WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 30, 2023
It's a bit like The Mickey Mouse Club: It's often said that the late Roger Ailes was a "cable news" genius.
Eventually, Ailes invented the Fox News Channel. As we noted yesterday, he quickly began to assemble the reassuring friendship cadres by whom the channel's viewers get schooled through the course of the day.
That said, the notion that Ailes was an instant genius is a bit hard to sustain. Indeed, we're so old that we can remember his first attempt at inventing a cable news channel.
In one extremely tiny way, we were even there at the start!
We refer to the mid-90s gong-show channel, America's Talking. The channel came and went in short order, as this thumbnail describes:
America's Talking was an American short-lived cable television channel focused mainly on talk based programming, created by NBC and spun off from economic channel CNBC. It was launched on July 4, 1994, and was carried in 10 million American households upon launch The headquarters were in an office building in Fort Lee, New Jersey, two floors below CNBC's original studios, on Fletcher Avenue. It was shuttered on July 15, 1996, and its transponder space was replaced by MSNBC.
The channel was launched in July 1994, a spin-off from CNBC. It was shuttered just two years later.
As a general matter, its lineup of programs was a remarkably puzzling mess. The leading authority on the debacle offers this head-scratchinging rundown:
America's Talking A.M.: A morning talk show, hosted by Steve Doocy and Kai Kim, with Tony Morelli as "the Prodigy Guy".
Am I Nuts? (later named State of Mind): Hosted by psychologist Bernie Katz and behavioral therapist Cynthia Richmond.
What's New?: The latest hot gadgets, hosted by Mike Jerrick and later Brian Tracey.
Break A Leg with Bill McCuddy: Mid-afternoon chatfest hosted by the winner of a CNBC-sponsored talent contest, Bill McCuddy. Featured celebrities and musical acts.
Alive and Wellness: Healthy living by holistic methods, hosted by Carol Martin.
Ask E. Jean: A call-in advice show hosted by writer E. Jean Carroll.
Have a Heart: A talk/news show discussing the brighter side of the news and show-arranged charitable situations, hosted by Lu Hanessian.
Pork: A political talk show focusing on government waste hosted by John David Klein. The executive producers were Robin Gellman and Dennis Sullivan.
AT In-Depth: A two-hour news/talk show focusing on the day's top stories, co-hosted by Terry Anzur in Fort Lee and Chris Matthews in Washington. Matthews later got his own show...
Straight Forward: A celebrity hour-long talk show, hosted by the President of the network, Roger Ailes.
Bugged!: A comedic look at what bugs people, hosted by Brian O'Connor with Bill Gulino.
R&R with Roger Rose: A late-night themed talk show featuring the latest music and celebrities.
One hour devoted to nothing but gadgets, one hour devoted to bugs! The profoundly untelegenic Ailes assigned himself the task of interviewing the celebrity guests. All in all, the puzzling array of hour-long programs created a thoroughly unwatchable cable news mess.
Full disclosures! On one occasion, we guested on AT In-Depth, appearing in connection with our one-person show at the D.C. Improv. Also, we played a tiny role in the selection of our friend, TV's Bill McCuddy, as the host of that "mid-afternoon chatfest," the spot he (deservedly) won as a result of that nationwide talent hunt.
(McCuddy went on to host an entertainment program on the Fox News Channel. Eventually, that program was canceled as Ailes discovered the road to "cable news" success.)
For the record, Chris Matthews' Hardball program emerged from the disaster which was America's Talking. Right to this day, Steve Doocy is co-host of Fox & Friends, serving as part of the friendship cadre which starts the day at Fox.
That said, the craziness of that crazy-quilt lineup of programs pretty much speaks for itself. Given a chance at redemption, Ailes went on to construct the Fox News Channel, a place where red tribe viewers know they'll constantly be in the presence of ideological and cultural friends.
As noted above, MSNBC emerged from the American carnage when America's Talking went belly-up. Eventually, MSNBC would follow the lead of Fox News in building its daily programming around the cultural sponge bath reliably provided by cadres of favorites and friends.
As a result, contemporary cable news offers a deeply unhelpful version of "segregation [by tribal membership] now." Viewers know they can safely watch their tribe's channel of choice while being confronted by no one other than their ideological friends.
Yesterday, we traced this warm sponge bath of cable programming back through a succession of earlier TV programs, not excluding the actual sitcom called Friends. Experts say that we failed to journey far enough into the medium's past.
In fact, the notion that viewers could count on being welcomed by friends drove children's programming right from the start. To wit:
The Howdy Doody Show was built around the presence of a bunch of kids in the so-called peanut gallery. A bit later, kids of the 1950s and 1960s got to see a circle of imaginary friends introduced themselves by name every day.
We refer to what their friends the Mouseketeers did at the start of every show of the Mickey Mouse Club. Implicitly, Annette and Jimmy and Darlene were our earliest TV friends.
In fairness, those earlier shows, with their friendship cadres, were aimed at 8-year-old children. For better or worse, a similar branding strategy is aimed at warring tribes of American adults in these latter days.
On weekdays, red tribe viewers can tune in to their self-identified "friends" starting at 5 a.m. Eastern. (Fox & Friends Weekend doesn't start until 6 a.m.) Eventually, a blue tribe cable competitor chose to adopt the same silly, childish approach.
Back in the day, Annette and Jimmy and Darlene were being pitched to children. Today, corporate "cable news" operations aim their friendship cadres at an older clientele.
It ought to be embarrassing to see our own blue tribe behaving in this childish way. But these are very challenging times, and we humans are strongly inclined to seek comfort within the mandated Storylines of a surrounding tribe.
On blue tribe cable, our various favorites and friends shield us from many storms. They discuss a very small selection of topics, disappear a boatload of others.
This is propaganda (and disinformation) too. As we'll note in the next few days, this doesn't just happen on Fox.
Also, this approach to delivering pseudo-news is a form of "segregation now." The lunacy of our failing discourse is derived, at least in part, from this very dumb, childish approach.
America's Talking came and went. After that, Ailes wised up—and our own blue tribe was next.
Tomorrow: "Our favorite reporters and friends"
Selected by Roger: To enjoy (certain elements of) TV's Bill McCuddy, why not just click here?
I come here because Bob Somerby is my friend.
ReplyDeleteHe heaps abuse on his own readers by telling us we are resonsible for the downfall of civilization, the reason why we are sliding into the sea. But you still think he is your friend? He likes The Others better than you.
Deleteanon 4:44, you are projecting - he has never said that his odd assortment of commenters, who compulsively follow him even though he heaps abuse on them (and they in turn on him) are responsible for the downfall of civilization. If he did say that, however, he would be correct.
DeleteNo, he doesn't say his commenters are responsible, he says his readers are, lumping all of his readers in with the blue tribe, us liberals. He has said this many many times.
DeleteHow can Somerby be correct when no one has slid into the sea yet and civilization has not fallen?
Bob's view that the Right-wingers are nothing but reactionaries seems spot-on to me, but I've only been paying attention to politics for the last 50 years.
DeleteDoes anyone call Ailes a genius other than Kerwin Swint, who wrote a book?
ReplyDeletehttps://www.amazon.com/Dark-Genius-Influential-Legendary-Political/dp/1402754450
There were only 2 Amazon reviews despite its publication in 2008 and neither was very positive.
Then I used google to search for anyone else calling Ailes a genius and came up empty. It might be better if Somerby were just to mention the book itself and not cutely say that more than one guy in Atlanta has called Ailes a genius, when no one else seems to have done that.
Here is the relevant Somerby quote: "It's often said that the late Roger Ailes was a "cable news" genius."
DeleteAiles a genuis? That’s a laugh; however, I don’t find him “profoundly untelegenic” as Somerby weirdly proclaims.
DeleteWhy is Somerby motivated to blog post about his opinion on the attractiveness of Roger Ailes? Who knows exactly, but it’s clearly the product of profoundly inane mind.
I never thought he was a genius, but learned he was a sick bastard. "Former Fox News staffer Laura Luhn helped seal the late Roger Ailes' reputation after his resignation as the network's chairman in July 2016 when she publicly alleged that he had sexually abused her for two decades and blackmailed her into becoming his "sex slave.""
Delete"As noted above, MSNBC emerged from the American carnage when America's Talking went belly-up. Eventually, MSNBC would follow the lead of Fox News in building its daily programming around the cultural sponge bath reliably provided by cadres of favorites and friends."
ReplyDeleteSomerby equates the creation of Fox News and MSNBC but that is incorrect. Fox News was explicitly founded to engage in ideological indoctrination to the benefit of the right wing. MSNBC was founded to present factual coverage of political issues and analysis, but was not explicitly a left wing ideological source. That's why several of the hosts at MSNBC were not left wing or even centrist, including Chris Matthews and Nicole Wallace among others. There was balance and an attempt at objectivity at MSNBC that was excluded by Fox News, even before it gave itself over to disinformation and manufactured outrage. MSNBC still does not engage in that approach, even when the stories it presents may evoke that in liberals watching because they are genuinely outrageous or horrible (such as school shootings or Trump's egregious behavior). So, why Somerby tries to present them as mirror images, he is wrong. And one must ask why he is getting this wrong when he was supposedly there on the scene when all this happened?
"That said, the craziness of that crazy-quilt lineup of programs pretty much speaks for itself."
ReplyDeleteHad the basis for cable success truly been a sense of friendship, those shows would have succeeded. Somerby claims that the friendship aspect is necessary to Fox News success, but I think it is the ideological glue and the outrage, the white supremacy and the violence that attract viewers, not the "friends". Ailes original channel didn't succeed because it lacked those elements, not because the shows focused on a variety of topics (that seems to offend Somerby somehow, but why?). Aside from lacking a coherent image that could be promoted, it is unclear why those shows failed, but a lot of attempts were failing back then. It is why History Channel became the all-Hitler channel and why sci-fi channel shifted to paranormal garbage shows. It was hard for all of those new channels and they were struggling so they sunk to the lowest common denominator. Talk shows were cheap to produce, so perhaps they weren't well capitalized to begin with.
"A bit later, kids of the 1950s and 1960s got to see a circle of imaginary friends introduced themselves by name every day."
ReplyDeleteIn fairness, developmental psychologists who study child behavior must build elaborate puppet-show type stages to hide behind when presenting experimental stimuli to toddlers and babies. That's because children are much more interested in watching and interacting with live people than they are with the toys of devices presented as stimuli. So the people must be removed from the scene or they will not reach for or even look at the inanimate stimuli they are meant to respond to.
Given a choice, kids always look at other kids first, not at adults. This is called social referencing and it is an important part of how we learn about what is safe and right to do in a given context. So, why wouldn't kids want to see other kids on TV? And what exactly is wrong with that? The only thing interesting about this, is that the content producers recognized this fact and used it to build better shows, ones that people (kids and adults) would want to watch and pay more attention to, enjoy more.
There is nothing nefarious about this.
After the movie Toy Story came out, Disneyland placed characters from the film into its "It's a Small World" ride scenarios. I thought that was a bit commercial until I went through the ride with some toddlers. They didn't recognize the French or Dutch or German kids, but they were gleeful, pointed and laughed, as they recognized Woody and Buzz Lightyear. It enhanced their enjoyed to see those familiar characters that they recognized from the cartoon. To me, that justified their inclusion, even if I felt sad that the scenes of my own childhood had been modified in a jarring way.
I think Somerby misinterprets why things are done as they are, in similar ways to my original reaction. If people want to watch familiar people in situations they can relate to, even in political talk show formats, why is that bad? I don't think that is the reason for any of the aspects of Fox News that are truly bad (disinformation, hate, scapegoating liberals) except that it draws people into something that ultimately is harmful to both the viewers and our political discourse. We should focus on those harmful aspects, not the human tendency to feel warmly toward those we recognize as familiar and can name on TV.
I consider both MSNBC and Fox News unwatchable. But I suppose if there was programming where intelligent hosts and guests would discuss issues applying critical thinking as the standard, with skepticism and refraining from putting their thumbs incessantly on the scales, it wouldn't have an audience, and sponsors might not care for it. Instead, we get a low, fi not the lowest common denominator.
DeleteThis goes against my values to say but I think @4:18 needs a hobby
DeleteAC, the both sider usually just thinks he or She is smarter than everyone. MSNC has done excellent work on Trump, and it’s just sour grapes not to admit it.
DeleteI can't admit it because, as I said, I consider MSNBC unwatchable, based on whenever I watched it in the past. Perhaps, I could now watch, to find out about this "excellent work" and overcome my fear that i would be subjected to mind-numbing talking heads all agreeing with each other over repetitive pre-programmed themes. but life is probably too short for me to consider doing that. I would argue that considering all sides, objectively, is necessary in order to form an intelligent judgment. No one has a monopoly on the truth. I have always voted for Democrats, and probably think of the right largely in the same manner that you do - but as TDH mildly points out, libs seem to have gone off the rails in the last few years.
DeleteDon't consider all sides -- try to deal with the facts of a situation and think about that, not the opinions of others or the predigested things they tell you to believe. If you cannot do that, you perhaps need to educate yourself, which might require reading more.
DeleteThe truth (aka reality) has a monopoly on truth. It is out there -- you just need to make an effort to go find it.
Libs are not off the rails. Somerby is off the rails. You can only assess that by knowing what is going on in the world, which means keeping up with events as they evolve, which means reading news sources and background info. Somerby is not providing that info.
"But these are very challenging times, and we humans are strongly inclined to seek comfort within the mandated Storylines of a surrounding tribe."
ReplyDeleteIf this were true, it would not matter what political perspective a cable station were pitching. A liberal could go feel warm and fuzzy at Fox News without being upset by its content, because their hosts were so nice to them. But that isn't what happens. Liberals who visit Fox are repelled by the things those people are saying. The same happens when MAGA Fox viewers visit MSNBC. They complain about the bias. So obviously that childish friendliness isn't the only thing viewers are pulled in by at these stations, and tribalness must have more of a basis than inclusion.
I think we need to go back to having news programming that is presented as a public service and kept honest and unbiased by providing the opportunity for opposing viewpoints to immediately follow the news itself. The guiding principle of that news should be immediacy, truth and accuracy. Having an ideologically mixed production staff will help achieve that. Extremist views should be relegated to the fringes again, demogogues labeled for what they are, and no more pretending that ignorance and factual inaccuracy are just differences of opinion (alternate facts). Fact and opinion should be clearly labeled and distinct (not confused with each other). Experts should be treated with respect, as authorities on a limited topic, and not derided as a way of refuting their facts (address the facts not the person).
ReplyDeleteAt this point, MSNBC comes closer to my ideal than Fox News does. And that's why I would watch it first, not because I like the friends there better than the idea of hanging out with Tucker Carlson or his replacement.
Trump raped one of Somerby's fellow presenters.
ReplyDeleteNot surprising the troll missed it.
DeleteIf you are talking about E. Jean Carroll, she had her own show and was not a fellow presenter with Somerby. Somerby appeared on a different show, where he was a guest, not a presenter. Or are you suggesting that Trump raped one of the people on AT In-Depth.
DeleteRape is unfriendly.
DeleteI just wasn't surprised that you missed it as you don't really usually read these posts very deeply. Actually you usually misread them and misrepresent them in your pathetic daily trolling. But hey, you got to get attention somehow, right?.
DeleteAlso Trump raped his wife, only a few years after it had been made illegal in many parts of the country, he merely may not have been up to date on such esoterics.
DeleteTrump also has been accused of sexually assaulting over 20 women, and even a minor.
Of course, then, Trump is the hero of evangelicals.
Somerby's revisionist history of TV is a hoot!
ReplyDeleteThere is nothing on MSNBC as bad as this:
ReplyDelete"Tucker Carlson is pounding home the theory that Democrats and the D.C. establishment are plotting to kill Donald Trump, the Daily Beast reports.
Said Carlson: “They protested him, they called him names. He won anyway. They impeached him twice on ridiculous pretenses. They fabricated a lot about what happened on January 6 in order to impeach him again. It didn’t work. He came back. Then they indicted him. It didn’t work. He became more popular. Then they indicted him three more times. And every single time his popularity rose.”
He added: “If you begin with criticism, then you go to protest. Then you go to impeachment. Now you go to indictment and none of them work. What’s next? I mean, you know, graph it out, man! We’re speeding toward assassination, obviously, and no one will say that!”
Fortunately, indictment is working so far. Recall that Trump was convicted at his last trial, the one where he was found guilty of sexual abuse and defamation.
What do Republicans gain by saying that Trump is about to be murdered because liberals are mad because Trump lost to Biden in 2020?
"What do Republicans gain by saying that Trump is about to be murdered because liberals are mad because Trump lost to Biden in 2020?"
DeleteClicks. = $.
An interesting aspect of Tucker is that in reality he finds Trump “a demonic force, a destroyer” and he finds the election fraud claims “ludicrous” and “totally off the rails”.
DeleteAlso polls show Trump’s approval, since the indictments, has slumped from 42 down to 38%.
I enjoyed The Mickey Mouse Club, but I never imagined that the Mouseketeers were my friends.
ReplyDeleteThe Mouseketeers were real kids who had real friends in real life. The show launched quite a few careers. Somerby's snide way of describing it seems unfair to the kids involved and to those of us who grew up with them. I don't hold the Mouseketeers responsible for Fox News, as Somerby seems to do.
DeleteI watched the Mousketeers growing up (beloved apparently by the anonymouses here). I think you are projecting. TDH isn't being snide toward them. He has this thing, which is a valid point, that these cable news shows just have a bunch of people together who always agree with each other and talk about a limited spectrum of issues, and call each other friends, delivered for the edification of one particular tribe, in a manner, I would say, that is mind numbing. Their audience doesn't get challenged at all with contrary views, and there sure are valid contrary views. As a device, he gives the example of the Mouseketeers where the cast members were all friends too. He isn't being "snide." You are imagining it and miss (or misrepresent) his point. He isn't claiming that Annette Funicello is responsible for Fox News, or for MSNBC either. The analogy may be somewhat of a stretch, but his displeasure is directed at the way these cable news shows are presented. (I might also add that this defunct "America's Talking" program schedule seems that it might be more interesting than what we have now.
DeleteWhy should MSNBC bother challenging its guests with contrary views when the audience can get as much of that as it wants by switching to Fox?
DeleteHe is certainly being snide to suggest that Annette and Darlene had anything to do with the creation of Fox News. They were just teenagers with pleasant smiles. Darlene went on to become a successful country singer. Annette made a series of teen movies until she married and raised a family. Neither of them deserves to be used as a pawn in Somerby's stupid game. The snide part is where he calls the rest of us children for liking them, as if there were anything wrong with being a child at that stage in their lives. There is nothing at all similar to what occurs on Fox & Friends and what occurred on the Mickey Mouse Club (over which the actors had no writing control).
I agree with you that the America's Talking shows sound interesting. But Somerby doesn't think that. He disparages them and holds them responsible for the cable station's demise. They are too much like the content of the Washington Post, which he definitely disparages. I don't watch MSNBC or Fox, but I also don't think Somerby is being fair to MSNBC when he compares or equates it to Fox. I have seen both and Fox is worse, not even in the same ballpark. Fox lies and spreads hate. MSNBC does not. The worst thing Somerby does here, day in and day out, is equate the left and the right when they are majorly dissimilar in important ways.
Only Tucker Carlson is talking about Trump being murdered. Being someone who is not excessively literal, I suspect it is a dog whistle to right wing extremists to go after Biden. Wink wink, nudge nudge. If that happens, I plan to support Newsom, who will be the Republicans' worst nightmare, so they should have a strong interest in keeping Biden safe.
AC you've been trolled.
Delete“I watched the Mousketeers growing up (beloved apparently by the anonymouses here).”
DeleteThe plural of anonymouse is anonymices (uh-non-uh-meeces).
https://youtu.be/PZGkYW4b5I0?si=OVht2iGj_5_PTZYF
"The analogy may be somewhat of a stretch, ...."
DeleteLOL!
anon 8:31, a stretch yes, but not an attack on the three Musketeers.
DeleteDuh because they were men
DeleteJoyce Vance, Neil Katyal, Laurence Tribe and many other MSNBC commentators have backgrounds, some impressive to say the least, to weigh in on Trump. Bob, on the other hand, does not know much about it, displays no INTEREST in Trump's criminality (and who he hurt) has no background in the law, but only carries the advantage of having no fear of making an ass of himself. "Trump Trump Trump" indeed. Today he goes a long mile to insult these people, but brings nothing to the party except, once again, his no nothing arrogance.
ReplyDeleteanon 5:52, TDH pretty much has a 100% wrongness quotient by your esteemed estimate, for sure. One has to admire your determined efforts to demonstrate, by the use of pellucid logic, that he ain't no liberal, bravely enduring his constant offensiveness directed at the true and the beautiful - but someone has to do it! I don't think he mentioned the 3 you named, but it certainly is an outrage that he impliedly insulted them, by criticizing the network. Is MSNBC mind-numbingly boring with all its guests saying the same thing, and never veering from the official narrative?
DeleteFor sure, you’re the one we are out to persuade. Sure, sure.
DeleteThe left doesn't have an "official narrative" the way Somerby suggests. Progressives and liberals have different perspectives, as do Bernie and Warren Democrats, environmentalists, social justice activists and immigration activists, union organizers. The left is a coalition, just as the right is also comprised of different factions, not just MAGAts. The problem with the right is that it is going along with Trump even when its members do not support him, because they think that is the way to wield power. There are hints that the solidarity on the right may be dissolving with Trump's indictments. But portraying the right and the left as only two tribes is simplistic, because what about the never-Trumpers and disaffected Democrats who have been trying to create a centrist party?
DeleteThe “official narrative” on Trump being a crook and nutcase? I’d like to hear the Counter Narrative. Only a dullard finds these frightening but dramatic days boring. Or a fucking idiot who voted for Trump.
DeleteThe term narrative is a loose term, just like many others that are used in politics, e.g., "systemic racism" or that people are "assigned a gender at birth" - it's not official doctrine like a party platform or the catholic catechism. That doesn't mean that they don't exist.
DeleteThe term narrative may be loose when Somerby uses it, but it is not loose at all to the people who study narrative, such as cognitive narratologists or narrative theorists. Somerby knows about as much about narrative as he does about anthropology -- zilch.
Deleteanon 11:40, I now see that that the concept of "narratives" is beyond the grasp of lay people, but is in the domain of "cognitive narratologists" and "narrative theorists", narratives being beyond ordinary peoples understanding, somewhat like nuclear physics.
DeleteI'm not suggesting that this is like nuclear physics -- I am taking issue with your statement that the term narrative is a loose term when it is not.
DeleteWhat a strange assessment; the meaning of the word narrative, systemic racism and assigned gender are all more tangible and rooted in reality than party platforms and supernatural notions.
DeleteI’m old enough to remember how Trump had the Republican Party platform changed to accommodate Putin’s interest in Ukraine, in exchange for not enforcing sanctions against Russia/Russians.
Reagan would be rolling over in his grave were it not for him being stuck in that lake of fire.
I appreciate the earlier comment about politics being on a spectrum, which is the case for nearly everything in the universe.
It’s not always good to be overly simplistic or reductive; however, the other side of that coin is nuance, which, more often than not, is used to muddy the waters. To communicate better, it’s good to define terms in a way that limits bad actors muddying the water.
To wit: leftists support egalitarianism and equality; right wingers support hierarchy and dominance. Getting more “nuanced” than that, and you are just ceding power to those looking to abuse it.
anon 3:12, a lot of what you say I would agree with, though somewhat abstract and general. I'm afraid I don't see "assigned gender" as being based in reality, you are born with a gender 9with some rare exceptions), Obviously not everyone agrees. As for 'systemic racism", that's a theory, and depends on lots of assumptions and arguments,, it's a point of view, and may be a cogent and convincing from an objective standard, but I think there is a lot of subjectivity that goes into it. As to your conclusions, that "left wingers support egalitarianism and equality" while "right wingers support hierarchy and dominance" - I'm sure intelligent right wingers would dispute that, not without having reasonable arguments. The left favors vast government regulations, including mask mandates, higher taxes, etc. which the right would argue does represent hierarchy and dominance, and that affirmative action represents inequality.
Delete"The left favors vast government regulations"
DeleteLOL, AC/ MA.
The next time you're in Texas, your next two abortions are on me.
----------
Sorry, AC/ MA. That was a sarcastic response from me.
Here's a response without the sarcasm.
AC/ MA, you are a ridiculous fool, and you really should shove the moronic idea that it's the left who want more government regulations up your ass.
4:36 I appreciate you expressing your thoughts and the insight it gives into your perspective.
DeleteYou are born with a sex, gender is a social construct; typically one is assigned a gender, and whether that gender is borne out, it’s still a factual occurrence.
Racism, systemic or otherwise, is a concept bolstered by evidence more solid than many theories in physics.
Humans are inherently egalitarian, so it’s unsurprising right wingers try to muddy the terms.
Government regulations that improve society, mask mandates, higher taxes, and affirmative action, all function to diminish hierarchy and inequality. Just because right wingers make bad faith and incoherent arguments, doesn’t change these circumstances.
Crossfire, remember it? It presented two perspectives, “liberal” and “conservative”, and ran for 23 years.
ReplyDeleteWas this non-friend format a successful example of discourse?
What about Hannity and Colmes? Did that contribute anything?
How about Geraldo’s presence on Fox News as some sort of “liberal”?
It would be great if Somerby could think of any current right winger who would or could engage in any kind of honest discussion about anything, because I’m having trouble thinking of any.
My suggestion for MSNBC would be to occasionally present in-depth analysis of important issues, health care, climate change, etc. But there is no reason to include the right wing position on them, because how fruitful is “climate change is a hoax” or “let the market decide.”
I think the networks could help by presenting credible debate programming ( not like Crossfire). People like Bob should be advocating for it, but sines he only believes in holding one side accountable, the idea never crosses his mind.
DeleteCanadian psychologist Jordan Peterson is a superb debater. He's calm and has a big collection of facts to support his positions. You can find numerous examples via youtube. I bet he would love to debate on US TV.
DeletePeterson is an incel guru and a conspiracy crank. His facts are cherrypicked and/or taken out of context. Whether his "collection" is big or not is irrelevant. They're easily discredited.
DeleteHis oration and debating skills consist of shrill conclusions. Superb? LOL!
That you hold Peterson in high esteem is hardly surprising.
I could happily debate climate change. I'm struck that someone as smart as mh is unaware of the controversies. For the benefit of mh, here is where the debate lies.
DeleteThe term "climate change" as commonly used includes a bunch or ideas, such as
1. The earth is warming
2. The warming is primarily caused by man's activities.
3. The warming will be catastrophic
4. The warming is doing much more harm than good
5. Climate models are pretty reliable
6. We can stop the warming by using renewable energy, such as wind, solar, and biomass.
IMO #1 and #2 are established. The others not so much. There are strong arguments against them. They should be debated, because they guide our government policy. E.g.,
-- should we stop supporting wind and solar, and instead devote those resources to nuclear and to adapting our infrastructure?
-- Should government decisions be based less on climate impacts and more on other factors?
Jordan Peterson has debated experts from Zizek to Dillahunty, and has lost all those debates and embarrassingly so.
DeleteWorse, his daughter appears to be engaged in elder abuse, taking advantage of Jordan Peterson’s drug addiction and emotional breakdowns.
Climate models have been highly accurate since the 70’s:
https://mashable.com/article/climate-models-accurate-since-1970s
Nuclear power plants are costly, and are deadly; they require the storage of highly toxic nuclear waste, and they all leak deadly carcinogens into our air, water, and soil.
Renewables are set to hit producing close to 50% of all energy by 2030.
"Renewables are set to hit producing close to 50% of all energy by 2030"
DeleteCite please.
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2022/11/renewable-energy-generation-soars/
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteDavid, Google "Jordan Peterson emotional breakdown".
Delete'I’m alive': Jordan Peterson back in Canada after lengthy medical treatment, he says in emotional new video
Peterson says he was suffering from 'severely impaired health,' after using benzodiazepines, often used in the treatment of anxiety, and then stopping their use
He's "calm", eh David?????
Regarding DIC's list, A few short years ago the right wing mantra regarding climate change argued against numbers one and two, as it still does among a vocal segment of republicans. DIC will work his way down the list when his right wing outlets or current events require such. The sequence of arguments started with denying climate change then denying human activity's contribution to it, now whether any efforts at mitigation are likely cost effective or fruitful, and ultimately that it is too late and nothing can be done. Jimmy Carter had solar panels on the white house. Donald Trump calls it a Chinese hoax. The knuckle dragging element in this culture has fervently worked to block any chance of progress here and to debate them would require prepping by pig wrestling. That goes for Jordan Peterson who declared with his usual air of authority on Joe Rogan's podcast (now there's his perfect audience) that climate is too complicated to model.
Delete8:26 Peterson's academic career included a stint at Harvard where he studied aggressive behavior in the context of drug and ETOH abuse. Know thyself indeed.
DeleteHey Dave in Cal, how's the insurance market treating home owners in areas susceptible to wildfire in your state? Or try buying insurance for your condo in Florida. Oh my, the market is already speaking about climate change?
DeletePeterson has horrible sartorial taste.
DeleteI believe Peterson was last seen having a spittle laced meltdown on Twitter with Mehdi Hasan insisting that Mehdi was actually a white person.
DeleteYeah, he's a real calm. I have witness multiple youtube videos of Peterson breaking down crying over the silliest pretext.
When you're in a fishbowl you don't see the ocean
ReplyDeleteTell us about the ocean, is it large and grand and wondrous?
DeleteThere are more than two political perspectives, you should definitely check it out when you have the chance
DeleteYeah I'm in. Just trying to be funny.
DeleteStudies show that CNN and MSNBC viewers are more knowledgeable than Fox News viewers, and that Fox News viewers that switched to CNN for a month were more knowledgeable than those that stayed with Fox News.
ReplyDeleteThere’s no study or credible evidence that demonstrates that Fox News or CNN or MSNBC has a significant electoral impact.
I think there is a strong correlation between projection and gaslighting. Those that do one often do both. Also, they seem to be attracted to fields like politics where they have ample opportunity to do both.
ReplyDeleteI see all the maga-populists and Russian trolls are ecstatic over President Biden's successful first step to lower prescription drug prices for senior citizens. LOL
ReplyDeleteI was pleasantly surprised. It's something we should all celebrate. But modern politics seems to make that impossible.
DeleteA bullshit promise just in time for the election. They'll keep doing it if you keep falling for it, student loan debt breath.
DeleteOkay I'm game.
DeleteFor starters, you have a loose definition of "just in time." Any evidence it is a false promise? 10 drugs were named for negotiation, seems rather specific for "bullshit."
3:03. Medicare part D was introduced by the Republicans with the proviso that rates not be subject to bargaining by the government. The following year the senator that spearheaded that effort, a republican from Louisiana, quit his re-election campaign and took a million dollar annual salary as president of PHRMA.
DeleteProbably best for you to direct your pathetic skepticism at the republican party.
Medicare part D gave the pharmaceutical industry carte blanche to raise prices at the expense of the American taxpayer. Bernie Sanders previously introduced a bill several years ago to allow bargaining that was blocked party line to the man by every single republican republicans (and 2 dems from pharma states). But go ahead with your election year nonsense.
DeleteOuch. Sick 'em tiger. I'm curious to see if they try to justify their comment further or just run away.
DeleteAre the drug prices lower now?
DeleteThis article spells out why it is bullshit manufactured just in time for the election:
Deletehttps://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/30/us/politics/biden-medicare-drug-prices-2024-campaign.html
"prices on just the first handful of drugs are not scheduled to actually drop until 2026 at the earliest, assuming Mr. Biden’s program survives legal challenges. Drug companies have filed numerous lawsuits against the administration that claim the law is unconstitutional. Court cases could drag on for years. In its lawsuit against the administration, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, an industry trade group, called the plan for negotiated prices “a government mandate disguised as negotiation.”
"At the White House, Mr. Biden and his advisers have already begun to elevate the issue as a centerpiece of his agenda. And at his campaign headquarters in Wilmington, Del., aides are preparing television ads, talking points and speeches arguing that Mr. Biden’s push for lower health care costs is a stark contrast with his Republican opponents."
Can you see how it's BS? Manufacturer just in time for the election? It's pretty obvious.
3:03, do you have any fucking idea how much student load forgiveness Biden has pushed throught already, asshole? And we all know who went to the Supreme Court to stop the $10k student load forgiveness that millions of borrowers had already been told had been approved. Fucking magat republicans.
DeleteHow much?
DeleteSo am I supposed to believe that Joe Biden couldn't figure out that the maga Republicans would take it to the supreme Court and get it blocked? I mean that's obvious from the start. That's why it's bullshit.
Same with this drug price thing. It's bullshit. Nothing will happen. It's just to get suckers riled up about voting. That's all.
DeleteFuck you, Boris.
DeleteStarting Monday, hundreds of thousands of federal student loan borrowers received emails from their servicers with the subject line "Your student loans have been forgiven."
The notices came as part of the Biden administration's previously announced efforts to cancel debt for 804,000 borrowers who qualify for relief under their repayment plans but haven't yet received it because of what officials have called administrative failures.
The emails started going out on Monday, according to a copy of the confirmation notices to borrowers that ABC News exclusively obtained.
It's expected that all 800,000-plus borrowers will be notified of some relief in the coming weeks. By the end of the day Monday, the Department of Education estimated that it had already wiped the debt of more than 200,000 people.
Around 614,000 people are expected to have their entire student loan debts canceled, while others might have remaining loans that they took out at different times.
The relief is targeted at people who enrolled in income-driven repayment (IDR) plans, which allow student loan debts to be forgiven by the federal government once payments have been made for 20 or 25 years, depending on the plan.
But because of well-documented errors in tracking payments, many borrowers enrolled in IDR plans have been left paying well beyond their payment end dates, with no forgiveness in sight.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/biden-administration-begins-wiping-student-loan-debt-804000/story?id=102264052
Did you read this story? Do you understand what this story is about? This is supposed to represent a fulfillment of Biden's cynical promise to forgive loans of up to $20,000 to more than 40 million potential voters?
DeleteYou don't even know how to read so of course things are going to seem confusing and wild and leave you frustrated and bothered. That must suck.
Since you are unable to read for some reason which must really suck I'll tell you what that article is about. The Biden administration is alerting student loan borrowers who have been paying on their student loans for 25 years. These Borrowers are in a program where after paying for a quarter of a century, the remaining amount of their debt is "forgiven". But due to a clerical error, these people were not emailed and told about it. So now the Biden Administration is emailing them and telling them about it. That's all.
DeleteAlthough it Bears no relationship at all, I can see they dress it up to make it look like it's some big fulfillment of his original, insane, cynical, complete BS promise. It gives the appearance of that to people like yourself who cannot read. Partisans who can't read. So it's effective in that way.
DeleteHey, jerkoff, save your breath. I never claimed that was part of the universal $10k-$20k plan, which was challenged by two magat plaintifs with no standing and then aborted by a corrupt supreme court. Biden is doing whatever he can. So fuck off, Boris.
DeleteSo to summarize: fuck you, gullible illiterate partisan! ;)
DeleteJust joking. Have a good weekend.
I was discussing the original bullshit promise and comparing it to the bullshit promise with prescription drug prices mentioned in the original comment.
DeleteSo thank you for contributing nothing. ;) Just joking. Have a good weekend brother.
They depend on people of your intellect.
DeleteI’m still laughing at the moron that claims that a Dem supporting progress, that is then countered by corporations and Repubs, is somehow BS.
DeleteAre you ok? Are you having a stroke?
And to top it off, it’s supposedly being done just in time for “the election”. Bwahahahahaha, you know, the election that’s over a year away.
I'm not the one claiming it. The Biden campaign is.
Delete"At the White House, Mr. Biden and his advisers have already begun to elevate the issue as a centerpiece of his agenda. And at his campaign headquarters in Wilmington, Del., aides are preparing television ads, talking points and speeches arguing that Mr. Biden’s push for lower health care costs is a stark contrast with his Republican opponents."
The troll that is cynical of Biden's loan forgiveness and pharmaceutical leveraging policies fails to recognize, purposefully, that republicans have never raised a finger to assist the populance in either of these matters. Price gouging the American consumer is not the least of it, making it illegal to purchase medications outside the US at reduced cost is likewise acceptable to republican trolls. The pharmaceutical industry has a captive audience here. Or, better put, prisoners. The price of a single pill of thalidamide in the US went from 6 dollars to just under 700 dollars after it was labeled a cancer drug for multiple myeloma, its cost continuing to be inexpensive in other countries, and of course, this is acceptable to republican trolls whose misplaced cynicism is farcical. Obamacare was targeted for years by the republican party until the clowns populating that group in congress realized that they were fighting a losing battle against a flawed but popular staple of the healthcare landscape, one that was particularly beneficial when employer based healthcare was unavailable to many during the Civic pandemic. To right wing trolls, advocating for reforms that benefit people is a cynical political ploy to buy votes, rather than an effort to help people and rectify monopolistic trade practices and price gouging. Their sympathies lie with their patrons, be it the gun lobby, banking industry or big pharma and any efforts legislatively that do not fall in line with those and other lobbying interests are to be ridiculed and viewed cynically. These trolls are bad faith actors and carry zero concern for the American public and their manipulation by powerful entities in an asymmetric marketplace.
Delete"Civic pandemic" = COVID pandemic
DeleteLoser posting at 3:03 to being this conversation. The law was passed in August 2022 allowing implementation of price bargaining, over 2 years before the next election. You can crawl back under your rock at this point.
DeleteThe Biden admin is neither claiming their actions are bs nor performative, and the unidentified quote also does not indicate that.
DeleteIf you make a coherent claim, I’ll offer a counterpoint, but so far it’s just been nonsense, sorry to say.
Same thing happened with tuition after govt guaranteed student loans.
DeleteDemocrats are three times more likely than Republicans to "unfriend" somebody over social media politics
ReplyDeletehttps://fortune.com/2016/12/19/social-media-election/
That's it were done! You're on my block list.
DeleteDemocrats are three times more likely than Republicans to "unfriend" somebody on social media because they hate fascism.
DeleteDems want progress, Repubs want corporate and personal dominance; I doubt the claim is credible, but of course it makes perfect sense.
Delete