General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWhy MSNBC's political scandal coverage is more powerful than Fox News'
http://theweek.com/article/index/256447/why-msnbcs-political-scandal-coverage-is-more-powerful-than-fox-newsWhy MSNBC's political scandal coverage is more powerful than Fox News'
It comes down to credibility
By Bill Scher | 6:00am ET
snip//
Fox's credibility is shot precisely because of its past experiences going down rabbit holes in hopes of tarring Democrats, breathlessly deeming multiple pseudo-scandals as "Worse Than Watergate."
While it's typical for media outlets to get hysterical and speculative in the heady early days of a potential scandal, more reputable ones change their tone once exculpatory evidence comes to light. Fox, however, tends to treat any reporting counter to its pre-cooked narratives as target for attack. For example, when the New York Times published a major investigative report debunking conservative-driven myths about Benghazi, Fox News aired segments such as "New York Times doing PR work for Hillary?" and "New York Times Benghazi Report Seriously Flawed."
On the other hand, MSNBC is exercising quality control. The network's reporters haven't been in the business of ginning up scandals regardless of evidence. They went all-in on Christie because they sensed a good story, and kept at it when their instincts paid off. Led by Kornacki's deep knowledge of the Jersey political world, MSNBC has been able to generate its own scoops and offer thoughtful, reported speculation that points journalists in new directions.
Of course, Fox sometimes hits upon a Democratic scandal that is not fictional, such as the 2011 sexting escapades of former Rep. Anthony Weiner. But MSNBC did not shy away from that either. After initially giving him the benefit of the doubt, Rachel Maddow put direct and tough questions to the congressman and Ed Schultz called for his resignation. Later, during Weiner's ill-fated 2013 mayoral run, Lawrence O'Donnell famously humiliated him to his face. MSNBC showed its willingness to be moved by evidence and hold Democrats accountable as well as Republicans, bolstering its credibility in ways Fox rarely does.
As a result, Fox has created itself a sizeable audience, but drowns it in a swamp of fever dreams and cuts it off from the reality-based community. MSNBC's audience may be smaller, but it's more influential and helps carry MSNBC's coverage farther.
The Christie administration may want to trivialize MSNBC as a "partisan network." Conservatives may scoff and call the network "obsessive." But MSNBC is drawing blood in a way that Fox's vaunted "Noise Machine" has been struggling to do in the Obama era.
monmouth3
(3,871 posts)constructed the timelines and have not exaggerated anything. MSNBC is the only show I watch in that category. The rest are a waste of my time.
longship
(40,416 posts)And she's kept at it as new info was revealed, however always giving credit to the local reporters who were the real heroes. She regularly interviewed them as primary sources throughout her coverage, giving them national coverage as well as the credit.
That's classy.
R&
Mr.Bill
(24,104 posts)corruption story. She single-handedly turned a red state blue.
And she's not finished.
longship
(40,416 posts)Here in the forests of Michigan where the only internet is dial-up or cell phone, I do the 10 Mbyte audio every night she's on. Usually posted by 11:00PM. The video challenges my download limit.
Listening is nearly as good and the production values are still there.
I love Rachel. She's tops at NBC.
And you are correct, she's just getting started.
Mr.Bill
(24,104 posts)I have great internet and have followed Rachel since she started turning up as a guest on Olberman's show. Radio reception, however, is poor here, not too many stations and I never was able to listen to Air America, so I never heard her then.
FreeJoe
(1,039 posts)They cry "wolf" almost continuously. It works. I know many people that think that our party is about to implode under the weight of scandal.
BlueStreak
(8,377 posts)There are facts, and then there are opinions about the relative weight and implications of facts. While both MSNBC and Faux may have their own angle on the latter, the fundamental difference is that on Faux, the basic facts just don't seem to matter. And the facts really do do matter on the rest of the networks most of the time.
This is why it is a disservice to include Faux in a discussion of news networks. The minimum requirement for being in that club ought to be that the foundation for any story or discussion be fact-based.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)I love Rachel and the rest of 'em
But they appeared to have been effectively neutered on covering anything related to the interests of their corporate masters at Comcast.
Maybe I've missed it, but I haven't seen word one on either the Death of Net Neutrality or the Comcast Monopoly that is being put together.
Were this not involving their own bread and butter, it is the kind of story they'd be going with big time.
Even CNN had an extended interview with a critic of the merger. And Shepard Smith on Fox did one of the best takedowns on the Net Neutrality story
Hekate
(90,202 posts)I mean it. They listen to their audience when warranted, and this is warranted.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Don't get me wrong..I admire most of what they do, but this illustrates what happens when the companies who own everything also own the news outlets
bkanderson76
(266 posts)certainot
(9,090 posts)work with and it reflects what a media in a real democracy might be doing. but with talk radio the stink tanks can create their own reality. the right wing talk radio monopoly is the only medium organ that can do the groundwork unchallenged repetition needed to sell the alternate reality.
it's really not fox that is the problem dragging the GOP and the country off the cliff- it's 1200 stink tank coordinated radio stations reaching 50 million a week.
and shamefully many of the loudest of them are endorsed by state funded universities that broadcast their sports on them for licensing fees that are much less than those same stations cost them in ALEC initiated attacks on public education. 170 of limbaugh's 600 for 70+ universities and probably between 30-40% of all RW radio stations.
https://sites.google.com/site/universitiesforrushlimbaugh/
fox woud be laughable if it didn't have a practically invisible big brother known as talk radio beating liberals and democracy all day with a 2x4.
Gore1FL
(21,034 posts)The GW Bridge is a distraction from real news at this point.
yortsed snacilbuper
(7,939 posts)Not necessarily, new information keeps surfacing every day and we need to know about everybody involved, it's called investigative journalism!
elzenmahn
(904 posts)...such as FACT-BASED stories about corruption regarding potential presidential candidates. The way this guy operates now will be a reflection of how he'll operate should he win.
I consider "over-coverage" to be about things that have been proven to be based on BS - like that Fox Favorite, "Bengazi". Or a million other things they try to put over Obama's head.
Gore1FL
(21,034 posts)It seems like it's almost entirely what they talk about anymore.
elzenmahn
(904 posts)...I'll give this to them: they practice actual journalism, whereas Fox is truly nothing more than a Republican megaphone.
This is why the Christie scandal has the legs it deserves.
yortsed snacilbuper
(7,939 posts)You got that right.
erronis
(14,955 posts)There's a lot of shit happening in the transfer of money and power between the plutocrats and the nominal representatives of the voting populace (your congress-crittes).
Throw the populace a big fat hambone to knaw on while the 'crats and 'sters rape the rights and savings of the x-middle-class.
otohara
(24,135 posts)They have a diverse group of hosts and guests. Their prime time hosts are smart, LGBT and immigrant friendly. Weekends w/ Steve K and MHP are top notch. Rev. Al is #1 in ratings with African American's. They're pretty inclusive except for MJoe.
I know Glenn G and Jeremy S whine about MSNBC - but I don't care what they think on many things.
elzenmahn
(904 posts)1. They are a corporate-owned entity, and will only be as "progressive" as their owners (Comcast) allow them to be;
2. As seen by the recent Martin Bashir debacle and the (in my opinion) unnecessary tearful apology to the family of the MittWit by MHP, they don't have the spine that is necessary to be a truly effective progressive network - because they aren't led by progressives;
3. Look into Phil Griffin, MSNBC's head. He's not a progressive by any stretch - he's a businessman, first and foremost, and it's his job to know which side his bread is buttered on.
4. They are a commercial, profit-seeking enterprise. By law, profit is their prime directive - not news, not political activism.
5. To me, part of being a progressive is to criticize corrupt power structures. The problem is, when you criticize the government by itself, I think you're barking up the wrong tree. "Government" in the US, now, is nothing more than a subsidiary of Corporate America and the Banks - and in my opinion, MSNBC doesn't nearly do enough criticism of the latter (save for Rachel Maddow's brilliant take-downs of the Brothers Koch). Try this on for size - do you honestly think that if Comcast or any of her business interests were involved in major scandals, that MSNBC would be breaking those stories?
6. I could go on, but this deserves its own thread.
My definition of true "progressive" electronic media is found on the outside of the mainstream - Democracy Now, RT, Pacifica Radio and some of the lefty podcasts (Sam Seder, Thom Hartmann, etc.).
I'm not saying don't watch MSNBC. Just bring your salt shaker with you, and know what it is you're watching.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)Cha
(295,929 posts)mahalo babylonsistah~