TUESDAY, AUGUST 29, 2023
The branding jumped to Fox: Arguably, the branding tracks all the way back to September 22, 1994. On that date, a new NBC sitcom went on the air, under a one-word title:
Friends
The friends were a group of New York City 20-somethings who lived in a somewhat improbable whites-only Gotham world. They shared their somewhat unrepresentative demography with the cast of an earlier NBC sitcom smash, Seinfeld.
Like Seinfeld, Friends was a hit. The leading authority on the program's success thumbnails the matter as shown:
The show ranked within the top ten of the final television season ratings; it ultimately reached the number-one spot in its eighth season. The series finale aired on May 6, 2004, and was watched by around 52.5 million American viewers, making it the fifth-most-watched series finale in television history and the most-watched television episode of the 2000s.
Friends received acclaim throughout its run, becoming one of the most popular television shows of all time. The series was nominated for 62 Primetime Emmy Awards, winning the Outstanding Comedy Series award in 2002 for its eighth season. The show ranked no. 21 on TV Guide's 50 Greatest TV Shows of All Time...
We note again the somewhat unlikely demography of these smash hit sitcoms. Chronologically, the programs appeared in the era before the mainstream and blue tribe worlds decided that racial justice and inclusion were the social values it had always treasured most.
At any rate, Friends was a major hit from its first season forward. Like the demographically limited Cheers, it placed its major characters inside a warm and friendly central venue—"a place where everybody knows your name," even within the anomie of the increasingly crowded American urban landscape.
Friends may have started the branding—the branding which jumped, rather quickly, to the arena of pseudo-news. If so, it was Roger Ailes who got there first.
Under Ailes' direction, the Fox News Channel launched in October 1996. Sixteen months later, the network may have borrowed a bit of branding from the NBC sitcom realm:
Fox & Friends is an American daily morning news and talk program that airs on Fox News. It premiered on February 1, 1998, and is currently hosted by Steve Doocy, Ainsley Earhardt and Brian Kilmeade on weekdays. Will Cain, Rachel Campos-Duffy and Pete Hegseth host on weekends.
It begins at 6:00 a.m. Eastern Time Zone with the latest Fox News Live headlines and news of the morning and continues with a variety of segments including current events, interviews, updates of news stories with correspondents, political analysis from the hosts, and entertainment segments.
Fox & Friends evolved from Fox X-press, Fox News Channel's original morning news program.
Originally, the morning slot had gone to a program with a thoroughly unfriendly name—Fox X-press. Before long, network honchos had come to their senses, rebranding it Fox & Friends.
Before too long, we ourselves, right here at this site, had branded Fox & Friends as the dumbest show in the history of TV news. Perhaps for that reason, the franchise grew like topsy.
Today, Fox & Friends runs for three hours each weekday, from 6 to 9 a.m. Eastern. It's preceded by a companion show, Fox & Friends First, which airs for one hour at 5 a.m. Eastern.
On Saturday and Sunday, Fox & Friends is replaced by yet another companion show—Fox & Friends Weekend. The sprawling franchise occupies a large chunk of real estate every day of the week
As a general matter, Fox & Friends remains very dumb, with a strong propaganda component. The program is quite selective in its choice of news topics. With respect to the pushing of ideology, the program's motto might be this:
No logical leap left behind
Still and all, despite its flaws, the various Fox & Friends programs are loaded with plenty of recognizable friends.
Remarkably, Steve Doocy and Brian Kilmeade have served in their role as the male co-hosts from the program's launch right up to the present day. For red tribe viewers who tune to Fox, Fox & Friends remains a place where you are at least going to know their names.
Like Friends itself, Fox & Friends supplies its fans with a warm bath of friendly recognition. This spirit is joined to a type of adamant dumbness that was unknown in the golden age of TV news, but began to surface during the later era of local news "happy talk."
At any rate, the literal promise that you'd be surrounded by friends had jumped to TV news by 1998. Eventually, the "cable news" channel of our own blue tribe muscled in on the branding too.
Today, we blues have our "cable news" friends, and the reds have theirs. These friendships groups never interact. So it goes in the pseudo-journalistic realm we're inclined to disparage for its dedication to an old ideal:
"Segregation now."
Tomorrow: "Some of our favorite friends"
Well, Bob is taking the long way round to go after Nicolle Wallace, but at least it spares us his veiws on Trump for a day. The dumbed down pop and political culture has a lot of problems across he board. The happy talk and occasion dumb jokes are not to everyone’s taste. But as is sometimes pointed out, Edward R Murrow did celeb interviews too. Lazy bothsiderism seems a symptom of this, and Bob’s thinking was long ago crushed by it.
ReplyDeleteLove it. The call to change the rotten status quo, create a better, more nuanced national discourse, is "lazy" while the indefensible and corrupt support of sanitized pro-corporate MSM garbage which pretends to be "news" must not be criticized. This is what happens when you start to believe your own propaganda.
DeleteHint: criticizing both sides does not make them "equivalent."
The biggest problem with the liberal media, is the lack of one.
DeleteApparently even Joe Biden can't teach liberals to stop being victims on behalf of media personalities
DeleteCriticizing both sides, accompanied by words that equate the two does try to make them "equivalent" in Somerby's writing. He regularly says things like, "our tribe is no better" or "we do this too" or "over here on the left...". It doesn't take much encouragement for readers to consider two examples similar when Somerby says they are the same.
DeleteBiden's contempt for the media is only outdone by Trump's contempt for Republican voters.
DeleteSo what do you think of the rising death tolls in Maui? Deep leading loaded questions like that would likely end up with me screaming at the reporter to feck off.
DeleteBoth sides is used in the original 12:36 comment!
DeleteGood example @3:30!
DeleteWhile we lose our weekends to the gig economy and working multiple jobs, at least we have friends on TV to talk to
ReplyDelete12:50, Bob generally goes far enough to conclude MAGA is actually the FAULT of the left, which makes them worse. He has written respectfully of Sean, while expressing deep contempt for Maddow and Wallace. So you are foolish at even a deeper level. Bob blames MSNBC for the stupidity of the Fox viewer.
ReplyDeleteI see no harm at all in people being friendly to each other on TV. It beats the calls for violence we hear on the right. If people were friendlier in real life, it would be a better world.
ReplyDeleteSomerby pretend ire about the demographics of Friends is silly, like expecting The Jeffersons to have white people on the show. There are many white New Yorkers who hang out exclusively with white friends and many black New Yorkers who hang out exclusively with black friends, because people tend to self-segregate and hang out with those they feel culturally similar to and have something in common with. THAT is a demographic fact. It is captured by a book called "Why Are All the Black Kids Sitting Together in the Cafeteria?" by Beverly Daniel Tatum. The point of ending segregation (which is mandated separation) is to provide choice and opportunity, especially in jobs and school admissions and public services, not to dictate behavior. Somerby thinks we should have a colorblind world, so he thinks the way to achieve that is to complain about imperfect mixing among people.
And Somerby entirely ignores the Jewish people on Seinfeld, who are a large New York demographic very different than that portrayed on Friends (where Ross and Rachel seem Jewish but may not be because it is not explicit) while Joey seems Italian, another large New York demographic. There is more diversity on both shows than Somerby gives them credit for. Just not the kind he seems to be performatively portraying and perhaps thereby mocking with today's essay.
There were more black people on Cheers than Somerby remembers. Go back and watch some of the episodes.
DeleteBob's complaint is not that all white friend groups exist at all, it's that TV is creating a comfortable area of escape to homogeneity in service of chasing ratings for advertisers who sell to these homogeneous consumers.
Delete@2:22 -- this is true of all TV shows with sponsors. They are designed to appeal to a specific defined demographic to facilitate advertising. Is Somerby complaining about capitalism? He seems to be assuming that because dumbing down occurred together with friendliness as entertainment value, one must have caused the other. Correlation is not causation. Being friendly didn't cause the dumbness. The political motives of Murdoch and the conservative movement did that. Friendliness is the lure that attracts unsuspecting viewers while they are fed entertainment that not only makes them feel accepted and normal, but also feeds their sense of outrage and entitlement via disinformation, scapegoating of liberals and minorities, and builds their identity as MAGA supporters (now). That has nothing to do with consumerism and everything to do with deliberately building a political base on the right by manipulating political content of its shows. Friends is innocuous compared to that.
DeleteThe idea that white consumerism is "normal" is a basic problem of capitalism, yes
DeleteIt isn't just white consumerism. So is black consumerism. Different shows for different demographic niches.
DeleteSince when has being white been niche? That's who has power in the media.
DeleteWhites don't have power in the media. Rich whites do. Not whites.
DeleteIt's powerful to be treated as normal because you can spend more money and that's what middle class viewers do. To deny this is to erase all of American media history.
DeleteIf working class whites don't have any power why is a show like The Connors on the air? There are lots of shows about and appealing to lower income people. I don't think any advertiser of a widely consumed product (such as beer) can afford to ignore the larger mass market that is not even aspirationally upscale.
DeleteThe real American Dream has always been to reassure Whites that while they may not have much relative to the wealthy, they will always have more than people of color.
DeleteThere's a reason Oliver Anthony's song punching down on poor people with no economic or political power has captured the imagination of Americans.
DeleteBy the time Seinfeld came along a lot less people were watching Network TV, its hyped last show was viewed by far fewer than the MASH farewell some years before. Though other shows had failed in its sweet spot, “Friends” success was largely credited to following up Seinfeld. It’s clearly mediocre at best. Modestly intelligent people were not watching as much TV by then.
ReplyDeleteThe old man and I recently finished watching the entirety of Breaking Bad. We spent a month ending every sentence in “bitch”.
DeleteWhy did they suddenly take Gus from being an unattractive badass, who even took photos of terrible carnage as mementos, to being ravaged by PTSD?
Friends didn't start the idea that shows involving friends might be enjoyable to watch. The Many Lives of Dobie Gillis, or Gilligan's Island, even Amos & Andy predated it. Somerby's pretend analysis is just a gimmick so that he can complain about the friendly atmosphere, which originated on 50s & 60s & 70s morning shows, shows like the Dinah Shore show, and late night TV (Steve Allen, Jack Parr) and yes, political talk shows. Dick Cavett was friendly to his guests long before Friends. Friends was different because it catered to a younger audience and created an ensemble sitcom cast about young singles, that wasn't centered around a family (Ozzie & Harriet, Leave it to Beaver, My 3 Sons) and wasn't a genre such as a western or police drama.
ReplyDelete"At any rate, the literal promise that you'd be surrounded by friends had jumped to TV news by 1998."
ReplyDeleteSomerby is making up his timeline, not reporting on observed changes. Evening news was "friendly" way beore 1998. It began being friendly by having sports reporters and weather reporters who focused on creating on-screen personalities involving banter and horseplay and jokes, to attract viewers via name recognition and fun, as a counterpart to the more serious anchors. That seemed over to the news reporting by 1988, when the movie Broadcast News focused on news reporters who were decrying the features and personalities and embellishments that were increasingly part of hard news reporting by anchors. That predates Friends by a decade. The film Network parodied the same phenomenon of making hard news soft to attract viewers and it appeared in 1976. So Somerby apparently has no idea that this criticism of news reporting has been around a lot longer than he thinks. But then, Somerby doesn't seem to be aware that print newspaper have had soft content going back a hundred years, as he rants about women's pages, advice columns, society, fashion and food articles in his digital Washington Post. He would do better to skip the cultural commentary and go straight to the issue itself, which is that Fox News is in the business of molding conservative minds and it needs to catch and hold viewer attention in order to do that. Being friendly is one approach. Tucker Carlson uses shock value and sex. I'm sure others have their own type of hook. Rachel Maddow used humor and silliness. AND she reported actual news, unlike Fox News.
How stupid do you think we are that we wouldn't see 1988 as backing up his timeline. One decade apart is shorter than some siblings birthdays.
DeleteHow stupid do you think we are that we wouldn't see 1988 as backing up his timeline. One decade apart is shorter than some siblings birthdays.
ReplyDeleteOur lives are but a blip on the time continuum.
DeleteExcept the trend started BEFORE 1976 not in 1988. I think it goes back to the beginning of TV, and before that to radio, where you had husband and wife teams bantering over morning coffee and radio personalities coming across like friends or neighbors on air. And also plenty of outrage and disinformation, bigtry and propaganda from demagogues. Saying that any of this started in 1998 with Friends is massively stupid. Radio and TV are both entertainment media, so they do what entertains.
DeleteBob is pointing out the jump into pure stupid, you have supplied evidence for a running start
DeleteSomerby is lazy and didn't bother looking anything up in terms of his non-existent timeline.
Delete"Somerby is lazy..."
DeleteWait a minute, I thought Somerby isn't really a Right-winger?
If so, why does he have their most important trait down pat?
"Friendliness is the lure that attracts unsuspecting viewers while they are fed entertainment that not only makes them feel accepted and normal, but also feeds their sense of outrage and entitlement via disinformation, scapegoating of liberals and minorities, and builds their identity as MAGA supporters (now). "
ReplyDeleteThat's why it's sad to see MSNBC using the same tactic with their viewers.
Are you suggesting that MSNBC is feeding viewers sense of outrage and entitlement via disinformation, scapegoating MAGA supporters while building a liberal identity (as what? Democrats?)? I just don't see the parallel.
DeleteYes, of course. God. You don't see it? You may have watched so much it's been bled of its insanity and pernicious power. Walk away from it for a month and come back. You will witness its total horror.
DeleteThey are catering to your pride and hubris. And lack of religious faith.
DeleteThe corporate news packaged for liberals is based on an identity of "we are the mature ones and watch us have a meltdown about our opponents, and if you're not persuaded that's intolerance"
DeleteYes, basically that's it. Also, sadly, they appeal to "cool kids", people that need to think they are cooler, better, smarter than Trump supporters.
DeleteBut the more interesting story with MSNBC is how they have been taken over by the security state.
MSNBC exists to be a defender of Washington and the system. Eg. they will never cover any military defeats, like the haplessness of the current counter offensive in Ukraine or how we actually ran out of bullets to send them!
DeleteYes, MSNBC, the powerhouse network with 500,000 viewers. They are so powerful. They sway public opinion. Massively. … LOL
DeleteArgumentum ad populum makes perfect sense coming from a person of your intellect.
DeleteWell, if MSNBC is the same, believing that is a true act or faith, because no case is made by the hapless nonsense of Bob Somerby and his tiny echo chamber.
DeleteWhy do we have to be troubled by these Russia-supporting trolls here all the time?
DeleteI love it when there's no answer at all on substance and they are backed into a corner. All of a sudden it is Russia!! And Russian trolls! That's the answer!
DeleteJackass/fuckwad:
MSNBC exists to be a defender of Washington and the system. Eg. they will never cover any military defeats, like the haplessness of the current counter offensive in Ukraine or how we actually ran out of bullets to send them.
Your assessment of Ukraine is as ahistorical as Somerby actually saying “
DeleteYour assessment of Ukraine is as ahistorical as Somerby actually saying “Chronologically, the programs appeared in the era before the mainstream and blue tribe worlds decided that racial justice and inclusion were the social values it had always treasured most.”
DeleteAnd yet, you smugly offer this insight into your character and ignorance “Jackass/fuckwad”.
Mmmmm so convincing!
Where are the corporate-owned "liberal media" sites pushing for publicly-funded elections?
DeleteEven the Washington Post now admits that President Biden lied when he said that Hunter made no money in China
ReplyDeleteHe made no money from China while Biden was holding any public office.
Deletehttps://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/08/01/biden-said-his-son-earned-no-money-china-his-son-says-otherwise/
DeleteFour Pinocchios
Joe Biden was asked in a 2020 debate about Hunter’s business deals *while Biden was VP*, and he accurately said that no one made any money from China while he was VP.
DeleteThis is factually true.
Were Hunter to have earned money from a Chinese company while Biden was VP, it would not have illegal or corrupt; however, Biden correctly noted that this did not occur.
Even the Washington Post’s own notorious right wing “fact checker” admitted this in his hit piece, if you actually read it.
Hunter did make about $4.5 million in the years AFTER Biden was VP and before Biden was POTUS, from Chinese and Ukrainian companies. He was a lawyer that was hired to provide consulting services, and he was paid for his work! This is a fundamental aspect of our current society.
Were Hunter to engage in illegality and corruption, like the Trump Crime Family, he could have made billions, like they did.
Even Fox News is reporting that Republican voters are becoming more, and more interested in a Hunter Biden Presidency.
DeleteLately, the Right-wing media has taken-up the position Hunter can run for President from prison.
Analysis of Hunter Biden's hard drive shows he, his firm took in about $11 million from 2013 to 2018, when his father was vice.
Delete"Hunter Biden's hard drive"
DeleteLOL.
Pro-tip: If you really want to convince people, you might want to put some effort into your argument.
What do you mean?
DeleteFrom The Root:
DeleteFrom 2013 through 2018 Hunter Biden and his company brought in about $11 million via his roles as an attorney and a board member with a Ukrainian firm accused of bribery and his work with a Chinese businessman now accused of fraud, according to an NBC News analysis of a copy of Biden’s hard drive and iCloud account and documents released by Republicans on two Senate committees.
The documents and the analysis, which don’t show what he did to earn millions from his Chinese partners, raise questions about national security, business ethics and potential legal exposure.
This is nonsense. You cannot trust anything on the laptop after it fell into Giuliani’s hands. No money from China went to Biden and there is no evidence showing it did from the hearings.
DeleteOh cool! That settles it.
DeleteAt least they didn't blame it on Russia. ;)
Delete