Looks like CurrentTV and Rachel Maddow is about all we have left.

[Dawgs]

For me, everything else on MSNBC is hit or miss.

[slackmaster]

1. I have never understood why so many DUers are obsessed with TV

Everything on TV is put there because a large corporation thinks it will draw an audience, which makes advertising time valuable.

It's all about money, even Rachel and CurrentTV (whatever that is.)

[Armstead]

2. For better or worse TV is a major source of power, in terms of public opinion...

And perceptions.

It cannot be ignored.

[slackmaster]

4. I don't have any difficulty ignoring it

I just watch educational material, or turn it off and do something else.

[Armstead]

8. That's fine on a personsl level

But most people do rely on it. What is presented onTV and how it is presented does matter politically and in terms of larger social values and results.

[slackmaster]

11. I think that peoples' reliance on it is a very bad thing

They make themselves vulnerable to mind control.

[Armstead]

14. That may be true -- but it's a reality we're stuck with and must be dealt with

[slackmaster]

18. We're not stuck with it. People always have the option of not watching.

I think a lot of people are totally unaware of how much influence TV programming has on them. That's unfortunate, and I'd like to see people become more enlightened.

A single class in the Communications department at UCSD (the first of a series of production classes I took) woke me up to the reality of media influence on peoples' minds. I've never looked at TV since then without an acute awareness of what it's really about.

[Armstead]

23. Again. You are correct but you miss my point.

It would be wonderful if everyone would limit their wAtching and reliance on TV, and develop awareness of what is really going on in media.

But that is not the case. If one is intetested in fostering any any real political progress, TV has to be part of the mix.

IT may be something you personally want to steer clear of, which is fine. I'm just saying that caring about it, and hoping/working to improve what goes out over it is not a trivial matter.

[ZombieHorde]

26. I believe Armstead is talking about the effects of tv propaganda on our population.

So even if you don't watch it, you are affected by it.

[Armstead]

33. Exactly

[CakeGrrl]

44. This site is proof positive - the MSM spins, it shows up here in doomsday OPs. -nt

[leveymg]

5. If it were just about market share, they'd have a dozen Keith and Rachels

It's about controlling both ends of the political framework and the sustaining the appearance of choice, balance, fairness, and legitimacy.

They're obviously less concerned about maintaining such niceties on the Left. We have been allowed no alternatives.

[slackmaster]

12. The fact that there aren't a dozen Keiths or Rachels tells me the media corps don't agree with you

HTH

[leveymg]

17. You assume that ratings are the sole concern of NBC corporate management.

You've never worked in major media, have you?

[slackmaster]

19. Their primary concern is profit

That I know with certainty.

You've never worked in major media, have you?

No, but I have studied it. What are your credentials, and what are you really trying to say?

[leveymg]

21. Profit is strategic. Ratings are tactical. Can't sacrifice the former to the latter, but everyone

on the air is expendable.

My father was Executive Vice President for network operations. I was born and raised with these issues. TV news and even sports and entertainment are political institutions. Politics are at the very center of their mission, and the executives understand that.

[slackmaster]

22. "Politics are at the very center of their mission" is IMO a good reason not to watch it at all

Thanks.

[leveymg]

24. No. It is the reason to watch it - study it, understand it.

". . . Keep your enemies closer" captures it. - Sun Tzu

Besides, propaganda can be entertaining. The best of it approaches art. Knowing the difference is essential to a free and creative mind.

[quakerboy]

55. I challenge you seemingly obvious assertion.

As GE weighs its roll in directing NBC Universal, and that plays out in choices made at the MSNBC level, I wonder if GE makes more money if MSNBC doubles its audience, or if a financial deregulation agenda passes and benefits their fiance arm?

As the CEO and investors of Time Warner consider their company, I wonder. Do they make more money if CNN increases its viewership a bit, or if tax cuts for the rich are passed?

[Deep13]

7. People watch it and are influenced by it. nt

[slackmaster]

13. They're brainwashed.

That's how I see it.

[Deep13]

27. Yup. So the question is...

...do we want them brainwashed by Maddow, Olbermann and other like them or by Hannity, O'Reilly and the other Foxperts? Critical thinking and making up their own minds based on evidence does not seem to be a realistic option.

[slackmaster]

28. Choice C

I don't want people to be brainwashed by anyone or in any particular direction.

Critical thinking and making up their own minds based on evidence does not seem to be a realistic option.

I see that as a failure of our education system. I want children to be taught to think critically, to make up their own minds about things. I want the media to present hard information in as unbiased a manner as possible.

[Deep13]

31. Sure, I want that too. I don't see any possibility of it happening. nt

[Bluenorthwest]

10. Current is the future. It has been my favorite TV network for a

couple of years now, among other things they produce the very best investigative journalism series to be on TV in years, Vanguard. Sterling work they do. Current was founded by Al Gore and Joel Hyatt, 10% is held by Comcast from before the merger, and that is about the worst of their financial ties.
They have nominations for Emmy awards in news, a Peabody Award, and you might have heard about those reporters, Ling and Lee, who were held captive by North Korea? They were working for Current at the time of their arrest.
All business is about money, but not all business is only about money.

[slackmaster]

16. Thanks, I'll check it out.

I remember some of the truly excellent programs that were on in the late 1960s, such as The 20th Century hosted by Walter Cronkite, and the later incarnation The 21st Century. I haven't seen much on the mainstream channels that comes close.

I don't want a TV show to have as its primary goal telling me what I should think about an issue or a situation in the world. I want information so that I can make up my own mind.

[Bluenorthwest]

25. Link to Vanguard for you, they have much online....

They cover diverse subject matters, so pick one of interest and see how they look to you! I'll also add that in my view, the news media situation is so screwed up that the only way to get it right is to start from scratch, and at least they are trying to do just that at Current.
http://current.com/shows/vanguard/

[tularetom]

3. For me it's pretty much miss

Sharpton - OK in small doses. Too much for an entire hour.

Matthews - just plain awful. Unwatchable. Makes me want to puke.

O"Donnell - maybe OK at times but it conflicts with Countdown so I don't watch.

Maddow - the bright shining light in the whole crappy lineup. It's on at dinnertime here and it sometimes gets drowned out by the table talk.

Schultz - like Sharpton. I like him but the show is too high pitched. This time of day I just want to chill.

[Armstead]

9. That's pretty much how I see it.

A lot has to do with the rat-a-tat format of those networks.

Somehow Maddow is able to fit into it and teanscend it. But watching Ed Schultz is luke watching a machine, even though I usually agree with him.

O'Donnell is like watching a machine with a massive ego.

[Bluenorthwest]

15. That is very insightful, if you ask me.

They do cookie cutter repetitive programming. Rachel's show was developed, Rachel herself was developed, under their old regime, as it were. Look into a camera and rave on, that is what they do, again and again. Then they introduce Pat Buchanan, and I tune out.

[jefferson_dem]

6. I totally agree that Maddow is "must see" TV.

Otherwise, it's all hit or miss, at best.

Though Tweety is fun sometimes ... And i've found Lawrence to be more watchable than I expected.

That being said, Cenk was not even hit or miss for me. His blustery sarcastic santimony... not my style.

[Empowerer]

20. Wow - we've moved into Bizarroland

A world in which Rev. Al Sharpton is not liberal enough for the pure-at heart . . .

[Dawgs]

29. Being liberal does not make one entertaining. But, keep trying.

You might actually find someone that gives a shit.

[Dawgs]

30. Says the person who's made it his mission to attack Cenk to get Sharpton his own show.

Is Cenk not a liberal?

[Empowerer]

32. I think you have a crush on me . . .

The way you follow me around, from thread to thread and post to post hanging on my every utterance would be creepy in the real world, but here in Bizarroland, it's rather endearing . . .

[Dawgs]

38. I post in many threads that make stupid arguments.

Yours is nothing special.

[Tarheel_Dem]

34. You need people on the teevee to shape your political opinions? That speaks volumes.

:eyes:

[young but wise]

37. +1000

[Dawgs]

39. Who the fuck said that?

And me watching MSNBC for two or three hours every week is no different than hanging out on DU. I can think for myself; unlike the cheerleaders.

[Tarheel_Dem]

41. You're gonna pop a blood vessel over this aren't you?

:rofl:

[jenmito]

35. Lawrence O'Donnell is VERY good, too. n/t

[Tennessee Gal]

36. Agreed.

He is excellent at analysis.

[jenmito]

48. He knows what he's talking about. n/t

[Dawgs]

40. He's good, but it's still hit or miss. n/t

[alp227]

43. remember his angry epic interview with Orly Taitz?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/42791137

[jenmito]

46. I sure do! That's unforgettable! n/t

[alp227]

53. also check out this hard-hitting intvw with Trent Franks

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/41146169#41146169

[SharonRB]

45. Absolutely

He has a better understanding of the inner workings than any of the others since he's been there. His analysis is excellent.

[jenmito]

47. Yup...

he's VERY knowledgeable on the inner workings of govt. He's a very effective TV host.

[WiffenPoof]

42. I Really Miss Cenk...

He was one of the only reasons I watched MSNBC. He spoke for me.

-P

[quiller4]

49. I am so glad he is gone and I REALLY like Sharpton.

[Tarheel_Dem]

50. Ditto!

:thumbsup:

[Jakes Progress]

51. Only room for one progressive?

I could have done with both. One to kiss Obama's ass. The other to kick it. Politicians desire the first and need the second.

[Divine Discontent]

52. ha! good one! :)

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

54. Sharpton gives a great speech but he's not a very good interviewer

But I suspect that he will get better and better with time, just like Cenk did. I look forward to seeing him hone his skills as a journalist over time. But in my opinion he's not there yet.

[otohara]

56. KO Msnbc Vendetta is a Turn Off

Get over it Keith