The problem with cable news guests

[babylonsister]

http://mediamatters.org/blog/200909010021

The problem with cable news guests

September 01, 2009 2:44 pm ET by Jamison Foser


Washington Post television writer Tom Shales shares an anecdote:

I have a short antidote. I mean anecdote. Years ago I was phoned & asked to be on some news show, this happened a lot in years past, and first I was quizzed on the topic to be discussed. And what I said essentially was that I thought both sides of the argument had validity and that it wasn't a clear cut black&white issue. Bam - that was the end of THAT conversation. They wanted someone who totally adhered to ONE view or the other, not somebody who could see both sides. I think this is a very real problem that results in a lot of yelling where there should be an "exchange of ideas."

You see this kind of story from time to time -- another variant is the prospective guest whose services are no longer required after it becomes clear that he or she won't take the position the booker wants a guest to take.

The implication of the story is usually clear: Look how hackish television bookers and producers are; how they rig things to get the shoutfest they want, and to get on-air the opinions they want expressed.

But there's another side to these stories: The clear implication is that the pundits you see as guests on television are the people who are most willing to play their assigned role; to tailor their actual views to what they think their hosts want them to say.

So the next time you're frustrated that the guest representing the "other" side is lying, or that the guest representing "your" side is ineffectual, remember: They didn't get there by accident.

[BlooInBloo]

1. Indeed - Obama describes as being like pro wrestling.

[Auggie]

2. Recommended

And thanks for posting

[ginnyinWI]

3. and when all the shouting is over, what have we learned?

I guess it's really not about informing at all. It's a sport--watching two sides battle each other with words.

A few weeks ago Bill Moyers was talking about right wing hate speech on the radio, how they have to keep getting more and more outrageous in order to keep thrilling their audience and keep them listening. To the point of saying that they wanted to kill certain people. Advocating murder--what can they possibly say worse than that? It remains to be seen. I guess genocide.

But that's what it's all about--money, ratings and doing anything you can to keep your audience hanging on, including scaring them.


You know where you can actually learn stuff? C-span and PBS, two networks that don't rely on ratings, so they can just inform. Yes, sometimes it's dull, dry and boring. But sometimes it's really interesting and you come away knowing something. If you don't watch the titillating stuff, the other stuff is more interesting--kind of like when fruit tastes better when you're not eating much candy.

[LuvNewcastle]

4. That's true.

I don't have cable, so all I get is PBS and a couple of local stations. I watch the news on PBS and I find it to be informative, at least for the most part. When I visit someone else's house and they're watching the cable news, it just about drives me crazy. It seems like cable news is intended to piss people off, primarily. It just isn't healthy.

[catzies]

5. I do agree with you, but PBS has had its share of shouters. Remember

The McLaughlin Group?

I though John McLaughlin invented the talk-over-the-pundits approach.

[LuvNewcastle]

7. MacLaughlin was funny.

Sometimes they would bust out laughing when he belted out their names. Even Pat Buchanan would get amused.

[Echo In Light]

6. The real problem w/cable news guests rests w/those who DECIDE which ones to have on

From that point they're - the guests - often no different than any actor who shows up to read his lines and fulfill his or her role.

[spanone]

8. cable news not only thrives on, but encourages the bickering....

the louder they yack the longer they stay i.e. pat buchanan

[izzybeans]

9. I always wondered why they didn't get real experts on big

technical issues.

When the levees failed where were the structural engineers?

With discussions of poverty, where are the sociologists?

Actually on most issues, where are the social scientists?

Why do I have to listen to political hacks tell me what to think about the news?

It's 'cause they can lull us to sleep with the back and forth. "Bam, he smacked Billo the clown right the f' down." "Uh oh, Billo's bringing crazy back. That Mf'er don't know how to act."

Meanwhile the people with knowledge on the subject toil away in obscurity, writing books no one reads, teaching classes to students who will soon forget. I have recently turned off cable news all together. Feels good.

[Hissyspit]

10. College Professors, Scholars. They are all missing. It's bizarre.

[ginnyinWI]

13. they're over on PBS talking to Jim Lehrer,

Gwen Ifil and Judy Woodruff on Newshour. :)

[Echo In Light]

11. It present two sides, Big Lie, & (not quite as) Big Lie. Either way, those buying it are fucked.

[Captain Hilts]

12. My former boss refused to appear on shows for that very reason. nt