Rock Center
From Bill O'Reilly describing how some media pundits "smash" politicians and "pinheads," to Ann Coulter describing why O'Reilly isn't opinionated enough, Rock Center Special Correspondent Ted Koppel investigates the role of the media in the degeneration of politics into an ugly war of words.
The New York Times' David Carr says the partisan news business is so profitable, as much as $1 billion a year for one cable news network, that it's clear why others have followed suit.
Political commentators Ann Coulter and Bill Maher, ideological opposites, debate the issue.
"I think it's the first time a lot of liberals have been able to hear conservatives or know what they think," Coulter said, disagreeing that there has been a coarsening of political dialogue. "I think we just have both sides. ... You just get it from the other side now and Liberals don't like it so you're screaming bloody murder."
"We're not just screaming at each other," Maher said. "One side is screaming facts and truth. One side is screaming their version of truth, which is religious-based nonsense."
Of the industry overall, Carr says, "they're not interested in the fruits of piece. It's bad television. Who'd want to watch that?"
Leave a Comment:
Interesting story... looking back on tv history this type point/ counter point began long ago starting with shows like "Meet the Press" "McLaughlin Group" and "60 minutes" that showed there was an actual market for this political discussion in addition to gotcha journalism. It has gradually diminished in civility over the years. I have to say MSNBC lost its way after Tim Russert passed. But blaming one or two media entities for "degenerating " politics is ridiculous. All are complacent. Saying that it has effected the ability for Congress to do it's job is more than ridiculous. The reality is, the news is a business. What people are craving now is a news organization they feel they can trust that doesn't have an agenda ... btw.. Brian you kind of proved the loss of objectivity with your snide remark about OReilly. I don't care if you like him or not.... just do your job objectively. Let me decide whether I want to love or hate the guy.
Well said Dandygirl! What Brian Williams fails to realize is that NBC is part of the problem too. It was evident that he sees himself as above this media problem when he and his network are in it too. I laughed at that last night. He needs to take a hard look at his reporting before he criticizes others.
Totally agree with you dadygirl. After the loss of Tim Russert NBC/MSNBC has gone to hell in a hand basket. I have lost any respect I had for Ted Koppel from the piece and never was a fan of loofah loving loser O'Reilly. Before there were alternatives than the three major networks I was old enough to realize there seemed to be a slant in the news. So I agree people are craving news organizations that don't have an agenda. I caught the snide remark too - shameful! Personally I believe any "reporters" on NBC/MSNBC have drank the Kool-Aid and are no longer a reliable source of reporting the truth without their personal slant. Tim Russert is spinning in his grave!
NBC needs to look in the mirror to find the answers to there investigations.
Don't forget the role of talk radio. An overtly politicized format on cable "news" networks has been largely adapted from what works on AM talk radio.
The practice of cheap shots and crosstalk, constant interruptions and "sound byte journalism" gets really, old, really fast. And not just old on the ears. Judging from how many assisted living devices advertised, the FOX News demographic is targeted chiefly to seniors. MSNBC is a counterbalance to FOX, whereas CNN seems to spend more time actually broadcasting news, thereby coming down more in the middle (if there is one). Example: CNN had people on the ground reporting the protests at the embassy. The other "news" stations jumped fast and early on the political angle --- inviting their talking heads to argue what spin the campaigns favored, their gaffes and whether the violence was a premeditated 911 anniversary plot vs. a spontaneous riot connected to the film Muslims objected to. From this, I can see two trends: 1) Arguing draws viewers, 2) Talking politics with the same crew of guests day after day is cheaper than putting boots on the ground.
I would have less problem with FOX and MSNBC if they renamed themselves "commentary" networks. By taking on the moniker of a "news network", viewers should get, at minimum, first-hand witnesses to events with the intent of such reports to allow viewers to draw their own conclusion.
Ted Koppel could not compete against an 11th grader taking English Journalism when it comes to reporting facts instead of arrogant, ignorant opinions of a bunch of left-wing suit pencil-pushers...My mother was a reporter during WWII, while my Dad served with honors, and she was disgusted with the evening news on all three major networks...Believed that National Enquirer reported more factually! NBC sunk to their 1st low when they tried to get perky Katie to interview Simpson for$$$...At least I got my one call in to them and called every one of their sponsors...and guess what..the story got pulled...and if anybody does not believe how the national news does not report they just had to be at the Tea Party in Washington where only FOX reported any real information and people really believed when the national stations reported 10-20 thousand...I was there in a wheelchair and watched 1.7 million people march down Pennsylvania avenue ...the largest protest in the history of our country at one event and it was not even reported...I knew then that we were in serious trouble..treading on dangerous ground...sick that my Dad , buried not too far from where I sat, in Arlington Cemetery had served our country in THREE WARS!..so that we had freedom of press and its' the current journalists' on NBC etc. that seriously do not know the honor they have in reporting truth...but they will when they may lose that right one day if we continue in the direction we are heading..God forbid....
Dandygirl I strongly agree with your last statement about choosing who we do or do not like. I'm sure almost everyone also has this opinion but I think the media needs to take it into consideration when presenting its viewers news. They should return to their old ways and present just the facts and let the people decide.
i agree with you dandygirl because its not the media's job
to decide whether other news reporters are doing their job right or not
There is no problem having shows dedicated to a radical point of view. They're simply entertainment and people can watch them if they like. The problem lies with networks that pretend to be unbiased news sources when they are not. These networks need to be shunned by the legitimate media and by the news makers themselves. If a network can't meet a certain criteria for presenting news without opinion or spin, they don't deserve to be recognized.
I watched this show because I really was hoping to get honesty from NBC. Instead I got the same hypocritical spiel that turned me away from the liberal networks in the first place. It is so frustrating to watch these liberal news reporters continue to demonize conservative programming like Fox News. The
reason I turned off their programs and tuned into Fox news is because I was so
tired of the liberal bias constantly being spewed as “factual” news. It is extremely disappointing to have Ted Koppel sanctimoniously lecture conservative news programs for what he and his peers did for years. I didn’t tune into Fox News until the late 1990’s, so believe me when I say that there was plenty of liberal leaning opinions bleeding from the 3 major networks and CNN. Why do you think Fox News had a market to begin with? People were fed-up with the liberal-leaning
bias.
Ted Koppel tried to blame it on money and even said money is the only reason Fox News is in the cable news business (because we all know that liberals think money is evil). Once again, he has his facts twisted. All businesses are in it for money Ted or they would not have a business (unless you are the government). I wonder if CNN made any money since their inception in 1980 (16 years before Fox News first aired).
The truth is Fox News saw a need because all the news stations were so left-leaning it was ridiculous. Fox News has done so well because Americans were tired of the liberal bias on every single channel we tuned into. Now the other networks are jealous because Fox is doing better than all of them. Maybe that should tell them something; like hello… you’re audience does not like you… But of course they’d rather just whine and lie about Fox and try to make it about - the greedy rich owners- instead of the true failures of the other networks to rain in their liberal bias. If the other networks want to keep viewers then they should be more fair & balanced. Ann Coulter was so correct when she said that the conservatives finally have a voice and the liberal media can’t stand it.
All that said, I will admit that some conservative programs
are very right leaning but… there are far more left leaning programs out there.
So thank God we live in America where we are allowed to change the channel if
we don’t like the program. Vote for the Constitution and the right to Free Speech
for all. That’s right; free speech is not just for liberals it’s for all Americans. And a high percentage of Americans are conservative.
I fail to see how Fox News' presentation of conjecture and falsehoods as news or fact is a counterpoint to anything. When the conservatives start from the position that facts are biased then there is no answer.
The solution is easy, a National law that says if you call your show "News" it must be factual correct. You can pick and choose the news you show, but you can't lie about something and call it "the other side of the story."
What examples of “conjecture and falsehoods” do you have to offer? Just because you don’t agree with the facts does not mean they are false.
And the "position" that conservatives start from is the constant deluge of negative reports about conservative leaders that are hateful and misleading while conveniently ignoring or spinning in a positive light the stories and views about liberal leaders. This is a FACT that has been going on for years.
Just one example of many is the “War on Women” crap that came out of the Democratic House & Senate earlier this year. That completely bogus, inflammatory label was repeated constantly by both liberal and conservative media. However, the conservative media explained why it’s a lie while the liberal media tried to twist it as true and did little or nothing to defend their
conservative viewers from these fabricated, inciting remarks.
I believe the “National Law” you suggest would put CBS, ABC, NBC and MSNBC out of business. However, we have a wonderful thing called a constitution in this country that protects freedom of speech as well as freedom of the press. I don’t need a “National law”, I just change the channel. The only reason I even tuned into the NBC network was to see if Ted Koppel would be fair and unbiased. But all I got out of it is that liberal media is upset that conservatives finally have a media
outlet that will investigate the facts instead of just twisting them to favor a liberal view.
The move to take over the airwaves has been a concerted effort by the right over the last thirty years. Removing the Fairness Doctrine and modifying rules for number of media outlets one group can own are just two of the moves made towards this goal. Radio is dominated by right wing agenda that puts forth the ideas that Democrats and liberals hate America, that there should be no compromising, (which is quite against the ideas of the founders), and that those who do are traitors.
I have listened to most of the right wing hit parade and found that the message is dominated by half truths and outright lies, along with the consistent hammer strokes of the 'no compromise' message, up to and including validating torture as a political tool. It is beyond rational belief that in a country based on the rights of man and equal justice before the law that we even had a conversation regarding whether we should torture people or not. After listening to what is presented by these outlets and finding no comparable Democratic point of view available, I am quite pleased the MSNBC has chosen to air a counterpoint to this flood of right wing rhetoric that we are blasted with every single day.
What Anne Coulter said in your piece is exactly right. When reporting is objective, those on the far right feel that it is left wing propaganda because they are so far right. We used to laugh at the John Birch Society and their adherents because very few people believed their conspiracy theories, but the JBS has recently been revived and given a seat in the Conservative sphere. Bill Maher was also correct in that the conversation has consistently been dragged to the right, the goal lines constantly changed to bring the entire conversation towards those points.
Having said that, I get the majority of my news from National Public Radio. I find that their reporting is consistently factual and free from bias, which is how things used to be. After that, I usually listen to or watch Rachel Maddow. I like the fact that when she makes a mistake, she corrects it on the air and I also like that when she has a guest, she presents the issue, then asks them up front if what she said was correct, giving them a chance to state if there are discrepancies. This is not something that you will hear from right wing media.
President Obama stated that the one thing that surprised him was how little Republicans had to pay in political support from their constituency for taking one point of view, then abandoning it within weeks. This is due to the right wing noise machine of radio and cable that shapes these acts for willing listening public. It is not without reason that polls have shown that Fox News' audience is the least informed group out there. When that statistic begins to reverse, perhaps we can get back to a normal political conversation.
joedlang. Can't agree with you more. I also enjoy NPR's attempt at objectivity. No media can be totally free of bias, but at least NPR tries. Inform, not incite is a good motto. Regardless of political affiliation, we need to think for ourselves if democracy was to work.
When you hear something you agree with it is not objective. It's an echo chamber.
NPR is as liberal and exceptionally subtly steers every single story they do and little show like What do you know" to "car talk" to the left. Limbaugh and pale imitators lack that sublty.
You just like NPR cuz it reflects your belief and right wing radio does not. I personally listen to both and am equally appalled by both. That's the beauty of our 1st amendment.
I get my news from PBS and NPR. I am a liberal but not due to ignorance. I choose to be informed by these two stations because it's in depth and comprehensive. I like the interviewers because they ask the good questions and have thoroughly researched their subjects before interviewing them. Charlie Rose, Fresh Air. I am a liberal because I'm informed, not because these channels have a slant. Also I wanted to say that Brian Williams and Ted Koppel had a subject that was too big for their time slot and I felt very unsettled for the massive information left out of a good story. Too little.
It's this casual invoking of "alarm" that bothers me. When the strongest, most alarmist vocabulary is called upon to describe an opponent or another party's position, the failure to give subtext or reason to the language may in itself perform a public disservice. Here are two different ways to voice a criticism: "Obama's policies are going to harm this country" (an opinion you may not agree with but it's rooted in someone's intellectually honest "take") OR "Obama is a socialist" (implying treason and/or a desire to subvert representational democracy).
Here's my concern: Like the tale of the boy who cried wolf, what do we do when a network or talk show personality ramps up the verbiage so greatly that it's a constant, mind-numbing stream of "high alert"? Where is there a sense of "ordering the threats" when ALL infractions warrant the same level of outrage?
Here's the problem: Suppose you found that President Obama was a card carrying member of the socialist party. Half of the country wouldn't even blink because that word has been so over-used that it would not elicit the response it otherwise could or should. When words are thrown around so casually it is a disservice not only to the people who are the object of libel and slander but to the security and safety of the nation itself.
Here's what people tend to forget: We here on the "inside" know there is a certain amount of hyperbole and drama that goes on in politics but what happens when overblown allegations and conspiracy theories migrate overseas where entire nation groups do not have first-hand knowledge of American culture and may be less inclined to question the validity of what they "hear" through the grapevine? Take the protests over the film that went up on YouTube. In an actual news clip a group of young Muslim protesters were angered at President Obama, thinking that his secret service must have approved otherwise nothing of the sort could have been uploaded to YouTube. Their misunderstanding of our First Amendment, and even the fact that the film was made by a "nobody" failed to translate.
When on the basis of rumor and outrage foreign nationals feel they "know" what our country is all about, we are in trouble! We Americans should have enough sense not to air our dirty laundry on every single public airway we can find, where it will no doubt confuse and incite hate and distrust among each other, let alone the rest of the world where the consequences may not be so "benign".
News needs to be reported freely, whereas the strongest words should be reserved for the highest standard of proof before they are brought to the table. Allegations of treason need to be reserved for... actual treason.
Pundits on both the Right and the Left lose credibility with me when it is clear they are trying to manipulate my emotions. I suggest that others take more note of when a story is being pitched to enrage or incite them. Make an intentional effort to go on the web and check facts for yourself. And don't just stick to the "sources" that amount to preaching to the choir. To stay away from a mainstream media source because it is too liberal or too conservative is a red flag in and of itself. If your position is factually sound, you should have no fear of exposure to other people's (responsibly worded) opinions.
Interesting piece. It was close to hitting the mark of encouraging balance. I would love to get the polar fringes off the political debate and focus on more substance around the issues. I believe the interview would have been better with the following:
* Bill Maher has used some colorful hate speech that would rival O'Reilly's outburst. Would have been good to balance it out.
* Part of the justification for the other outlets (mostly conservative) is that the core news on ABC, CBS, and NBC and the mainstream press are slanted and support more liberal views in their questioning and reporting. This question should have been asked? Is the mainstream media biased?
* I could hardly say that John Stewart is peacemaker.
* There are plenty that can debate an issue on both sides and do it with respect. Put that on your show as a starting point to make the change. I will watch. Tony Snow was pretty good at this.
* So I watch the interview and get that it is about money. Is that the best you can do? Fairly soft piece for a good subject.
I watched the Ted Koppel piece on Rock Center last night. It was a well done report, and pointed out that profits are more important than objectivity in the news business.
There is only one problem I see, howevver. O'Reilly, Coulter, Schultz, Maddow, Limbaugh, etc., are opinion programs. If anyone thinks they are objective news programs, they are getting their "news" from the wrong source. The opinion shows are just that, opinion!
Fox News is a different thing, however. They promote themselves as "fair and balanced", yet they have a clearly conservative bias. I believe that the networks,
NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, try to present the news in an objective manner. I think that the networks primary motivation is ratings and profits, however. Back in the days that broadcast media were regulated just by their licenses, fairness doctrine, 777 rule and the like, the news divisions usually lost money, but the networks had to present objective news in order for NBC, CBS and ABC to hold onto the licences of their 7 owned and operated broadcast outlets in major markets. During the Vietnam War, we saw the war on TV every night. This allowed Americans to see what was going on there, and led to the end (albeit far to late) of that war.
When was the last time you saw the Afghanistan war on TV? Mr. Koppel was right. The networks do not have as many foreign bureaus as they once did. Many times, they get their news footage from You Tube and Facebook! It certainly is cheaper than having a live correspondent there. Also, the entertainment divisions seem to be taking over the news. This is best evidenced by the morning "news" programs.
"Today" and "Good Morning America" are nothing but fluff news. At least "CBS This Morning" dedicates their first half hour to hard news, and saves the fluff for the 7:30 hour.
Do broadcast media need to be re-regulated? I think it would result in better news divisions, because the stick may work better than the carrot when trying to improve broadcast news
Regulated media was boring! Made to present both sides, unless you were uncle Walter and said you hated Viet Nam, or Eddie Murrow or 60 minutes and said McCarthy and Westmoreland were lying welps.
TV news has, now that there are many outlets, become what newspapers were when each town had more than 2 newspapers. One Left/One Right at the very least. This evolution is not the least bit surprising. But no! Bring back the alleged" Fair"ness Doctrine so Limbaugh can be silenced! That's what you want! If you don't like the bile. March with your feet and as Howard Beale said in Paddy Chaiefskys " Network" "turn it off" because the "fair"ness doctrine made me "mad as hell and I'm not gonna take it anymore!"
"NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, try to present the news in an objective manner."
No they don't. CNN may be the exception, but only by a narrow margin on the bias scale.
I think the piece was interesting as well as serving as a hook to increase Rock Center's ratings (what a surprise).
However, there was a basic false equivalency in comparing MSNBC to Fox News and that difference is Roger Ailes and Rupert Murdoch. Anyone who has seen the documentary film "Outfoxed" knows that what Fox does differs fundamentally from how MSNBC operates.
Fox tells lies and predetermined talking points that come from the corporate suites and the opinions on MSNBC are those of the individual commentators. Further, the standards of people you threw under the bus on your sister network are far loftier than the hacks on Fox. People like Rachel Maddow on MSNBC use facts to express opinion, not political directives from on high.
The piece also made a false equivalency in trashing the many straight news journalists that are to be found on MSNBC for most of the daytime broadcasting schedule. It was unfair to people such as Chuck Todd, Tamron Hall, Thomas Roberts, Alex Witt, Andrea Mitchell and others who present straight news. You will NEVER find such a thing on Fox.
While MSNBC may have a liberal slant in its opinions, it does not make up things out of whole cloth like Fox. I watch CNN and BBC news and I find no factual discrepencies between them and MSNBC. Fox airs only those facts it is directed to by executives.
It is a sad day when NBC throws its sister network under the bus to bolster ratings of a failing show.
Whenever you use the word "lie", as both MSNBC and Fox so frequently do, you have moved beyond reasoned argument. MSNBC picks its "facts" just as carefully as Fox.
FACTS???
You base your entire argument on some 3rd rate documentary??? Made by every bit of a liberal version of Ailies and passed off as FACTS!!!
Paley, Small, Bradley, Graham, Arlidge, once sat in some room concocting the same bile FOX does today. They just seasoned it differently. You spoon fed milquetoast sad sack.
FOXNEWS/MSNBC are nothing more that talkings heads for the right/left respectfully. They twist, lie, and tell half truths to spin the political story to make their respective party look good. It's disgusting, inflammatory, and does nothing except make it harder for the real stories to surface. I used to watch FOX (about two years ago) and shifted to MSNBC because I was sickened by the inflammatory comments. Now, MSNBC is doing the same. I agree 100% with dandygirl's comment. MSNBC has lost its way and in turn, has lost me as a viewer.
It is fortunate CNN has not followed suit and continues to broadcast the news instead of vile.
One more interesting point. It did not go unnoticed executives at NBC prohibited any of the pundits from MSNBC to participate in this episode. How interesting.
Mr. Koppel is just as biased as those he was complaining about during the broadcast. He thinks the New York Times is a fair newspaper. The litmus test is to imagine how the news would be slanted if Mr. Obama were a Republican. The NYT and all the other regular news outlets - printed and broadcast - would have endless stories about how bad this economy is and would probably even pull out the D word (depression). Remember how the news outlets – NBC at the forefront – were fighting to show caskets arriving at Edwards AFB during the Bush years. Where are those pictures now?
Oh the tears that were shed for the victims of water boarding; now not a whimper when the President uses a drone to kill a US citizen overseas - not to mention all the collateral deaths of civilians.
I could go on endlessly. Just remember when you see story about Mr. Obama, try to imagine how it would be written about a republican president and then you will understand how biased the regular news outlets are.
You are exactly right KenfromCranston. That is why I can't stand watching the regular news outlets.
By the same token, if President Obama were a Republican FOX News would be cherry-picking every positive economic statistic they could find while downplaying the bad. If the New York Times is guilty of going too easy on President Obama because it is a liberal rag, so too is FOX News. They are two sides of the same coin, using the same tactics to appeal to different audiences. It's the proverbial kettle calling the pot black.
One thing newspapers have that television doesn't is a section for retractions. The day I hear the cable news spinworks air their errors, that's the day they gain some credibility as a news NETWORK.
I watched the show last night because I was curious to see if your "spin" on how our news is delivered would be unbiased. I am not surprised but disappointed that you were obviously left of unbiased. Can you honestly say after looking at that piece that it was not?Look at the times that you mentioned Fox News as opposed to MSNBC and with little about CNN? Honestly, do you think the audience is so naive to believe that you could do a story on news bias when you are in the same news family as MSNBC? It is so obvious in the coverage of this presidential campaign both on the air and on line. I suggest to you that the news pioneers of the 50s and 60s were be disgusted by the bias that exists today. News organizations no longer desire to deliver the news without opinion or without trying to make you believe their spin. Frankly to me, it is a scary proposition moving forward in our world when you can't trust those who have made it their vocation to "report" the news. It sounds like doctors who prescribe medications for you because the of their relationship with drug companies.....oh, that's another story.
I was also disappointed but not surprised. It is true that Fox News programming leans conservative just like it's true that the other networks lean liberal and there are 4 or 5 of them compared to Fox's 1. But seeing Ted Koppel try to act so pious while he twisted the story to make it sound like it was all Fox News' greedy owner's fault that the news media is in such a shambles was too much.
Just like Koppel, the other news outlets want to pretend they are not bias but Fox is honest about their approach. They don't pretend they are not conservative. The opinion shows that are aired on Fox clearly defend conservative views and challenge the fact-twisters on the liberal side. The reason Fox is so successful is because the regular news media was sooo far left that conservative views were not reported fairly. Well now we have a news outlet that defends conservative values and I appreciate the service they provide.
I saw most of the program, Brian and Ted try to come accross as the grown ups in the room. The truth about the press is they vote a certain way, yet the try to say they are objective. Stories can be shaped without lies with the omission of facts that would change the stories, and that is what these guys do. They shape stories. They love the good old days when they told us what was important; from Gods lip to our ears. Now we have a group of news people that show a different side of a story and they can't stand that their monopoly is gone and is still shrinking.
You absolutely hit the nail on the head. The big 3 networks have lost their sacred monopoly. The past 10-20 years is the first time in history when alternative voices could be heard via internet technology. People no longer need someone else to tell them the news. They can get it directly from people on the ground from thousands of sources. The cat has long left the bag and it ain't coming back.
Yes but there's also a problem when everyone has their own little camp and never the two shall meet. We can't even get our own astronauts to the space station because of a push to de-emphasize "national pride" through NASA. We are being pushed first economically and now culturally to perceive a hemogenized, internationalized world, where the only boundary isn't the rooting we do for the "home team" (nationalism is passe) but the lines we draw within the pre-drawn box of two-party politics, to exclude and differentiate each other! When Americans diverged in opinions from the vantage point of a few trusted broadcast news sources, we at least understood what the other fellow had heard from our gatekeepers because we had heard it too (subject to the fairness doctrine to boot). NOW we sit in our walled off ideological rooms, losing our sense as Americans, one nation, undivided. The more we appeal to people's differences the less we will value the worth of our country, patriotism will be as passe as nationalism, and the sense that we should have a collective culture, a collective pride, a consensus on anything big or small, will go with it. If you want to take down a country, give them more reasons to accentuate their subcultures than their common culture. Diversifying the media through the informal channels of alternate media like the Internet is one thing. Pandering entire news networks to just one set of narrow interests is a disservice to democracy for the same reason that a "house divided will fall".
Some good points. By and large, however, another "false equivalency" story. No analysis of what MSNBC actually does. Only mis-leading comparisons of MSNBC as the left-wing version of Fox News. No analysis of Rush Limbaugh, the main propagandist of the modern Republican Party. Way too much credit given to O'Reilly, presenting him largely as a reasonable "moderate." No discussion of Murdoch, Roger Ailes and their huge role in the creation of the astroturf Tea Party and other right wing Republican "movements" over the years. No mention of Keith Olbermann and how he transformed the cable news business, mostly for the better, during the dark days of the Bush terror alert scares, the Iraq war and the mainstream media's acquiescence, etc. Bill Maher had it right. Fox lies, people die. Also, it occurred to me this morning that emotion is not such a bad thing in political debates. It is only human to get excited about important issues that one cares about. Rather than equating the emotion -- that Olbermann, O'Donnell, and the Right Wingers express -- with bias and hate, perhaps we can accept it as an honest expression of care. The exception to this theory would, of course, be the fakers such as Limbaugh, Savage and their types who fake emotion and outrage to push people's buttons, in my humble opinion. I wonder if Koppel even bothered to research this story. For example, did he look at a content analysis of MSNBC versus Fox News? Fact checks of the two? I'd like to see Williams devote a full hour to an honest analysis of these issues. So much of the political landscape is shaped on these programs. After all, opinion creation is like a pyramid. The news media editors and owners pay attention to the often-excellent detailed analysis of current events, such as found on Maddow and O'Donnell, form their opinions and pass it along down the pyramid to the reporters and finally the consumer of news. The conservative media has a similar effect on conservative news media owners and reporters. When veterans such as Williams and Koppel present a primetime story that is so superficial and misleading, it furthers the myth of the "false equivalency."
Not buying the equivalence claim that MSNBC is the same as FOX/Limbaugh/Savage. There may be some shouting and name calling on MSNBC but nothing compared to the other side. And O'Reilly is no objective observer. O'Reilly's "no spin zone" is a pile of BS. Mr. Koppel flunked this test.
joedlang. Can't agree with you more. I enjoy NPR's attempt at objectivity. No media is totally unbiased, but at least NPR tries. Inform, not incite is a good motto for professional journalism. Let the readers decide from facts presented. It's the only way to grow a democracy, regardless of our political affiliation.
I watched most of the program last night with Ted and Brian trying to come off as the grown ups in the room. They long for the day when they told us what was important; from Gods lips to our ears. People like Rush Limbaugh made it and continue--25 years--because they filled a huge void that existed in how information is given to us. I hear that the right hates and lies and I would not be part of such a thing if it were true. Love your neighbor as you love yourself. I think that the left interprets hate as those that disagree with their philosophy. The word hate or extreme are used as lightning rods to build a negative image, but it is more frequently falling on deaf ears. My first election I voted for Mondale, but soon after I got off the "Good Ship Lolly Pop." The left still dominates the main networks and print media and they refuse to say who they vote for. The fact that they refuse to really challenge the President on facts is proof the they are a mere extension of his campaign. I have a bias for Conservatives and I admit it. You at least know where I am coming from, even though I rarely hear Conservatism properly articulated. I know the left because I was once shaped by it. Last nights program was an excuse session for why they have lost huge market share to FOX news and other programs. They grouped Fox news and Rush Limbaugh into a group of Shock Jocks or Reality TV shows of hate and half truths in search of money. How much is your latest contract worth Brian? Reality TV programs burn out and lose ratings. People like Rush continue to grow because we pay attention to what he says and what is reported about what he says and they are never the same. I believe my ears and not their words.
Thank you R from Sacramento. You expressed my thoughts so perfectly. Unfortunately, by the look of most of the posts here, our comments are probably falling on deaf ears. But that is nothing new.
I remember too well those days when there was no avenue to turn to for conservative views. Fox News as well as conservative talk radio is an outlet for conservatives to learn all the facts, not just the facts that support the liberal agenda. And by the way, I also monitor what other news stations present as well as research on the web if I have doupts to what is being reported. Arming myself with information is key to making informed decisions.
What does it tell you when you hear allegations of liberals being "socialists" far more than you hear mainstream media allegations of conservatives being fascists? "Compassionate conservatism" was born to counter the perception of harshness and heartlessness on the part of principled Republicans. Conservatives are technically and morally right: Better to take care of yourself and prosper than seek a handout. The problem is the method of conveying as much. It's difficult to win converts when one's *legitimate concern* comes off as derisive, condescending, presumptuous, sanctimonious, judgmental, resentful or elitist. Take candidate Romney's May 17 fundraiser video as "Exhibit A". It's one thing to show awareness for the fact that a lot of people are poor and poorer people tend to be the recipients of social safety nets who may be inclined to vote for President Obama. It's quite another thing to imply you are god by suggesting you know why such-and-such isn't as well off as you. God gave everyone a different level of intellect, physical and emotional health and general aptitudes. For some people doing their best in life to work hard won't equate with material wealth, educational success or any number of "measures". To say that such-and-such person then wants to be a "victim" is a spiteful smear, hence the "hate-the-haters" backlash. There is far too much generalization of the negative sort embodied in the conservative leadership. They may think it "goes without saying" that we're not targeting someone who is receiving Medicaid because they were burned over 3/4 of their body or lost their home battling cancer and now is the recipient of food stamps, but they don't stress the nuances nearly enough to convey that there are ANY exceptions whatsoever who deserve our love, compassion or care. And therefore it isn't the liberal media that threatens conservatives. Conservatives have become their own worst enemies because they routinely defend the self-serving antics of pundits and politicians who do them more harm than good.
None of these people have journalism degrees, they have no comprehension of ethics in journalism. In the old days journalists presented facts, they did not manipulate information; splicing comments, over-riding footage with comments made at different times, make up statistics, use vile falsehoods (calling President Obama a Muslim or Communist). There was a time, prior to all of the cable start-ups when interviewers would never consider screaming at the person they were interviewing. These people are entertainers, they use the hype and drama to get viewers; they scream, yell, rant and rave.....AND as O'Reilly admitted, they are laughing all of the way to the bank. The sad thing is, it sets a repugnant, disgraceful tone for America. Even sadder is the fact that many people watch ONE STATION, they never get the other side of the issue. The hateful rhetoric that permeates some stations serves to increase the anger and hate and has the affect of permanently closing minds!!! Not long ago a journalism grad student compared content from a number of TV and radio stations and a number of mainstream newspapers to the coverage that Fox News presented for the same issue. There were major discrepancies between what Fox presented and ALL of the other media sites. I have often wondered why no one calls them on this!!
Probably the reason no one calls Fox on the discrepancies is because Fox is the one who is reporting the truth and it is the other news networks that are reporting false and misleading information.
While I don't agree with calling President Obama names (just as I didn't agree when other television personalities called President George Bush names), it is obvious that the majority of the news media support one political party over the other. Fox does the same thing. The only difference is that Fox is only one station that supports the views of the political party that the other 4 or 5 stations constantly demonize and belittle.
Ted, please. These people you interviewed about the news (O'Reilly, Coulter, Maher) are NOT news people - they are ENTERTAINERS. O'Reilly is a Carnival Barker whose job is to get as many people as he can to walk into the tent and see the big show. I stopped watching Fox years ago.
Bill Maher is a professional comedian... and at least he admits it. I give him credit for allowing opposing viewpoints on his show. But it is an entertainment/opinion program, certainly not news.
I am an old Republican and I have become very disappointed in the direction of my party. In order to get bigger ratings, the "conservative" radio and TV entertainers have become more and more outragious - driving my party further and further right. And that's why we are going to lose big in November.
The people I know still want real facts in their news, not yelling and screaming.
The liberal elite media is in a tissy. no longer will their echo chamber of upper east side manhatten cocktail parties be enough to propel their anti american agenda. Hitler or obama are proud to have them on their side.
Incredible!!! NBC believes they have the moral authority to stand as objective critique of bias in the media. We really are living in an upside down world. And Ted--"old school" media may have appeared to be more "civilized", but it was hardly unbiased. The liberal tentacles reached far and deep in networks and schools of journalism from waaay back. Sure, they appeared more subdued perhaps, but so did every other part of society. Bias was much more insidious and much more damaging because they were able to maintain the appearance of objectivity while operating within a climate of liberal bias away from the peering eyes of the public. Talk about "insiders"--journalists and politicians held a "gentleman's pact" that protected our politicians of the day "for the good of the country", but then Nixon/ Watergate came and that pact was essentially destroyed. It was all out war against the right from then on out.
Rush Limbaugh was only able to break through because he blazed his own trail as entrepreneur in talk radio when it was being relegated to second class citizen by mainstream media. He didn't rely upon the gatekeeper deep pocket blue blood networks and recognized the blatant media bias before it became as entrenched as it is now. The liberal media didn't see it coming and have been furious ever since trying to shut him up.
The liberal media is still hanging its hat on its huge monopolistic influence from the past--Those days are gone and good riddance!
Ted Koppel is just mad that nobody wants his soft-pedaled style of liberal bias anymore. People are more informed and educated than ever before. Both camps have been free from the chains of limited news sources for years now with the Internet. As far as Fox News and MSNBC, sure, let's let them be openly liberal or conservative. At least we know where they stand, and if we don't like their perspective, we can always change the channel. This is how it is, liberals are less likely to see bias or any lack of due dilligence in reporting on broadcast, MSNBC, CNN, NPR, etc., because it reflects more or less their worldview or version of the truth, but they keenly feel it on FoxNews or NPR. Likewise, conservatives are less likely to see bias on the part of FoxNews because it more closely relates to their world view, but have complained about bias in the main stream media for more than four decades. There is but one truth. Either way, I would rather have healthy, lively, respectful open debate (based on facts and merits of issues), than be subtely manipulated by an increasingly "Pravdaistic" American press corps.
Where to begin... First there is the First Amendment which allows for freedom of speech and by association the freedom to listen to the opinions that resonate with you. There was a divide crossed at some point where the news "the evening anchors thought was important" to paraphrase Koppel, proved to be but one viewpoint. In the old days the 3 news sources were the only game in town. Then we had the nearly dead AM radio band revived by talk radio. This was a medium that sought to entertain but at the same time to inform in a partisan way - to offer a viewpoint that was certainly against what Cronkite believed. Nothing wrong with that - lets remember the First Amendment.
The final nail in the mainstream media coffin was Dan Rather lying about Bush's National Guard records. This single act did more to kill the credibility of the old news establishments to the point they will never recover. Let's not throw mud only on right of center opinion. There's your very own MSNBC which by all measure is the on-air propaganda arm for Obama and the Democrat National Committee. Their level of objectivity is beyond the pale - it's just horrible. And then there are totally lost souls like Chris "Tingle-Up-The-Leg" Matthews who is cable's biggest Obama apologist.
So what to do? Remember that we all have the right to choose as listeners. I can listen to the soft narcotic lib news on NPR or NBC or I can listen to Rush or Hannity or good old Bill O'Reilley systematically dismantle some boob like Biden or Barney "My Boy Lollypop" Frank. or Comander Zero Obama.
There was a point over 25 years ago when I realized that Uncle Walter and his ilk had an agenda. They were our Soma Masters but I chose not to be a Soma Child anymore. What they told me didn't work for what I saw as truths about how business really works, how basically useless government handouts work. I think we were lied to by the media.
I believe the thoughts offered by Limbaugh and others in talk radio and cable TV opinion are my thoughts but THEY are merely repeating what I already knew! The final proof in in the numbers: Conservative talk radio and cable opinion shows flourish while MSM outlets like NBC are hanging by a thread with a diminishing base, joined by dying enterprises like the New York Times with their layoff and big losses in revenue. The Times by the way does well only when Drudge Report links to one of their articles.
Finally, I'm not some fire breathing, slobbering Deliverance-like redneck with a confederate flag on my pickup. I am rather, a thoughtful guy who listens to a lot of viewpoints and the bill of crap in my opinion, always comes from the left; the things that tear at our fabric as a nation are originated by the left and the left's water carriers are MSM outlets. I think Koppel is a sleepy guy, decent to be sure, but someone I never considered relevant in my news world for the very reason he po-po's; named he lacks fire in his belly. He doesn't engage actively and positvely like a James Carvel, Lannie Davis, Alan Colmes or even loud, old Bob Beckel. I want to hear opinion. If I want objectivity with the news I'll listen to Bret Hume.
As I posted earlier this week. NBC has become such a left wing news outlet with Obama/liberal faces as Andrea Mitchell-Greenspan and the whole crew at MSNBC, you may as well get everyone together one last time, dig a hole and bury John Chancellor's stop watch. NBC is a dying franchise mainly because it's living in the past and it's an shows itself as an apologist for the left....not what I want to put up with. I'll stay with Rush, Hannity and O'Reilly.
To zero in on just one statement, I was struck by the comment about viewers being able to tune into cable stations that echo their own views. I suggest that cable news programming is what has established their "views" in too many cases. I've watched as once reasonable people became drawn in to Fox, for example, and went from moderate viewpoints to extreme viewpoints in no time flat. This isn't confined to the right, but that's the most evident metamorphosis I've encountered here in the South. Friends that could once reasonably and logically discuss political issues now spout canned sound bites like media pros and get upset if they're questioned or disagreed with. Liberals were always that way, ha, so maybe that's why I don't notice such a strong change there. The point that cable news seeks to incite more than inform is so true and is certainly driven by profit. What's hard to understand is why viewers can't see the manipulation or why they not only tolerate it but SEEK it. Gets their blood running, I guess. Listening to folks around here, of either persuasion really, react to every little soundbite only heightens my own blood pressure. Think I'll join the NPR crowd for news and just discuss sports and music with my brain-washed circle of acquaintances from both sides of the spectrum. Guess I'm still allowed to establish my own thoughts on those subjects. And maybe even express them.
Spot on. People now spout sound bytes and when you try to get behind the rhetoric they resort to name-calling instead of actual debate. Years ago, while in high school, I enrolled in debate because it seemed more interesting than "oral communications", which was a new requirement at the time. I went from being a fairly black & white thinker to being forced to argue both sides of the issue in order to win tournaments. Let me tell you, if you really have to write up a case for something you will be surprised how your views can expand. I won't say shift because you still retain your general bent on things but it certainly opens up a world of color and nuance. I think one of the reason the partisan cable news networks have been able to isolate their respective viewing audiences is because education in this country is inadequate to impart critical thinking skills and most people who hear the word "forensics" only think of the criminal kind. If people would learn the skills of actual debate, the name-calling tactics shared by the far Right and the Left would increasingly disgust them for being the intellectual cop-outs they really are.
If one truly has a grasp on a given issue it is more true to my experience and observation that one is unafraid to entertain questions, as opposed to run screaming in the other direction at the mere sight or sound of an opinion not one's own. My in-laws listen to nothing but Fox News in the late afternoon and evening until midnight every single day. Now I'm not going to lie and say I disagree with everything on that channel (or on MSNBC, for that matter). What I do find disturbing — and I think this is what Kopel was trying to say but judging from some of the comments here it didn't get across — is the tendency for people to enter their own little world, fearful of everyone and everything that challenges their world view.
Confirmation bias consists of a self-reaffirming feedback loop, a source of self-inflicted indoctrination, which is never a wise idea no matter what side of the political spectrum one occupies. Surely the educational system in this country has failed if it's come down to "duck and cover", "fight or flight".
I am tired of all the "opinions" I want to hear the truth and only the truth. Where can I get that?
Finding the truth is hard. You have to actively seek it out. The most important think is you have to learn to think critically and ask questions. Questions like, what is this person trying to make me believe and what is their background? I think that's most peoples problem, they just what to have their beliefs and opinions validated and have no interest in the truth.
OK here we GO
Heavy doodie, joe piscapos name for old What Me worry Teddy e Newman Koppel has the unmitigated gall to do a story on the lack of taste, decency, fairness, niceness, and boredom of the Nightline way (which BTW will air AFTER Jimmie kimmel now.)
Koppel bemoans talk radio, FOX, and lifts up his only guest O'Riley who whores himself out on everything from newspaper columns to Dennis miller warm ups to the Daily show and Colbert.
And then the handwringing of BriWi over "does this meaness "spoil the whole bunch girl."
PLEAHEEEZE
Msnbc which hasn't be renamed yet sinceB . Gates showed them the windows. Has Twana Bradley's pappy, mr Potatoe Heads leg thrilling to his hard ballz, Right said ED and his poor Limbaugh imitation left coast style, that failed Hack from "the West wing," , and let's not forget the fired Thrice Olberman who didn't have the decency to fake his Bill Maresque contributions to the democrat party.
Were they sighted in their leftie stupidity against the right wing buffaronniery? NAW!
At least at he Rally for Sanity from Comedy Central that I proudly attended in DC. Johnnie and company slew FOX, CNN, and msnbc and Boy come Monday morning, the Daily show didn't seem so funny to msnbc types. Boo hoo.
Shame on you BriWI and your poorly rated excuse for a news show.
Somewhere, Edwin Newman, Huntley/Brinkley and Chancellor are shaking their heads ruefully in the celestial newsroom.
Brian Williams and Ted Koppel actually believe (I think) that they are unbiased reporters of the news instead of the steadfast Obama supporters they actually are. Ted proves it each time he opens his mouth and Brian proves it each evening with the nightly news. I guess they cannot even begin to think that they are the real reason we have Fox News and AM radio.
I agree. NBC has been caught doctoring 911 tapes to sway public opinion. And, when my Democratic friends comment on how one sided the mainstream media is when reporting on this upcoming election, I know it is not just my imagination.
The writer of this article used the wrong "piece". They should have used "peace" instead. Just sayin'...