down" of our nation.
March 14, 2008, 8:12:35 AM EDT – Like – Reply


Interloper
cable news, not being able to fill time with "american idol" and "survivor XXV from the Bronx" must fill the whole day with what they call news. That's how we end up with pictures of strippers (and Monica Lewinsky). Still, I am glad cable news is around to upgrade the overall news environment.
March 14, 2008, 9:09:11 AM EDT – Like – Reply


Fox Fan
There goes Scott again, lumping me in with On The Mark and Bill C. Although I'd rather be lumped in with OTM who constructs logical arguments than with Scott who spouts unintelligible personal attacks that scream of mental illness, the relationship that he implies is simply not there.
 
Mike Chimeri, this is exactly what I was talking about when someone accused you of being a "Kos kid".
March 14, 2008, 10:22:07 AM EDT – Like – Reply


Mike Chimeri
They didn't accuse me of it. They just acted like I was of their kind.
Regarding Ashley, Z100 here in New York actually played her song yesterday. (I found that out on the New York Radio Message Board. I don't go near that station.) It shouldn't be this way, but I get the feeling she'll be getting a book deal, appearing on a reality show (i.e. "The Surreal Life"), and/or appearing in rap/hip-hop songs and videos.
March 14, 2008, 12:24:43 PM EDT – Like – Reply


Mike Chimeri
A couple of "O'Round The World" news links on BillOReilly.com have gotten me tired of this girl. Now, I'd just like to forget she existed and move on with my life.
March 14, 2008, 5:24:16 PM EDT – Like – Reply