Larry O'Donnell calls Rather a "hack" for saying media passive: why do DUers watch so much Cable TV?

[Leopolds Ghost]

I was flipping on TV and saw Lawrence O'Donnell deriding Dan Rather
for suggesting that the media is not doing its job, and attacking
comedy shows for pretending to be news, while failing to point out
that MSNBC and CNN are ENTERTAINMENT networks. No mention was made
of Dan Rather being fired for investigative journalism which O'Donnell
himself would lie, on air, and declare to be inaccurate -- because
that is the "format" of the show.

Which brings me to my next question: Is DU a reflection of larger
society? My family did not have cable TV until recently (as part
of an internet deal -- I argued against it). It is a cesspool of
info-tainment, recycled repeats, and shows designed to inculcate a
skewed societal perspective on a passive citizen. Why do so many
DUers spend so much of their time on DU quoting things they heard
on CABLE television, even to express outrage at what their favorite
primary information source told them, as if doing so was a form of
political involvement?

Posts on cable shows get huge hits on this site, compared to posts
on newspaper articles which a comparative tiny fraction of people
in America bother to read, compared to the time they spend watching
Egyptian soul-suckers like Lawrence O'Donnell and Joe Scarborough.

[Leopolds Ghost]

1. Not to mention the Discovery/Times/Military Channel conglomerate

Not to mention disturbingly inaccurate and explicitly propagandistic
info-tainment networks such as the Discovery/Times/Military/History
Channel networks, most of which are only "coincidentally" based
in the DC area, just as AOL and Exxon/Mobil are "coincidentally"
based in the DC area.

[NashVegas]

2. Who the Hell Is Lawrence O'Donnell?

I'm serious.

[Leopolds Ghost]

6. A Clintonite. I only know him from watching McLaughlin Group.

One of the few bright spots on TV.

(McLaughlin, that is, not the smarmy O'Donnell.)

(McLaughlin appears on PBS most cities, except in Washington, where it
was once considered commercial television before the Fairness Doctrine
was repealed, and still appears on channel 4.)

Since the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine, McLaughlin has gone
from one of the more conservative voices on TV to one of the most liberal.

He hosts an old-school public affairs show, too.

I refuse to watch Nightline or Charlie Rose, other examples of the
rare, hard-news, public affairs show genre, after their pimping for
the Iraq war and for war with Iran, respectively.

(Charlie Rose chewed out the Iranian ambassador over suspected nuke
program, with lots of obviously false courtesy, all but threatening him
with "you KNOW we might attack your country" and "how can you apologize
for your leader's rhetoric?" type loaded questions.

The sort of thing I remember hearing them say to Russians back in the
1980s when they were desperately trying to keep the Cold War going.)

So, yeah, if I had to be a media watchdog,
I think I will stick to McLaughlin Group
from now on.

From my little experience, Cable "news shows" gives me the bots.

[gatorboy]

3. I give up. Why are you watching that dreck?

[Leopolds Ghost]

7. Because I'm depressed about how I'm supposed to be in NOLA

But am still stuck on a dead-end job somewhere else,
managing an arts organization that I poured my life
into, which will seemingly going down the tubes without me,
so I turn on the "boob tube" to distract me from my depression? :shrug:

You asked for an honest answer. ;-) :hi:

[Kurovski]

4. Why do DUers keep asking why DUers watch cable news?

Everyone has their reasons either way.

And people either do or don't feel self-righteous about their choices.

You've heard of the phrase "media watchdogs"? That's one of the answers to your oft-asked question--sometimes asked by self-righteous, true-believer, non-television watchers.

I'm absolutely not saying that's you, Leopolds Ghost, I'm just saying that's the energy that often keeps getting the question asked ad infinitum.

Actually, your post make for a fine media watchdog piece, albeit short. Maybe you should consider writing about television critically? it's important to teach folks about how to view, understand and interpret the medium because it's not going ANYWHERE. :-)

[SoCalDem]

5. Probably because, as bad as it IS, it's still the ONLY venue

that's not playing schlocky old sit-coms, ancient or dumb "new" game shows, fix-up-your-house shows, chatty-celeb gab fests, or dreary soap operas.... and every once in a while we DO find a nugget of truth nestled down at the bottom of the greasy barrel.

Hope springs eternal, and deep down we all hope that one day we will turn on a channel and find that Noam Chomsky has been given his own 3-hr a day show, followed by Michael Moore's 3-hr show, followed by Stephanie Miller's 3 hr show, followed by Mike malloy's 3 hr show..

and then unfortunately, we all wak up and see that schlub, Tucker sneering out at us ..

so we change the channel and keep looking..


If some brave tv person (where's the "new" ted Turner?) ever put on the "anti-Fox' programming we all long for, they would never be at a loss for viewers...but unfortunately, the corporate bosses will have none of that, since they all know which side the butter goes on..