MSNBC loses one of its most radical hosts


Off-Topic Discussions

1 to 50 of 285 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

Why did Keith Olbermann leave MSNBC?

Is this a sign of sanity returning to the airwaves?

Doubtful.


pres man wrote:

Is this a sign of sanity returning to the airwaves?

Doubtful.

Agreed, Fox is still up.

Liberty's Edge

Radical. That's hilarious. Or sad. One of those.

The Exchange

Kortz wrote:
Radical. That's hilarious. Or sad. One of those.

This thread, the op, or him leaving?


pres man wrote:

Why did Keith Olbermann leave MSNBC?

Is this a sign of sanity returning to the airwaves?

Doubtful.

Deeply improbable that MNSBC will do much to change their tone. While not as profitable as Fox, MNSBC has surpassed CNN in the market. Catering to a political ideology is where the money is - if MNSBC wants to give that up another network would move in to take their place.

More likely whats happened is that Keith Olbermann, always a difficult employee, is no longer needed by MSNBC since they now have a host of liberal leaning staff.

Liberty's Edge

Um, everyone is missing a HUGE point.

Comcast owns MSNBC now, not GE. GE is a pretty liberal company (Repubs aren't pushing Green tech and alternate energy - both fields GE is primed to make a killing in), and NBC News is practically the Propaganda wing of the DNC (much like Fox is the same for the RNC).

Comcast doesn't play that.

Comcast, as a corporation, donates more money to the RNC and Republican candidates (the Repubs aren't the ones pushing net neutrality, don't you know) than they do left leaning candidates (and, if you check their political donation record - public info, btw - the Dems they do give to tend to be Blue Dog types - Comcast isn't giving Frankin money any time soon).

Olbermann is the highest rated personality on MSNBC (even though he only pulls a third of the audience his time slot competitor, Bill O'Reilly, does), so firing him immediately after purchasing the station makes little sense unless you figure Comcast is going to move MSNBC to the center, or clean house eventually (I hear they're not big on Mathews, either).

And there is always the arrogant douche factor. ESPN didn't get rid of him because his numbers sucked (him and Dan Patrick were the most popular Sports Center duo), they got rid of him because he was a pompous, insufferable ass.

Quite a few of us who have been paying attention to the Comcast buyout were taking bets on how long it would take them to dump Olbermann.

I lost, I thought he would be gone by mid-February.

Liberty's Edge

Jeremy Mac Donald wrote:
pres man wrote:

Why did Keith Olbermann leave MSNBC?

Is this a sign of sanity returning to the airwaves?

Doubtful.

Deeply improbable that MNSBC will do much to change their tone.

So, what I'm saying is, yes, it's very probable MSNBC will change its tone over the next year.


houstonderek wrote:
Jeremy Mac Donald wrote:
pres man wrote:

Why did Keith Olbermann leave MSNBC?

Is this a sign of sanity returning to the airwaves?

Doubtful.

Deeply improbable that MNSBC will do much to change their tone.
So, what I'm saying is, yes, it's very probable MSNBC will change its tone over the next year.

If so they'll have a network without viewers while some one else moves into the vacuum created and sets up another left leaning network - which will be where their viewers end up.

Its really not a very smart move on their part. They just spent 13.75 Billion for a 51% stake in a slew of assets. It'd be a very short sighted of them to damage one of the better assets they acquired. I doubt their share holders would approve if they are letting their politics get in the way of them making money - especially since they could sell the asset for big bucks if it really bothers them. Shutting it down just looses them the money with no upside.

My gut feeling is that this is a bit of Comcast's doing and a lot of Keith Olbermann's doing. He has repeatedly, in the past, made it absolutely clear that he will put up with no over site from his bosses and is willing to quite at the drop of a hat. I suspect Comcast insisted that he acknowledge that they where in fact his bosses and he pretty much told them to shove that idea where the sun don't shine and insisted that he'd get to say whatever he wanted, whenever he wanted, however he wanted...so they came to a mutual understanding that they'd pay him 10 million compensation to leave so long as he did not take another TV gig for at least 1 year - rumor has it that CNN was interested in getting him to come work for them, something MSNBC probably would not have liked.

Liberty's Edge

It may not be. I already said Olbermann is their highest rated personality, and the guy they're replacing him with is going to shed viewers like eczema.

My point is, Comcast is an American company. Shortsightedness is a hallmark of our corps (or did you miss the whole "our entire economy almost collapsed because a whole lot of our cops couldn't think past lunch, let alone a few years down the road" debacle of the last two years?). And Comcast has some serious political interest in seeing one party do well and another not. And guess what? The left isn't who Comcast has interest in.

Think about this from an American perspective. Our country (well, our two nations barely co-existing) isn't rational much of the time, and our corporate overlords less so.

Heck, 99% of our politicians barely qualify as sentient life forms.

And, frankly, any viewers MSNBC loses will just go back to CNN. Or to Fox, quite a few righties watch MSNBC to see what they consider a trainwreck. Much like how so many lefties here are stone cold experts on Fox News. Because, you know, they all rush home and watch Beck, O'Reilly and Hannity every night.

Bottom line, they bought a news channel that espouses politics opposite to those the parent company hold. And, since they're human, they're not going to sign paychecks for people actively attacking their lobbying efforts.

Badmouth your boss constantly for months and see how long he keeps you around.

Liberty's Edge

Oh, don't get me wrong. They axed Olbermann to send a message to Maddow and Mathews. He was the king of the MSNBC hill by a mile. And he is a complete douche (ESPN got rid of him when he and Dan Patrick were their most popular team specifically because he's an arrogant prick).

And, yeah CNN is interested. They're a shadow of their former selves, they went from over 3 million viewers to around 600k for prime time. Olbermann would give them a little more credibility (but they'd still be losing out two to one to Fox if they managed to get all of Olbermann's viewers and retain their own), desperately needed cred.

The Exchange

houstonderek wrote:

Oh, don't get me wrong. They axed Olbermann to send a message to Maddow and Mathews. He was the king of the MSNBC hill by a mile. And he is a complete douche (ESPN got rid of him when he and Dan Patrick were their most popular team specifically because he's an arrogant prick).

And, yeah CNN is interested. They're a shadow of their former selves, they went from over 3 million viewers to around 600k for prime time. Olbermann would give them a little more credibility (but they'd still be losing out two to one to Fox if they managed to get all of Olbermann's viewers and retain their own), desperately needed cred.

Maybe if they all stopped selling poor mans opinions and start showing news again, this wouldn't matter. Oh wait it doesn't. well to me anyway I never watched the guy.

Liberty's Edge

Crimson Jester wrote:
Kortz wrote:
Radical. That's hilarious. Or sad. One of those.
This thread, the op, or him leaving?

I find it sadly funny that someone thinks Olbermann is radical.

There are two kinds of bears in the world: bears that dance and bears that don't. Olbermann thinks he is the latter when he is the former. Beck, Palin, Limbaugh, O'Reilly all seem to understand their roles as dancing bears and that the atavistic cretins in their audiences tune in with the subconscious desire to see the truth subverted and made a mockery so that they come away with the feeling that the nightmarish world has been tamed as it shambles across the dark stage in its red white and blue circus costume.

Olbermann's schtick as the dancing bear that tells truth to power has always been discordant and unsatisfying and isn't entertaining enough to draw an audience large enough for his new corporate owners to keep him around, given what a headache he seems to be privately and professionally.

Liberty's Edge

Kortz wrote:
Crimson Jester wrote:
Kortz wrote:
Radical. That's hilarious. Or sad. One of those.
This thread, the op, or him leaving?

I find it sadly funny that someone thinks Olbermann is radical.

There are two kinds of bears in the world: bears that dance and bears that don't. Olbermann thinks he is the latter when he is the former. Beck, Palin, Limbaugh, O'Reilly all seem to understand their roles as dancing bears and that the atavistic cretins in their audiences tune in with the subconscious desire to see the truth subverted and made a mockery so that they come away with the feeling that the nightmarish world has been tamed as it shambles across the dark stage in its red white and blue circus costume.

Olbermann's schtick as the dancing bear that tells truth to power has always been discordant and unsatisfying and isn't entertaining enough to draw an audience large enough for his new corporate owners to keep him around, given what a headache he seems to be privately and professionally.

Yeah, the fact that he peddles in half truths and blatant lies just as regularly as O'Reilly, but, unlike O'Reilly, possesses almost zero charisma has nothing to do with it.

Read your middle paragraph, change the names to Maddow, Mathews, Olbermann and Shultz, and it's the exact same thing.

They just placate atavistic cretins from the other side of the aisle.

Seriously, Lefties and Righties crack me up so much, splinters and planks all around.

Liberty's Edge

houstonderek wrote:

Yeah, the fact that he peddles in half truths and blatant lies just as regularly as O'Reilly, but, unlike O'Reilly, possesses almost zero charisma has nothing to do with it.

Read your middle paragraph, change the names to Maddow, Mathews, Olbermann and Shultz, and it's the exact same thing.

They just placate atavistic cretins from the other side of the aisle.

Seriously, Lefties and Righties crack me up so much, splinters and planks all around.

I don't know. I think atavistic cretins are a FOXNews thing, while the MSNBC thing is more of a hand-wringing hypocrite kind of thing.

I haven't seen a whole lot of Maddow, but I at least get the feeling that she means everything she says and isn't putting on a performance.

But, yeah, blind spots abound.

It's a media-as-message problem, though. People tune in to feel good about how they already think. Rational, thoughtful and challenging discussions about real problems would not draw many viewers.

Liberty's Edge

Maddow is probably, in terms of being earnest, the least offensive of all listed above. I agree that she isn't just faking the funk, but she'll steer into hyperbole land often enough. And she has her agenda as well.

None of them are worth a damn as far as news goes, though.

And I'll grant the cretin/hypocrite thing, but Olbermann is 100% cretin, imo.


Interesting interview with Howard Dean on Olbermann.


Interesting stuff, HD. Very interesting.


This could turn out to be one of the best examples of addition by subtraction ever for MSNBC.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I read the newspaper and BBC's online publications. There is no such thing as television news. It's all just pretty colors, graphics, "experts", impossible hair, and inane banter. The opinion shows are even worse. While I fall definitely into the Olbermann camp politically, he was ineffectual, weak, and spent most of his time whining. If it were up to me, all three news networks would shrivel and die. Their main function is to parrot misinformation to a willing public.

/rant


Hey, guess what. This is going to turn into a flame war.

I know, I'm psychic.

Dark Archive

Sir, the possibility of this thread successfully surviving the coming troll hordes is approximately 3720 to 1!


Cosmo3PO wrote:
Sir, the possibility of this thread successfully surviving the coming troll hordes is approximately 3720 to 1!

Never tell me the odds.

Dark Archive

Freehold DM wrote:
Cosmo3PO wrote:
Sir, the possibility of this thread successfully surviving the coming troll hordes is approximately 3720 to 1!
Never tell me the odds.

The odds of me not telling you the odds are approximately 79,237 to 1!!


Freehold DM wrote:
Cosmo3PO wrote:
Sir, the possibility of this thread successfully surviving the coming troll hordes is approximately 3720 to 1!
Never tell me the odds.

Your mother!


Crimson Jester wrote:
houstonderek wrote:

Oh, don't get me wrong. They axed Olbermann to send a message to Maddow and Mathews. He was the king of the MSNBC hill by a mile. And he is a complete douche (ESPN got rid of him when he and Dan Patrick were their most popular team specifically because he's an arrogant prick).

And, yeah CNN is interested. They're a shadow of their former selves, they went from over 3 million viewers to around 600k for prime time. Olbermann would give them a little more credibility (but they'd still be losing out two to one to Fox if they managed to get all of Olbermann's viewers and retain their own), desperately needed cred.

Maybe if they all stopped selling poor mans opinions and start showing news again, this wouldn't matter. Oh wait it doesn't. well to me anyway I never watched the guy.

They will just plug a different far left statist into the slot. Six of one or half dozen of the other.


Bitter Thorn wrote:
Crimson Jester wrote:
houstonderek wrote:

Oh, don't get me wrong. They axed Olbermann to send a message to Maddow and Mathews. He was the king of the MSNBC hill by a mile. And he is a complete douche (ESPN got rid of him when he and Dan Patrick were their most popular team specifically because he's an arrogant prick).

And, yeah CNN is interested. They're a shadow of their former selves, they went from over 3 million viewers to around 600k for prime time. Olbermann would give them a little more credibility (but they'd still be losing out two to one to Fox if they managed to get all of Olbermann's viewers and retain their own), desperately needed cred.

Maybe if they all stopped selling poor mans opinions and start showing news again, this wouldn't matter. Oh wait it doesn't. well to me anyway I never watched the guy.
They will just plug a different far left statist into the slot. Six of one or half dozen of the other.

Interesting counter. He COULD have been removed because he was difficult to work with, occam's razor and all.

Liberty's Edge

Apparently, it's been suggested he wanted to leave back when Comcast started negotiations with GE back in April, and was told no (he still has two years left on his contract). And that he left on his own volition on Friday (but didn't get all of the severance he wanted).

Now, to me, there are three possibilities:

1) This is correct, and he didn't want to work for a more conservative company.

2) This is correct, he knew he was going to get canned anyway, and pulled a preemptive "you can't fire me, I quit" move, which seems most likely to me, considering his past employer/employee problems (ESPN).

3) It's complete B.S., he was canned, and it's being spun as either 1 or 2 above by his people as a face saving move (he fired his old agent and hired a new agency quite recently. This seems more likely than 1, but less likely than 2 to me.

Whatever did happen, it's clear Comcast and Olbermann weren't going to co-exist peacefully anyway, so I guess the "whys" and "hows" are kind of moot.


houstonderek wrote:

Apparently, it's been suggested he wanted to leave back when Comcast started negotiations with GE back in April, and was told no (he still has two years left on his contract). And that he left on his own volition on Friday (but didn't get all of the severance he wanted).

Now, to me, there are three possibilities:

1) This is correct, and he didn't want to work for a more conservative company.

2) This is correct, he knew he was going to get canned anyway, and pulled a preemptive "you can't fire me, I quit" move, which seems most likely to me, considering his past employer/employee problems (ESPN).

3) It's complete B.S., he was canned, and it's being spun as either 1 or 2 above by his people as a face saving move (he fired his old agent and hired a new agency quite recently. This seems more likely than 1, but less likely than 2 to me.

Whatever did happen, it's clear Comcast and Olbermann weren't going to co-exist peacefully anyway, so I guess the "whys" and "hows" are kind of moot.

2 leans more towards occam's razor, I think.

Liberty's Edge

Freehold DM wrote:
houstonderek wrote:

Apparently, it's been suggested he wanted to leave back when Comcast started negotiations with GE back in April, and was told no (he still has two years left on his contract). And that he left on his own volition on Friday (but didn't get all of the severance he wanted).

Now, to me, there are three possibilities:

1) This is correct, and he didn't want to work for a more conservative company.

2) This is correct, he knew he was going to get canned anyway, and pulled a preemptive "you can't fire me, I quit" move, which seems most likely to me, considering his past employer/employee problems (ESPN).

3) It's complete B.S., he was canned, and it's being spun as either 1 or 2 above by his people as a face saving move (he fired his old agent and hired a new agency quite recently. This seems more likely than 1, but less likely than 2 to me.

Whatever did happen, it's clear Comcast and Olbermann weren't going to co-exist peacefully anyway, so I guess the "whys" and "hows" are kind of moot.

2 leans more towards occam's razor, I think.

Yeah, me too.

Liberty's Edge

It's interesting to me how Liberals dominate print media, while conservatives dominate TV and, for the most part, radio.

Does anyone else find that interesting? What inferences (if any) can be drawn from that, if in fact I'm not just making crap up?

Liberty's Edge

Jeremiziah wrote:

It's interesting to me how Liberals dominate print media, while conservatives dominate TV and, for the most part, radio.

Does anyone else find that interesting? What inferences (if any) can be drawn from that, if in fact I'm not just making crap up?

Conservatives dominate the ratings on cable news (Fox beats the next closest rival 3:1), but they have only two stations, Fox News and Fox Business. Liberals and center-left types dominate the rest (NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, CNBC, MSNBC, HLN, PBS, etc).

Radio, yeah, hands down. Probably because liberals would rather listen to music when driving than news. Air America failed for a reason.

Print is dead.


Jeremiziah wrote:

It's interesting to me how Liberals dominate print media, while conservatives dominate TV and, for the most part, radio.

Does anyone else find that interesting? What inferences (if any) can be drawn from that, if in fact I'm not just making crap up?

The TV element is new but radio versus print media have a historical basis.

Fundamentally conservatives and liberals pretty much divide on one basic question. More or less everything else derives from this "are people basically good with a few bad apples or are people basically bad with the odd exceptional individual?"

Liberals believe that people are basically good while conservatives believe that people are basically bad. Note here that I'm not talking about self reflection. Maybe not the best example but to illustrate 'I'm saying 'what happens if you give $100 to a random unemployed person who you know absolutely nothing about...on average does that random person use the free money mostly wisely or do they on average use it mostly poorly.'

Those with a liberal view of human nature derive the foundation of that view point from academia, this has pretty much been true for the modern version of a liberal view of human nature at least back to John Stewart Mill. A conservative view of human nature comes more from common wisdom and it passes, via word of mouth, from one person to the next. Its part and parcel of a kind of Farmers Almanac understanding of the world. None of this is to say that both groups don't have some elements from the others source but its uncommon. Ayn Rand is one of only a very small handful of Conservative philosophers and is probably the most important, at least in North America. Liberal Philosophers are nearly a dime a dozen.

What we are really seeing is an extension of the above trend into modern media. Folk wisdom, which is to say things that everyone knows - or should, is a perfect fit with talk radio. Talk Show radio hosts are, in some sense, passing on the word to the listeners. Print media, on the other hand, is dominated by those that come out of Academia, often with something like a philosophy degree.

Liberty's Edge

Jeremy Mac Donald wrote:
Jeremiziah wrote:

It's interesting to me how Liberals dominate print media, while conservatives dominate TV and, for the most part, radio.

Does anyone else find that interesting? What inferences (if any) can be drawn from that, if in fact I'm not just making crap up?

The TV element is new but radio versus print media have a historical basis.

Fundamentally conservatives and liberals pretty much divide on one basic question. More or less everything else derives from this "are people basically good with a few bad apples or are people basically bad with the odd exceptional individual?"

Liberals believe that people are basically good while conservatives believe that people are basically bad. Note here that I'm not talking about self reflection. Maybe not the best example but to illustrate 'I'm saying 'what happens if you give $100 to a random unemployed person who you know absolutely nothing about...on average does that random person use the free money mostly wisely or do they on average use it mostly poorly.'

Those with a liberal view of human nature derive the foundation of that view point from academia, this has pretty much been true for the modern version of a liberal view of human nature at least back to John Stewart Mill. A conservative view of human nature comes more from common wisdom and it passes, via word of mouth, from one person to the next. Its part and parcel of a kind of Farmers Almanac understanding of the world. None of this is to say that both groups don't have some elements from the others source but its uncommon. Ayn Rand is one of only a very small handful of Conservative philosophers and is probably the most important, at least in North America. Liberal Philosophers are nearly a dime a dozen.

What we are really seeing is an extension of the above trend into modern media. Folk wisdom, which is to say things that everyone knows - or should, is a perfect fit with talk radio. Talk Show radio hosts are, in some sense, passing on the word to the...

Jeremy, if you're referencing Locke, Goethe, DeToqueville, Voltaire, Rousseau, Hume, etc, they have about as much in common with the American liberal as a hotdog has with a fire hydrant. None of them are what you'd call Progressive (as in the Progressive movement started in the late 19th century, and the basis of modern American left wing politics). All of them trusted the individual over government. Progressives trust government over the individual.


houstonderek wrote:
Jeremy, if you're referencing Locke, Goethe, DeToqueville, Voltaire, Rousseau, Hume, etc, they have about as much in common with the American liberal as a hotdog has with a fire hydrant. None of them are what you'd call Progressive (as in the Progressive movement started in the late 19th century, and the basis of modern American left wing politics). All of them trusted the individual over government. Progressives trust government over the individual.

I'm referring, in the context your addressing, to a history of liberalism. Each generation draws inspiration from the generation before and influences their world to a greater or lesser extent but any given generation does not necessarily go back to the source material. They'll have read Hume but they'll be drawing inspiration from a Dickens or a Chomsky because Dickens/Chomsky is addressing the actual world they live in.

They are looking to answer questions in their world not ones that where applicable to the world a century or more back. Furthermore I'm not sure I'd easily lump all these philosophers into this movement. I picked John Stewart Mill because he is clearly a foundational figure in modern Liberalism but I'm not so sure Voltaire is.

Note that 'do you trust the government' is another question that breaks along the lines of 'are people generally good or bad?' If good then surely they'll try and do good things with the peoples tax dollars, if bad they'll waste or embezzle large amounts of it.

Liberty's Edge

houstonderek wrote:
Conservatives dominate the ratings on cable news (Fox beats the next closest rival 3:1), but they have only two stations, Fox News and Fox Business. Liberals and center-left types dominate the rest (NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, CNBC, MSNBC, HLN, PBS, etc).

Right...well, I meant ratings. I could care less if there are 200 networks that lean liberal. If liberals don't watch them, they may as well not exist. As for the Big 3 (NBC, CBS, ABC), I find their reporting to be pretty even-keeled. Although they have anchors which are undoubtedly NYC Liberals for the most part, the stories on which they report - and more importantly, the light in which they paint both parties - seems to me* to be pretty down-the-middle. It seems to me* that conservatives, particularly hardline conservatives, tend to call media outlets "liberal" if they don't at some point in a broadcast feature a (usually angry and white) conservative commentator yelling about how this (usually liberal) policy or that (usually progressive) agenda will cause the downfall of America. My point here is that there's more than one way to skin a cat, and yelling at someone doesn't always get the point across.

I don't often see a lot of Liberals identifying the Big 3 as conservative for any reason, though, so maybe you have a point there.

*Statement meant to signify opinion.

houstonderek wrote:
Print is dead.

Not at all. It may be dead in Texas (I assume from your statement that it is), but it's not in the Northeast. Newspapers and periodicals still go a long way toward shaping public opinion in this neck of the woods.

Liberty's Edge

Jeremy Mac Donald wrote:
houstonderek wrote:
Jeremy, if you're referencing Locke, Goethe, DeToqueville, Voltaire, Rousseau, Hume, etc, they have about as much in common with the American liberal as a hotdog has with a fire hydrant. None of them are what you'd call Progressive (as in the Progressive movement started in the late 19th century, and the basis of modern American left wing politics). All of them trusted the individual over government. Progressives trust government over the individual.

I'm referring, in the context your addressing, to a history of liberalism. Each generation draws inspiration from the generation before and influences their world to a greater or lesser extent but any given generation does not necessarily go back to the source material. They'll have read Hume but they'll be drawing inspiration from Chomsky because Chomsky is addressing the actual world they live in.

They are looking to answer questions in their world not ones that where applicable to the world a century or more back. Furthermore I'm not sure I'd easily lump all these philosophers into this movement. I picked John Stewart Mill because he is clearly a foundational figure in modern Liberalism but I'm not so sure Voltaire is.

Please don't take this the wrong way, but if you don't know Voltaire...

Voltaire, Montesquieu and Locke were the foundation of true classical Liberalism, and developed the philosophy the Founding Fathers used to create the nation.

Mill isn't foundational, he came almost 100 years after the Enlightenment crowd (and was one of the last of their line), and was not the Father of Modern Liberalism, the Progressives are. Mill is one of the last of the Classical "Enlightenment" liberals, a different animal than the Progressive all together.

And Chomsky isn't a liberal. Not in the classical sense. Liberal doesn't even mean the same thing as it did in the 18th and early 19th centuries. The closest modern equivalent of that liberal philosophy now is the Libertarians in America, and they're only similar, not the same. Modern "Liberal" American politics is pure Progressive with a touch of socialism, which would be anathema to the likes of J.S. Mill.

Jeremy, remember, "liberal" and "conservative" have different meanings here compared to standard usage in Europe. Liberal, afaict, still references the Enlightenment type philosophy espoused by Locke, Mills, Goethe and the like in Europe. Here, "liberal" references Progressive philosophy and a social welfare state.

Liberty's Edge

Jeremiziah wrote:
houstonderek wrote:
Conservatives dominate the ratings on cable news (Fox beats the next closest rival 3:1), but they have only two stations, Fox News and Fox Business. Liberals and center-left types dominate the rest (NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, CNBC, MSNBC, HLN, PBS, etc).

Right...well, I meant ratings. I could care less if there are 200 networks that lean liberal. If liberals don't watch them, they may as well not exist. As for the Big 3 (NBC, CBS, ABC), I find their reporting to be pretty even-keeled. Although they have anchors which are undoubtedly NYC Liberals for the most part, the stories on which they report - and more importantly, the light in which they paint both parties - seems to me* to be pretty down-the-middle. It seems to me* that conservatives, particularly hardline conservatives, tend to call media outlets "liberal" if they don't at some point in a broadcast feature a (usually angry and white) conservative commentator yelling about how this (usually liberal) policy or that (usually progressive) agenda will cause the downfall of America. My point here is that there's more than one way to skin a cat, and yelling at someone doesn't always get the point across.

I don't often see a lot of Liberals identifying the Big 3 as conservative for any reason, though, so maybe you have a point there.

*Statement meant to signify opinion.

houstonderek wrote:
Print is dead.
Not at all. It may be dead in Texas (I assume from your statement that it is), but it's not in the Northeast. Newspapers and periodicals still go a long way toward shaping public opinion in this neck of the woods.

Do you track circulation figures? (I do)

Yeah, people still read papers (they do down here as well), but no newspaper in the nation sells even half as well as they did just 15 years ago. The NYT went from selling a ton nationally to being almost just a local paper.

Print is dead. It's just a zombie that looks good.


houstonderek wrote:

Please don't take this the wrong way, but if you don't know Voltaire...

Voltaire, Montesquieu and Locke were the foundation of true classical Liberalism, and developed the philosophy the Founding Fathers used to create the nation.

Mill isn't foundational, he came almost 100 years after the Enlightenment crowd (and was one of the last of their line), and was not the Father of Modern Liberalism, the Progressives are. Mill is one of the last of the Classical "Enlightenment" liberals, a different animal than the Progressive all together.

And Chomsky isn't a liberal. Not in the classical sense. Liberal doesn't even mean the same thing as it did in the 18th and early 19th centuries. The closest modern equivalent of that liberal philosophy now is the Libertarians in America, and they're only similar, not the same. Modern "Liberal" American politics is pure Progressive with a touch of socialism, which would be anathema to the likes of J.S. Mill.

Jeremy, remember, "liberal" and "conservative" have different meanings here compared to standard usage in Europe. Liberal, afaict, still references the Enlightenment type philosophy espoused by Locke, Mills, Goethe and the like in Europe. Here, "liberal" references Progressive philosophy and a social welfare state.

Your missing my point. Maybe another example will make it clearer. Feminism also derives its philosophical foundations from the Ivory Tower and, it to, has John Stewart Mill as a foundational figure. This does not mean that 3rd Wave feminists agree with the philosophy of John Stewart Mill - they don't. Its 1st wave Feminism that looked to John Stewart Mill. The result is that 3rd Wave Feminism does not actually line up, philosophically, on a great many points with 1st Wave Feminism. However one can draw a line, through Academia, from philosophers like J.S. Mill to 1st Wave Feminism and 2nd Wave Feminism draws that line from 1st Wave, finally 3rd wave Feminism draws the line from 2nd wave.

The same is true of modern Liberalism. Chomsky does not believe in the same things that J.S. Mill believed but there is a line that can be drawn, via Academia, back through history connecting the two, albeit with a number of intermediate philosophers.

I completely agree that the modern Libertarian is a pretty good fit to turn of the century liberals fighting to acquire rights from the monarchies of their time but its not really germane to my point. A well read modern Libertarian might well note that his philosophy and many of the classical Liberals line up however.

Liberty's Edge

Jeremy Mac Donald wrote:
houstonderek wrote:

Please don't take this the wrong way, but if you don't know Voltaire...

Voltaire, Montesquieu and Locke were the foundation of true classical Liberalism, and developed the philosophy the Founding Fathers used to create the nation.

Mill isn't foundational, he came almost 100 years after the Enlightenment crowd (and was one of the last of their line), and was not the Father of Modern Liberalism, the Progressives are. Mill is one of the last of the Classical "Enlightenment" liberals, a different animal than the Progressive all together.

And Chomsky isn't a liberal. Not in the classical sense. Liberal doesn't even mean the same thing as it did in the 18th and early 19th centuries. The closest modern equivalent of that liberal philosophy now is the Libertarians in America, and they're only similar, not the same. Modern "Liberal" American politics is pure Progressive with a touch of socialism, which would be anathema to the likes of J.S. Mill.

Jeremy, remember, "liberal" and "conservative" have different meanings here compared to standard usage in Europe. Liberal, afaict, still references the Enlightenment type philosophy espoused by Locke, Mills, Goethe and the like in Europe. Here, "liberal" references Progressive philosophy and a social welfare state.

Your missing my point. Maybe another example will make it clearer. Feminism also derives its philosophical foundations from the Ivory Tower and, it to, has John Stewart Mill as a foundational figure. This does not mean that 3rd Wave feminists agrees with the philosophy of John Stewart Mill - they don't. Its 1st wave Feminism that looked to John Stewart Mill. The result is that 3rd Wave Feminism does not actually line up, philosophically, on a great many points with 1st Wave Feminism. However one can draw a line, through Academia, from philosophers like J.S. Mill to 1st Wave Feminism and 2nd Wave Feminism draws that line from 1st Wave, finally 3rd wave Feminism draws the line from 2nd wave.

The same is true of...

The thing is, by your logic, Chomsky and Noah are philosophical brethren, since Locke was somewhat influenced by the bible, and was a heavy influence on Mill, etc.

When you have an obvious break in philosophy (Chomsky, the Enlightenment philosophers), they are no longer the same thing. Chomsky has far more in common with a contemporary of Mill than he does with Mill, Karl Marx. And no one has EVER suggested that Marx had anything in common with the Enlightenment philosophers (they're polar opposites). And he also draws heavily from the Anarchists.

I guess I'm saying I disagree with your assessment of the origins of the modern American liberal philosophy. The word "liberal" is all they actually have in common with the progenitors of the word.

Edit: forgot to mention the first wave feminists: Anthony and Bloomer I agree with you 100%. They just wanted women (and minorities) to enjoy the freedoms the Enlightenment philosophers espoused. Equality. And this was a good thing, obviously. But they weren't trying to change the philosophy of government, they just wanted to be full and equal citizens in the society Enlightenment built.

Liberty's Edge

To deny that print media is losing ground would be idiocy. No way am I denying that. It is still, however, an effective way of reaching the masses (and to be fair, my point is actually that it's an effective way of reaching the liberal masses).

Also, non-traditional print media is becoming more popular. I don't subscribe to the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, for example, but I read it online with a high degree of regularity.

Liberty's Edge

Jeremiziah wrote:

To deny that print media is losing ground would be idiocy. No way am I denying that. It is still, however, an effective way of reaching the masses (and to be fair, my point is actually that it's an effective way of reaching the liberal masses).

Also, non-traditional print media is becoming more popular. I don't subscribe to the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, for example, but I read it online with a high degree of regularity.

Yeah. I can see that. I'd take it a step further and suggest the papers lost readers when they decided they only wanted to reach the liberal masses.

Scarab Sages

houstonderek wrote:
It's just a zombie that looks good.

You called?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
houstonderek wrote:
Jeremy, if you're referencing Locke, Goethe, DeToqueville, Voltaire, Rousseau, Hume, etc, they have about as much in common with the American liberal as a hotdog has with a fire hydrant. None of them are what you'd call Progressive (as in the Progressive movement started in the late 19th century, and the basis of modern American left wing politics). All of them trusted the individual over government. Progressives trust government over the individual.

It's a popular, simplistic comparison that is completely out of touch with the situation as it is. The problem here is that the term individual encompasses a different variety of "legal" person... the corporate entity that is given all of the rights of a legal person, and has resources far and above that of human individuals to exercise rights, perogatives, and shields from accountability.

It's not a debate about government vs. individuals as to whom should hold the reigns of power. It's a matter of what kind of individuals should be making decsions that affect the body politic and economic... publicly elected ones who have to account to an electorate, or shadow boards of directors who answer to noone but balance sheets and stockholders and are supplanting government in many functions... including the conduct of wars. Progressives believe an accountable transparent government is the human individuals only defense against the rapaciousness of the super-persons we've made corporates into. The transformation of American industrial cities into shuttered rusting wastelands is entirely the function of corporate decsions and thier paid stooges in government who not only removed barriers to doing so, but gave them tax incentives to grease the process.

Liberty's Edge

LazarX wrote:
houstonderek wrote:
Jeremy, if you're referencing Locke, Goethe, DeToqueville, Voltaire, Rousseau, Hume, etc, they have about as much in common with the American liberal as a hotdog has with a fire hydrant. None of them are what you'd call Progressive (as in the Progressive movement started in the late 19th century, and the basis of modern American left wing politics). All of them trusted the individual over government. Progressives trust government over the individual.

It's a popular, simplistic comparison that is completely out of touch with the situation as it is. The problem here is that the term individual encompasses a different variety of "legal" person... the corporate entity that is given all of the rights of a legal person, and has resources far and above that of human individuals to exercise rights, perogatives, and shields from accountability.

It's not a debate about government vs. individuals as to whom should hold the reigns of power. It's a matter of what kind of individuals should be making decsions that affect the body politic and economic... publicly elected ones who have to account to an electorate, or shadow boards of directors who answer to noone but balance sheets and stockholders and are supplanting government in many functions... including the conduct of wars. Progressives believe an accountable transparent government is the human individuals only defense against the rapaciousness of the super-persons we've made corporates into. The transformation of American industrial cities into shuttered rusting wastelands is entirely the function of corporate decsions and thier paid stooges in government who not only removed barriers to doing so, but gave them tax incentives to grease the process.

Riddle me this: if you're even telling something close to the truth (and not just trotting out trite talking points), why were two of the three most influential Progressive presidents so opaque in their government operations? Nothing about anything Wilson or FDR did indicated an "accountable transparent government".

More myth building. Another problem both sides have, they actually believe their own b&*!&%+$.


houstonderek wrote:

The thing is, by your logic, Chomsky and Noah are philosophical brethren, since Locke was somewhat influenced by the bible, and was a heavy influence on Mill, etc.

When you have an obvious break in philosophy (Chomsky, the Enlightenment philosophers), they are no longer the same thing. Chomsky has far more in common with a contemporary of Mill than he does with Mill, Karl Marx. And no one has EVER suggested that Marx had anything in common with the Enlightenment philosophers (they're polar opposites). And he also draws heavily from the Anarchists.

I guess I'm saying I disagree with your assessment of the origins of the modern American liberal philosophy. The word "liberal" is all they actually have in common with the progenitors of the word.

Edit: forgot to mention the first wave feminists: Anthony and Bloomer I agree with you 100%. They just wanted women (and minorities) to enjoy the freedoms the Enlightenment philosophers espoused. Equality. And this was a good thing, obviously. But they weren't trying to change the philosophy of government, they just wanted to be full and equal citizens in the society Enlightenment built.

Your arguing about philosophic equivalency while I'm arguing about the history of a movement.

There really is such a thing, abstractly anyway, as a 'History of Feminism'. If I write a book with that title I have to draw a line that starts with J.S. Mill (probably Mill - starting points are fuzzy and kind of arbitrary) and it needs to end with the current Feminist Movement, usually called 3rd Wave Feminism.

The same is true of Liberalism and such a history can answer some questions - specifically, in this case, it answers part of the question:

"It's interesting to me how Liberals dominate print media, while conservatives dominate TV and, for the most part, radio.

Does anyone else find that interesting? What inferences (if any) can be drawn from that, if in fact I'm not just making crap up?"

Specifically that Liberals dominate the newspapers because their philosophical foundations are in the Ivory Tower and it has been so even as you trace their movement backward in time. Conservatives use Talk Radio because its a natural fit with how their philosophy historically has been disseminated.

This idea of viewing the movements through the prism of history allows one to explore other elements as well, especially ones that may not obviously jive with the current philosophy of the movement. For example the Liberal movement wants to use big government to enforce what they believe to be essentially 'natural rights'. In fact modern Liberals are in love with these natural rights. They believe in the government and yet simultaneously are adamant that the government has no place in the bedrooms of the citizens - especially the bedrooms of gay citizens. From whence comes this philosophy? I'd argue this is an element of classical liberalism that remains within the modern liberal movement even while that movement has otherwise become something different, even in some ways juxtaposed to, classical liberalism.

Liberty's Edge

Conservatives dominate talk radio because only old, ignorant, and rural people still have radios.

Oh, but seriously... If I think government is a necessary check against individuals and corporations with great power and can occasionally work for the greater good, does that make me an Internet Socialist?

Because I was kind of hoping I could be an Internet Davy Crockett...

Liberty's Edge

Jeremy Mac Donald wrote:
Your arguing about philosophic equivalency while I'm arguing about the history of a movement.

The thing is, you're taking the name plate off of a Ford and putting it on a cucumber.

The term "liberal" was co-opted by Progressives, it didn't filter down organically. They specifically labeled one thing with the name that described something all together different to associate the new thing with the old thing.

You're saying there's a link between the Enlightenment and Progressives, but there really isn't. There's only the word. The word was removed from its original "line" (to use your analogy) and applied to a completely unrelated line of thought.

That's where we're disagreeing. I'm aware that philosophies build on one another and evolve. You're saying Chomsky is at the end of a line started by Voltaire (sorry, Mill was derivation, not origination), but he isn't. He's the end of a line started by Marx and continued through "libertarian Marxism" and "libertarian anarchism".

Progressives are watered down libertarian Marxists (libertarian socialists, to use Chomsky's term), not descendants of liberalism. They espouse socialist style policies, but not hard communism (different, totalitarian, "line" of thought).

Chomsky can say he's a descendant of the Enlightenment movement all he wants. I can say I'm King George all I want. Doesn't make it so.

Liberty's Edge

Kortz wrote:

Conservatives dominate talk radio because only old, ignorant, and rural people still have radios.

Oh, but seriously... If I think government is a necessary check against individuals and corporations with great power and can occasionally work for the greater good, does that make me an Internet Socialist?

Because I was kind of hoping I could be an Internet Davy Crockett...

It makes you a bog standard Progressive, I'm afraid. But you can wear a coon skin cap if it makes you feel better. PETA may have a beef with that though...

;-)

Liberty's Edge

houstonderek wrote:
Kortz wrote:

Conservatives dominate talk radio because only old, ignorant, and rural people still have radios.

Oh, but seriously... If I think government is a necessary check against individuals and corporations with great power and can occasionally work for the greater good, does that make me an Internet Socialist?

Because I was kind of hoping I could be an Internet Davy Crockett...

It makes you a bog standard Progressive, I'm afraid. But you can wear a coon skin cap if it makes you feel better. PETA may have a beef with that though...

;-)

Well, I guess I can live with that. If given a choice between the Roosevelts and the Bushes, I'll take the former.

I don't trust governments or individuals to check themselves in all cases, but think that both work together better than either would work alone.


LazarX wrote:
houstonderek wrote:
Jeremy, if you're referencing Locke, Goethe, DeToqueville, Voltaire, Rousseau, Hume, etc, they have about as much in common with the American liberal as a hotdog has with a fire hydrant. None of them are what you'd call Progressive (as in the Progressive movement started in the late 19th century, and the basis of modern American left wing politics). All of them trusted the individual over government. Progressives trust government over the individual.

It's a popular, simplistic comparison that is completely out of touch with the situation as it is. The problem here is that the term individual encompasses a different variety of "legal" person... the corporate entity that is given all of the rights of a legal person, and has resources far and above that of human individuals to exercise rights, perogatives, and shields from accountability.

It's not a debate about government vs. individuals as to whom should hold the reigns of power. It's a matter of what kind of individuals should be making decsions that affect the body politic and economic... publicly elected ones who have to account to an electorate, or shadow boards of directors who answer to noone but balance sheets and stockholders and are supplanting government in many functions... including the conduct of wars. Progressives believe an accountable transparent government is the human individuals only defense against the rapaciousness of the super-persons we've made corporates into. The transformation of American industrial cities into shuttered rusting wastelands is entirely the function of corporate decsions and thier paid stooges in government who not only removed barriers to doing so, but gave them tax incentives to grease the process.

Spoken like a true statist.

I sometimes get a chuckle out of this classic fear mongering and distortion. Statists have to have a bogyman as an excuse for their theft of power and systematic destruction of human rights. Big evil corporations fit the bill for the enemies of human rights quite conveniently. After all plenty of big corporations have done plenty of stupid and hurtful things. Statists conveniently ignore the fact that these stupid and hurtful things are enabled by a constantly expanding state. Of course it's never the states fault for its immense failures, incompetence and corruption, and of course the "answer" is always more massive and invasive state power. The right is guilty of the same thing with idiocy like the patriot acts, DHS and so forth.

Do you really think the legislature's secret sausage making, the judiciaries arbitrary policy making, and the massive power of the executive and its vast unaccountable bureaucracies are somehow less rapacious than the corporations?

I even find your use of the word rapacious in this context to be perversely ironic. The state has put millions of non violent drug offenders into some form of incarceration and deliberately allowed them to be literally raped while in custody in the US during the war on drugs.

I take it in your model the state is still preferable to the evil businesses.

I still maintain that one of the best checks against corporate corruption is to reduce government corruption that enables and empowers corporate corruption. I don't think we accomplish this by making government more massive, more invasive, and more secret like statists on the left and right would seem to prefer.

1 to 50 of 285 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / MSNBC loses one of its most radical hosts All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.