Political TV

[Gregg]

Was talking to a very right wing friend about Sean Hannity's TV show. He was basically saying that the liberal guy they bring in as a counterpoint is intelligent enough, but has all kind of very annoying habits (always rolling his eyes, pounding his fist on the desk, etc.). I suggested that was probably exactly the part that was written for him so he could help fire up Hannity's base a little more by coming off rude, but not go all the way to being a stooge. My buddy could not believe that I thought the exchanges on the show were anything but real.

For a long time now I've believed that almost any TV show that is politically based, no matter if right or left, is totally scripted to make the host appear superior to the opposition and thus validate the beliefs of the viewers. MSNBC is every bit as guilty as FOX and all the others follow suit so its not just a right or left wing issue. If you need a little support from your peer group, watch away. If you're looking for real debate, better go elsewhere. What do you guys think?

[cattledog]

I like the PBS Newshour. Generally, their panel discussions are interesting (from both points of view) and avoid all the bombastic "scripted" conversations. I think they do a good job of moderating as well.

[peggy]

Well I do think some of it might be scripted, but I think more often the hosts just has someone on who they feel they can 'best'. If you notice, the liberals/democrats on Fox usually don't have a good argument, if any, for their side. In fact, they seem to spend more time reaffirming the host's ideas. So these guys are really hand picked to promote the conservative viewpoint. However, every now and then, especially Hannity cause I don't think he is the brightest bulb on the tree, he will have a smart liberal on who is prepared and actually does make a point, sometimes making this idiot look like, well, an idiot. Most of the time he just sits there looking like a deer in the headlights, but if he is on his game, he'll start shaking his finger and changing the subject and generally shouting over the guest. Those guests don't generally get invited back.:~)
With MSNBC, I really don't watch anything except Chris Matthews. He is a very smart guy, and very political. He does have the other view point on, and for the most part he lets them say their say, but if they aren't prepared to discuss the topic at hand and try to change the subject or direct the conversation somewhere else, he can be brutal. There have been a couple of times when I wished he would just shut up and let the guest speak. But I find, for the most part, he lets them talk. He'll say if he disagrees with them, but he seems pretty fair. I love his laugh!
I guess Al Sharpton and Rachel Maddow are a bit more partisan, and Ed Schultz is a screamer, can't stand that. Every now and then I'll catch the other two if I'm just flipping, but I don't watch them regularly.
I think talk shows are maybe more scripted than just political interview type shows. I guess they are scripted in what they plan to talk about, but when they get a guest on, even with Fox, I think it's just what it is. As I said, the 'scripting' comes with who the guest is, and I'm guessing the hosts pretty much know how the guest is going to answer, or at least which side of an issue the guest falls on.

[peggy]

I like the PBS Newshour. Generally, their panel discussions are interesting (from both points of view) and avoid all the bombastic "scripted" conversations. I think they do a good job of moderating as well.

Absolutely! ++1

[creaker]

I think all of it, in the end, is all about profits and market share (even PBS is marketing itself to a particular audience). It's business.

That said, if one can turn a profit and push a particular agenda at the same time, I expect it would happen. And if the money to be made pushing an agenda exceeds what the viewing market can bring in (superPAC's, maybe? it definitely happens for things like infomercials) what ends up on the tube may not get driven by market share at all.

[ApatheticNoMore]

I like the PBS Newshour. Generally, their panel discussions are interesting (from both points of view) and avoid all the bombastic "scripted" conversations. I think they do a good job of moderating as well.

Hmm, maybe I haven't seen this, only Washington Week in review maybe? Not a big fan of that, it seemed all the really important issues get ignored but there's lots of strategy talk "how will x, y, z play in Peoria". Really all that is is diverting people's focus from the issues to stuff mostly only of concern to political consultants. In short, it's a form of propaganda :)

[loosechickens]

I think I agree, Gregg....the presence of the "opposition" on most of those opinion shows is mostly a way for the host to best them, to the cheers of the partisan watchers, who then find their particular views reinforced, especially since the "cardboard cutout" opposition person was so easily bested.

I have seen Chris Matthews give an extremely hard time to those "on his side" as well as others, for trying to spin something, and while she is certainly openly liberal, I have also seen Rachel Maddow have a very civil and meaningful dialogue with some conservative on her show that was both respectful and allowed that conservative to express that viewpoint cogently and without ridicule. But my preference for all of those shows would be honest dialogue, attention to factual information, having a responsibility to educate viewers as opposed to "selling" a viewpoint, etc., but that's probably too much to ask. At least Fox openly sells the viewpoint, and has dropped the facade of "fair and balanced", which is an improvement.

but, it isn't GOOD for us to simply have our beliefs reinforced. What is GOOD for us is to have open, civil discussion of the various ways of looking at something, argue it out, try to find common ground, recognize that both conservatives and liberals "love America", "want the best for their country", and while they may see from different viewpoints, are not to be demonized........

Maybe it's because we're getting ready to pull the plug on satellite TV again (we get a deal for maybe $35 a month, good for a year, then when that runs out, and price goes to regular about $60, we think that is way too much for how much TV we actually watch, so we go to cancel it, and sometimes they just continue the deal to get us to stay, and sometimes we succeed in actually getting rid of it, then a few months later, we start getting the "we want you back" emails with great deals, back to $29 a month, etc., and first thing we know we are signing up for "the deal" again, because we really DO enjoy The Daily Show, or like to sit down and watch the various news channels when something interesting is happening), but we are slowly, but surely keeping the danged thing turned off most of the time......we are probably down to well under an hour a day, so it shouldn't be hard to let it go.

I'm finding myself drawn more to CNN these days as they are trying to position themselves as the more objective network, and do seem to have much less partisan stuff on, and when they do, they have both sides, and competent people from each side discussing, so a big improvement from some others. Especially since MSNBC has chosen to "lean left" in response to Fox's "lean right", which, incidentally, I think has been a mistake for them.

The one thing I DO notice, and this is a criticism of Fox, is that while MSNBC certainly leans liberal in its opinion shows, its ordinary news shows are still pretty objective. What I mind about Fox is that the bias which is always present on opinion shows, regardless of orientation or channel, bleeds over into their ordinary news coverage, which presents stories with the "Fox party line", even during the broadcasts that are supposed to be straight news. Shephard seems to resist this better than most of the other Fox guys....

These days, I seek out as objective a view as I can find on the internet, often from international sources, who are intensely interested in U.S. politics, but often without a "dog in the hunt", and more objective, and try to visit both left and right newssites, to try to achieve some sort of factual understanding, not only of what is actually the case, but how each side filters it.

I don't think this political side taking is doing our country any good, and just serves to divide us more, polarize our viewpoints, prevent us from seeing how much we have in common, but after all, in these corporations, profit is the bottom line, and what increases profits, and catering to or pandering to what people want to hear, i.e., having their beliefs reflected back to them, increases profits.

I find that I get my best information (if I had to pick only one source), it's NPR radio. We wake up to Morning Edition, make supper to All Things Considered, listen to Talk of the Nation often, Science Friday, etc., and feel that of all the sources available, they seem to have the best record of trying to help you understand with some degree of depth, what is factually happening, the differences of opinion about what is happening, etc., and their record of having well informed listeners in various studies reflects that.

I like the PBS NewsHour, and also BBC World News on radio........

But, these days, I'm almost feeling like crawling under a rock somewhere until the election is over, because everything is just SO overheated, the information coming from all around is just so biased, sometimes actually factually untrue, that it depresses me. Maybe it's time for at least a partial "information diet".

[Zoebird]

I mostly prefer john stewart and steven colbert. at least they are openly being entertainers!

Otherwise, I don't watch any of these shows, nor listen to them on the radio, nor am I interested i them in any way. I don't watch any news shows or programming at all, getting my news via reading -- usually starting with headlines from various sources. If i have an interest in something, then I track it down using non-US sources as well as US sources to get a diverse perspective.

Surprisingly, Al Jeezera (sp?) actually has a lot of great reporting.

[loosechickens]

I like Al Jazeera, too. It's one of the international sources we use.......it often has the most complete, and surprisingly, to many, objective news coverage of things happening in the Middle East. Certainly, you are seeing what happens through the eyes of people in the Middle East, as opposed to simply what Americans think they see happening, but I've been surprised myself at how well they do with general news. They are trying to position themselves as a trusted news source for the world, much as CNN International has been over the years (far different from CNN as broadcast in this country....one would think that CNN here and CNN International weren't even connected with one another, with CNN International being far superior), and it seems important to them to be as objective as possible in their coverage, and not just cover the Middle East, but worldwide. Al Jazeera is actually very well thought of by serious news people. We are able to access their world news through LinkTV on our satellite TV, and online, although for many access to their broadcasting here in the U.S. is difficult.

[ApatheticNoMore]

I used to trust CNN, I found out they hid too much. Just another mainstream media source censoring reality. But really the whole NDAA blackout changed my perception of what was going on (definite blackout on CNN - no, make that *proveable* blackout on CNN - I questioned my perceptions and went back and queried their archive - there really was a blackout).

[Gregg]

I'm also a bit of an NPR junkie. In truth at our house the TV usually only comes on later in the evening when we are ready to take a load off and veg. At that time the shows on either Fox or MSNBC are so vile that we don't even bother to look at them. Off to the cooking channel or HGTV shows that we DVR'd. Like creaker said, its all about market share which equates to profit. I think any of the hosts will hire any 'guest' they think will help them increase market share. If they believe their audience would best pony up to see cerebral banter from intelligent, articulate, informed and polite participants on each side of an issue that is what we would get. Obviously neither side thinks that is the right equation. It appears to me that the producers of these shows firmly believe that most of their audience wants to see a host who shares (or spoon feeds as the case may be) the philosophy of the viewer trounce an under-gunned, ill prepared challenger. In short, most people must want to see an ass kicking, not a debate. And not just any beat down, but one that is carefully orchestrated to reaffirm the viewer's feelings that their stand is superior.

[ApatheticNoMore]

I doubt anyone who gets their news mostly or soley from television has a clue what is going on in the world (and frankly many newspapers are scarcely any better).