Koppel Laments 'The Death Of Real News'

[babylonsister]

Wow. Does anyone agree with him? I don't.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_11/026639.php

KOPPEL LAMENTS 'THE DEATH OF REAL NEWS'.... Ted Koppel, a long-time giant of broadcast journalism, had a rather lengthy rant yesterday, incorporating complaints about Keith Olbermann into a larger tirade about "the death of real news." Some of his concerns were compelling, but most fell into familiar traps.

Koppel was right, for example, to lament major news organizations closing international bureaus, but he points the finger in the wrong direction. As he sees it, it's the fault of Americans, especially younger news consumers, who have no appetite for international affairs, and who prefer opinion-based programs.

I have a hard time believing that news consumers' attitudes have really changed that significantly in recent decades. For that matter, Koppel said ABC's "bean counters" started applying cost-benefit ratios to overseas bureaus in the "mid-90s," which largely pre-dates the very opinion-style programs he disapproves of.

More important, though, was Koppel's condemnation of the cable news outlets, especially their prime-time lineups.

We live now in a cable news universe that celebrates the opinions of Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, Chris Matthews, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly -- individuals who hold up the twin pillars of political partisanship and who are encouraged to do so by their parent organizations because their brand of analysis and commentary is highly profitable.

The commercial success of both Fox News and MSNBC is a source of nonpartisan sadness for me. While I can appreciate the financial logic of drowning television viewers in a flood of opinions designed to confirm their own biases, the trend is not good for the republic. It is, though, the natural outcome of a growing sense of national entitlement. Daniel Patrick Moynihan's oft-quoted observation that "everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts," seems almost quaint in an environment that flaunts opinions as though they were facts.

And so, among the many benefits we have come to believe the founding fathers intended for us, the latest is news we can choose. Beginning, perhaps, from the reasonable perspective that absolute objectivity is unattainable, Fox News and MSNBC no longer even attempt it. They show us the world not as it is, but as partisans (and loyal viewers) at either end of the political spectrum would like it to be.... It is also part of a pervasive ethos that eschews facts in favor of an idealized reality.

There are some legitimate concerns about news consumers having the option of surrounding themselves only with news they want to hear, but Koppel is painting with an overly-broad brush.

For one thing, he's confusing ideology and partisanship -- Rachel Maddow is a liberal; Sean Hannity is a Republican. MSNBC's lineup criticizes President Obama and congressional Democrats nearly every day on ideological grounds; Fox News' lineup wouldn't dare chastise their Republican brethren.

For another, Koppel insists MSNBC and Fox News are somehow mirror images of one another. This remains the laziest and most unpersuasive observation in all of American media criticism. Fox News is a Republican propaganda outlet, plain and simple. MSNBC is a straight-news network, with some opinionated program in the early morning (a former Republican congressman gets three hours a day) and in prime time.

As for Koppel's insistence that all of this is "part of a pervasive ethos that eschews facts," I can only assume that he hasn't actually watched MSNBC's prime-time lineup, or he'd know this is plainly false.

—Steve Benen

[SidDithers]

1. K&R...nt

Sid

[fascisthunter]

2. NOW he complains because now there is a variety with Olbermann and Madow

people are beginning to turn away from FOX News and right wing garbage.

[tishaLA]

6. Mr Olbermann will be giving a special comment tonight re: Koppel's comments

should be interesting.

[polichick]

8. Thanks for the heads-up, wouldn't want to miss it! nt

[polichick]

7. That was my thought too - once he equated msnbc with fox, his agenda...

...became suspect.

[fascisthunter]

9. False equivalency... its all the rage today

why? because they are losing and they know it!

[jobycom]

3. I agree with him completely, at least in what you quoted him saying.

I don't see him saying FOX and MSNBC are mirror opposites, first of all, just that they are two examples of news media that hire opinion-based reporting rather than trying for objectivity. True objectivity can't be achieved, but the current mood of separate-journalism-for-separate-people can't be maintained. The reason there is no objectivity in voters is because there is no sense in this nation anymore that objectivity is even desired, or even exists. People now believe that only their opinions matter, and grab random facts to support their opinions, ignoring anything that undermines them. That's always the tendency of people, but now what passes for journalism in this nation encourages that, rather than trying to help people overcome it for a more reasoned, fact-based, scientific version of Truth.

I like Olbermann and Maddow only because they are on my side, and counter the worse excesses of the other side, but they have no place on a news channel any more than O'Reilly or Hannity or the others. That's not to say they are equivalent--Maddow and Olbermann at least care about the facts and don't openly lie to support an unsupportable argument. But we'd be better off as a nation with an Edward R Murrow style of journalism than what we have now. What's more, both Maddow and Olbermann could do that type of news if allowed to. Those on FOX could not.

As for when it all started, I've written many times since the early 90s that this was a trend to avoid, so yeah, it was happening in the 90s. I remember arguing with people about Rush Limbaugh, and how he elevated opinion to the level of fact and confused his audience on which was which, and how his hatred of the learned in favor of emotional assertions based on the opinions of common folk elevated opinion over learning. The media in the 90s was already starting that division, in the way they simply repeated people like Limbaugh and Buckley as fact, and repeated the lies of the Republican Party and people like Gingrich without challenging them. In an attempt to appear unbiased, they refused to say that Gingrich was lying, or was factually wrong, and that set the tone for everyone simply saying whatever they wanted, making up facts to support their opinions, and having no one challenge them on it.

So yeah, Koppel is right. I wish more people got it. I'm amazed, even stunned, that people on DU don't.

[babylonsister]

5. You don't agree with him completely if you believe this~

"That's not to say they are equivalent--Maddow and Olbermann at least care about the facts and don't openly lie to support an unsupportable argument."

Koppel is making the argument that faux and msnbc have the same agenda in affecting opinions, but for different parties. KO and Maddow do point out lies and discrepancies nightly regarding Dems where faux wouldn't dare point out their hourly lies.

I agree an Edward R. Murrow or 10 would be so refreshing, but I don't know how this will ever change: 'the current mood of separate-journalism-for-separate-people can't be maintained.'

The 24/7 news cycle we find ourselves with seems it would preclude any kind of change, unless every talking head suddenly found ethics.

[jobycom]

14. Koppel didn't say that.

The writer of the article says that Koppel said they were mirror images, but the quote by Koppel does NOT say that. It says they both hired partisan journalists, both are cashing in, both are making the same mistakes, but it does not say that MSNBC has the same agenda as FOX for opposing parties, and it does not say they are mirror images--that's the writer's interpretation.

Which kind of illustrates my point. People can't even distinguish fact from commentary anymore. The writer of that article thinks that if he can think it, it's true, rather than reading the quote for what it says.

Here's the full op-ed by Koppel, in case you are interested. I read it to make sure Koppel never said they have the same agenda. Aside from the agenda of making money, he does not. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/12/AR2010111202857_2.html?nav=hcmoduletmv

Here's another quote from it: The need for clear, objective reporting in a world of rising religious fundamentalism, economic interdependence and global ecological problems is probably greater than it has ever been. But we are no longer a national audience receiving news from a handful of trusted gatekeepers; we're now a million or more clusters of consumers, harvesting information from like-minded providers.

now that I've read the whole article, I agree with Koppel even more.

[ProudDad]

21. "objective reporting"

means that lies and bullshit are being "reported" on an equal footing with basic facts and truths...with no distinctions being made -- that might drive away advertisers...

Edward R Murrow knew the difference and he pulled NO punches when reporting on evil vs. good, right vs wrong...

He was ANYTHING BUT "objective" -- he called bullshit when he saw bullshit...

[Johnny2X2X]

24. Not sure

I am sure that Olberman and Maddow look like just as big of Liars to the Right as Beck and Hannity look like to the left. This is not the real difference IMO. The difference IMO is that FOX doesn't even try to appear unbiased, they actively campaign and help raise Money for Republican campaigns and causes.

Olberman creates a huge stir by giving a few thousand bucks when Fox News is helping raise Millions for the GOP and Tea Party.

We no longer have a real and free media presence in our Democracy, this makes Democracy in America an endangered idea.

[Empowerer]

23. I wish I could recommend this!

[lunamagica]

4. I admire Mr Koppel and feel very thankful to him...

When Hurricane Mitch hit and devastated Honduras, "Nightline" devoted a whole week to the tragedy. Mr. Koppel was there, in the most awful conditions reporting how truly horrific the situation was. But what moved me the most was the way he interviewed the poor campesinos who were victims of the storm. The respect and kindness he showed them, sitting next to them, talking to them like the real people they were was such a contrast to others (esp Univision). The arrogance of those reporters, keeping their distance, with their nose up in the air; their coldness and superiority was disgusting.

I will forever be thankful for that, Mr. Koppel

[KansDem]

10. I don't remember Mr. Koppel speaking out on "the death of real news" in the wake of FOX malfeasance

Year after year FOX has shown itself to be nothing more than a propaganda outlet for the GOP and the corporatists.

Then KO is "suspended" from MSNBC, then reinstated and we have "the death of real news."

Sorry, Mr. Koppel: your "concern" is too little, too late...

[polichick]

11. No kidding - Koppel is disingenous, at best. nt

[FrenchieCat]

12. That's the shit we should really be concerned about......

but couldn't have us aiming in the right direction for a change.
It would be too unlike what Democrats do when they have the chance.

[Irishonly]

13. He's an idiot

Where was he when "Meet the Press" and other talking head shows would let republicans lie because they said they thought the American people knew the difference. They didn't. Where was he when we were lied to about invading countries? Where was he when Fox went to court so they could lie on their news shows. He can ESAD.

[babylonsister]

15. I just read KO doing a Special Comment on Koppel tonight. Stand by. nt

[jpgray]

16. Our side: obsessed with Sarah Palin tweets. The other: Sharia law and birth certificates

Clearly the ideological arms of our media are performing important functions, expending airtime over the most important issues of the day.

(disclaimer: MSNBC is not as bad as FOX, the establishment "objective" press is also a trivia-obsessed farce, etc.)

[babylonsister]

17. Seems KO begs to differ. ;). nt

[jpgray]

18. That figures.

Men like Koppel and Olbermann wouldn't waste an opportunity to sling insults at each other, no matter how desperate the times. DU will draw itself up on one side or other, even if the whole debate is beside the point. What audience would there be for media today, if it couldn't cheer their contests of petty self-obsession?

Well that sounded more depressing than I thought it would.

[woo me with science]

19. He is right.

The slow disappearance of news shows that even try to be objective should concern everyone.

[bullwinkle428]

20. All of the Koppel cheerleaders need to watch KO's comments

specifically with respect to Koppel's role in the lead up to, and execution of the Iraq invasion/conquest/occupation, and how he failed to EVER question the constantly-changing justifications for persecution of said war.

[ProudDad]

22. Exactly...

Today's profit-driven, "objective journalism" has completely blurred the line between fact and fiction...

Edward R Murrow would NOT recognize the bull-crap that passes for "journalism" on the M$M today...