MSNBC vs. Fox
In the comments, James writes:
Wow, I think you’re right about parallel universes, because I see a totally different MSNBC (and campaign generally) than you do.
You see a “slight pro-Obama tilt”; I see a network that’s completely in the tank for Obama, with unabashed cheerleading and contempt and utter loathing for anything and anyone Republican (or even Democrat, if they dare to question Obama in any way). I see a network that’s every bit as ruthless as you see Fox News as.
To be honest, I wish MSNBC was more in the tank for Obama and more ruthless — it’s totally fair that progressives, after 8 years of suffering through the journalistic “leadership” of Fox News now have their own partisan outlet. There was a time when all three cable networks described any dissent from the Bush administration line (this was in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 and the Iraq invasion) as “traitors,” “un-American” and “unpatriotic.” But Keith Olbermann’s show proved to the NBC bean-counters that there was an untapped market for a progressive alternative to Fox.
Here’s the thing, I’ve never begrudged Fox’s partisanship, I just hate how they treat it like an open secret. They never mention it, instead pretending to be objective journalists. And this is exactly what MSNBC does now — except there are number of conservatives on the payroll, such as Joe Scarborough (former Republican Congressman), Chuck Todd, Andrea Mitchell (married to Alan Greenspan), Pat Buchanan, Norah O’Donnell (married to a Republican operative), etc. Many more serious conservatives, I might add, then the liberals on the Fox network. The thing that makes MSNBC different is the presence of two stridently liberal personalities as anchors — Olbermann and Maddow, as well as commentators such as the great Eugene Robinson of The Washington Post, whose columns were a life raft for many of us over the last 8 years (someone needs to give Robinson a show, too). No one else has anchors with such openly progressive views.
Here’s the thing, traditionally in America the press has been fiercely partisan. A newspaper was openly in the pocket of one party or another, and the media was hopelessly corrupt. The idea of an objective, non-partisan media first crystalized in the post-World War II era when non-partisan civic responsibility was highly valued. It’s died a long slow death thanks to the influence of people like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Fox News, etc. It’s only taken this long for liberals to realize that they need a piece of the partisan media pie, and that there’s consumers out there like me who want to get it.
The “slight” tilt I describe regarding MSNBC is the result of Olbermann, Madows, Robinson and a few others. The lion’s share of the MSNBC commentators are either conservatives or old-school reporters who want to at least appear fair. It’s not like Fox, where even the morning show anchors are tittering about Joe Biden’s hairplugs.
But I could see that if you don’t identify with the left, then MSNBC would appear to be in the tank for Obama. As a progressive and a fiercely loyal Democrat, though, they don’t go far enough for me. This isn’t to say that I only get my news from progressive sources — I read any number of conservative blogs, watch Fox, read the Wall Street Journal editorial page, etc. But I want a stronger progressive counterweight to Fox — I want my side to finally have a voice that defends our interests as shamelessly as Fox does. For many years there simply wasn’t one on television.
As for parallel universes, there are multiple political perspectives in America, but they have all been forced (sometimes too much so) into the left-right axis. What the left wants out of politics is vastly different from what the right wants. I see Sarah Palin as an incompetent extremist bent on undermining the issues that I care about, while others view her as a hero and a standard bearer for their cause. I see Obama as an inspiring leader, someone who will bring about progressive political change in a way we haven’t experienced since Franklin Roosevelt, the kind of leader on the left that the right had with Ronald Reagan (who was, after all, the Republican Roosevelt). Those on the right view him as an inexperienced lightweight and a radical. That’s a difference of opinion, because there are two completely irreconcilable worldviews at work here, each pushing to take control of the government.
Partisanship gets a bad rap (cue a stern lecture from Joe Lieberman) — but it’s always been with us, and it’s not a bad thing. We shouldn’t be ashamed that we have a difference of opinion — that difference is, of course, enshrined in our Constitution. And there’s good (and bad) people on both sides, but we have some pretty fundamental disagreements about the way the country should go.
It’s not possible for a nation as big and diverse as America to have one common political consensus — it’s never been the case. But we love the myth, the idea that there was this American past where everyone was the same, and that we can all go back to it. Partisan media takes us away from that unattainable myth, and brings us something more akin to the truth.
By James, September 4, 2008 @ 10:57 am
This is a good, and thoughtful post, although I do have some disagreement.
I’d argue strongly against the idea that right-wing talk radio, Fox News et all killed non-partisan media. I’d argue that they themselves were a response to a mainstream media which, while it might have claimed to be nonpartisan, was anything but. From my perspective, the major networks and the big national newspapers (NY Times, Washington Post) have been to the left, and have promoted Democratic Party issues, narratives and candidates all along. I’d also say that it continues to this very day (the lack of coverage of John Edwards’ scandal, when “everyone” in the Washington circuit knew/suspected it, and while he was still running for President, and the fact that it only came out after he was out of the race – and the National Enquirer shamed the mainstream press into covering it…compared to the glee with which the press has torn into every aspect of Sarah Palin’s life as well as that of her underage children, treating every rumor and allegation and utterance by her political foes as something worthy of fornt page news).
I imagine you’d disagree.
Your larger point about partisanship troubles me in one sense; I don’t think it’s a good thing, at least not the degree and vitriol of it. You’re correct that we have blocs of society that want the country to be run radically differently, or even more, they want radically different countries altogether. We’re not disagreeing over whether the tax rate should be 25% or 31%.
These blocs see events differently to the point that they share almost no common reference point; and I can’t see how that’s good, or sustainable in the long run.
We don’t have a common culture, really. We don’t have a common history, or ethnicity or religion. We barely have a common language. And after the Cold War, we no longer have an external threat against which we could all (to varying degrees) unite against.
Thanks to the Internet and cable/satellite and Ipods (not that I want to get rid of any of these things, obviously), we don’t have to share ANYTHING.
If we can’t even agree on basic facts about the world around us (forget interpertation, I’m talking about the existence of the facts in the first place), we don’t have a sociaty that’s sustainable.
I think that’s a very bad thing. I’m not saying I want to go back to some mythical 1950′s that never actually existed where we all got along and thought the same and everything was perfect (except for the bad things which we pretended didn’t exist). But we’re in a really frightening place, in terms of what kind of society and country we are, and in terms of how we relate to our fellow citizens.