Piers Morgan is auditioning for his next job. You don’t want to be known as a shrinking violet interviewer on a network that is fizzling into irrelevancy when hunting for a new network.
He needs to do something - “shock!” - to prove his can generate some ratings so someone else will pick him up after the fall of CNN.
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
…Morgan? Beck? Is there REALLY a big difference?
Mufasa[/quote]
Oh good grief, Muf, you’re too smart to make such an inane comment. Sober up.[/quote]
Delivery , Push…not Ideology…
Mufasa[/quote]
Beck is crazy, there is no doubt about that.
But when he interviews people, it’s not an ambush.
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
…Morgan? Beck? Is there REALLY a big difference?
Mufasa[/quote]
Oh good grief, Muf, you’re too smart to make such an inane comment. Sober up.[/quote]
Delivery , Push…not Ideology…
Mufasa[/quote]
Beck is crazy, there is no doubt about that.
But when he interviews people, it’s not an ambush. [/quote]
He gets lively, but he lets other people develop their argument.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
…Morgan? Beck? Is there REALLY a big difference?
Mufasa[/quote]
Oh good grief, Muf, you’re too smart to make such an inane comment. Sober up.[/quote]
Delivery , Push…not Ideology…
Mufasa[/quote]
Delivery is different. Beck - whether you love him, loathe him or are indifferent - is clever, very clever.
This Piers feller doesn’t even make it into the stadium parking lot of cleverness.[/quote]
But he does have that english accent which tends to impress the feeble minded.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Piers Morgan is auditioning for his next job. You don’t want to be known as a shrinking violet interviewer on a network that is fizzling into irrelevancy when hunting for a new network.
He needs to do something - “shock!” - to prove his can generate some ratings so someone else will pick him up after the fall of CNN.[/quote]
Something I would add, Bolt.
“CNN” could serve as a “cautionary tale” for “FOX News” (or any business for that matter) that does not continually examine itself; it’s market; and where it stands within that market.
Someone mentioned Arnett and the beginning of the First Iraq War. There is no question that at that time, “CNN” was “the” place to go for continuous and updated information about the War (or any other event). Larry King was “the King” of the “talking heads”. And their political coverage was ranked the best year in and year out. To me, what they DIDN’T see was a Conservative America that felt they didn’t have a “voice”…but Murdoch sure did.
And the rest is history.
The Cautionary Tale is that “FOX News” can make the same mistake that CNN did, by not continually re-examining itself. Now some would say that as long as there is a “MSLM” there will be a need for “FOX”; but what happens when the “Lightning Rod” of Barack Obama is no longer in office? What happens as there is more and more grumbling about there not being enough of a voice for “true” Conservatives? How sustainable is pointing out problems with very few “real” solutions? (A problem for the Left and Right).
These are rhetorical questions, but are the type of questions that any business needs to continually ask itself in order to survive.
Mufasa
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
How sustainable is pointing out problems with very few “real” solutions? (A problem for the Left and Right).
[/quote]
Is independent, truely independent main stream journalism even possible in our era? Because if it is, wouldn’t the solutions be up to us? Has it ever been possible? Wasn’t there a law in place controlling the press in Jefferson’s election?
I feel like the internet helps with the whole “free” press thing, but how the hell do you know is legit and not some asshole spinning his own agenda.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
How sustainable is pointing out problems with very few “real” solutions? (A problem for the Left and Right).
[/quote]
Is independent, truely independent main stream journalism even possible in our era? Because if it is, wouldn’t the solutions be up to us? Has it ever been possible? Wasn’t there a law in place controlling the press in Jefferson’s election?
I feel like the internet helps with the whole “free” press thing, but how the hell do you know is legit and not some asshole spinning his own agenda.
[/quote]
Multiple sources, I use google news. Which is pretty good to show you what you’re seeing. I also use drudge for title reading.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
How sustainable is pointing out problems with very few “real” solutions? (A problem for the Left and Right).
[/quote]
Is independent, truely independent main stream journalism even possible in our era? Because if it is, wouldn’t the solutions be up to us? Has it ever been possible? Wasn’t there a law in place controlling the press in Jefferson’s election?
I feel like the internet helps with the whole “free” press thing, but how the hell do you know is legit and not some asshole spinning his own agenda.
[/quote]
In Canada there’s a provision in the Radio act stating “a licenser may not broadcast … any false or misleading news.”
They actually tried to launch a “Fox north” here but it was deemed illegal. There is a slight Liberal slant in our media, but it’s nowhere as crazy as it is in the states.
I’d have to look into it more, but wasn’t new much less biased before Reagan abolished the “fairness doctrine” ?
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
How sustainable is pointing out problems with very few “real” solutions? (A problem for the Left and Right).
[/quote]
Is independent, truely independent main stream journalism even possible in our era? Because if it is, wouldn’t the solutions be up to us? Has it ever been possible? Wasn’t there a law in place controlling the press in Jefferson’s election?
I feel like the internet helps with the whole “free” press thing, but how the hell do you know is legit and not some asshole spinning his own agenda.
[/quote]
CB and Brother Chris:
I would say that it is EXTREMELY difficult; because almost any topic can be spun to support one’s agenda.
Mufasa
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
How sustainable is pointing out problems with very few “real” solutions? (A problem for the Left and Right).
[/quote]
Is independent, truely independent main stream journalism even possible in our era? Because if it is, wouldn’t the solutions be up to us? Has it ever been possible? Wasn’t there a law in place controlling the press in Jefferson’s election?
I feel like the internet helps with the whole “free” press thing, but how the hell do you know is legit and not some asshole spinning his own agenda.
[/quote]
CB and Brother Chris:
I would say that it is EXTREMELY difficult; because almost any topic can be spun to support one’s agenda.
Mufasa[/quote]
Yes. However, I can usually see the bias of both sides. Though I do fact check everyone.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
How sustainable is pointing out problems with very few “real” solutions? (A problem for the Left and Right).
[/quote]
Is independent, truely independent main stream journalism even possible in our era? Because if it is, wouldn’t the solutions be up to us? Has it ever been possible? Wasn’t there a law in place controlling the press in Jefferson’s election?
I feel like the internet helps with the whole “free” press thing, but how the hell do you know is legit and not some asshole spinning his own agenda.
[/quote]
In Canada there’s a provision in the Radio act stating “a licenser may not broadcast … any false or misleading news.”
They actually tried to launch a “Fox north” here but it was deemed illegal. There is a slight Liberal slant in our media, but it’s nowhere as crazy as it is in the states.
I’d have to look into it more, but wasn’t new much less biased before Reagan abolished the “fairness doctrine” ?[/quote]
Wrong, the left tried to smear the new Sun News as “Fox News North” and harassed the CRTC to deny Sun News the license to open. As usual, the left was attempting to restrict basic freedom of speech and expression. They failed. They also tried to prohibit Fox News from coming to Canada years earlier, and they failed in that as well. You’re quite a few years behind on this news, and you’re wrong.
[quote]Mufasa wrote:<<< How sustainable is pointing out problems with very few “real” solutions? (A problem for the Left and Right). >>>[/quote]And herein lies a huge part of our problem with the modern media. Could be just me, but I was always under the impression that the news media was supposed to report. At some point along the way the news media began to see itself as a force for social change and justice and while it’s always been somewhat the case since the written word has been around, our leftist media propaganda machine was born in earnest.
I don’t need journalists who provide me with “solutions”. They’d bless my socks off if they’d just tell me what happened in their hard reporting to the best of their ability. Of course, Op Ed stuff that is clearly labeled as such is a different story.
I wondered where Morgan had gone - haven’t seen him on TV in the UK for ages, and when he WAS around he was on the trash channels.
Also, lol at the idea that a thread needed to be created to verify the fact that he’s terrible.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Mufasa wrote:<<< How sustainable is pointing out problems with very few “real” solutions? (A problem for the Left and Right). >>>[/quote]And herein lies a huge part of our problem with the modern media. Could be just me, but I was always under the impression that the news media was supposed to report. At some point along the way the news media began to see itself as a force for social change and justice and while it’s always been somewhat the case since the written word has been around, our leftist media propaganda machine was born in earnest. I don’t need journalists who provide me with “solutions”. They’d bless my socks off if they’d just tell me what happened in their hard reporting to the best of their ability. Of course, Op Ed stuff that is clearly labeled as such is a different story.
[/quote]
Very true many years ago the main man in news was Walter Cronkite. He had millions of viewers during a time when there were only three television networks. And out of the three news casts his viewership was the highest by far.
As it turns out old Walter was a lefty, but we only realized that years after he retired. You never heard it from his news casts as he played is straight down the middle!
Today everyone from two bit comedians to supposedly “real” news casters are (mostly) in the tank for Obama.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Today everyone from two bit comedians [/quote]
This bothers me.
When did people start taking the “daily show” as serious news? I mean, there are entire groups, of mostly young people, that get a vast majority of their exposure to news and media from this program.
Mr. Stewart is a bright guy and all, but come on. It is as bad a blue Dennis Miller, and red Dennis Miller as well.
Ol Wally did jack us up with that infamous Vietnam statement but yes, he was a role model for those who would follow though they certainly didn’t. He was a “reporter” in the truest sense of the word.
I read years ago where a large sampling of college journalism students were asked why they chose that field of endeavor and the number one answer was some thing like. “To make a difference in the world.” That explained quite a bit to me.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
This bothers me.
When did people start taking the “daily show” as serious news? I mean, there are entire groups, of mostly young people, that get a vast majority of their exposure to news and media from this program. [/quote]
Me as well.
I watch next to no news, and when I do, it’s usually CNN, and it has nothing to do with “news anlaysis”. Modern journalism is so incredibly awful - it’s biased, but even (somewhat) independent of bias, the quality is just terrible. Some of that lack of quality is the fault of bias - witness insanely irrelevant or stupid news stories that are broadcast only because of a political bias trying to make it a bigger deal than it really is - but even when you control for that, smart reporting just seems not to exist.
If CNN were to reinvent itself as a pure, buttoned-up journalistic outfit that took great effort in the “straight news”, I think (and would like to think) it would find its way to the front of the pack in viewership. I think the American people may very well be ready to can MSNBC and FOX in favor of old, boring and trustworthy news.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Today everyone from two bit comedians [/quote]
This bothers me.
When did people start taking the “daily show” as serious news? I mean, there are entire groups, of mostly young people, that get a vast majority of their exposure to news and media from this program.
[/quote]
Exactly, and when there is a protest they respond with “he’s only a comedian.” Which of course is nonsense. He’s a pop culture icon who has turned the hearts and minds of many 20 somethings toward liberalism. And there is a long list of so called comedians that are doing the same thing.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
If CNN were to reinvent itself as a pure, buttoned-up journalistic outfit that took great effort in the “straight news”, I think (and would like to think) it would find its way to the front of the pack in viewership. I think the American people may very well be ready to can MSNBC and FOX in favor of old, boring and trustworthy news.[/quote]
You are absolutely correct. Many times I don’t want to bother filtering out what is true from what is baised from FOX for example. Obviously I’m aghast at what I’m seeing in the main stream liberal media.