Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.
FYI: When it comes to misinforming the American public about the issues that matter to policymakers, many are quick to blame the internet, especially Facebook and Google. However, other factors have been at work for far longer than those companies — false memes, factual misinformation, political bias. Regards, Ted http://ritholtz.com/2018/07/americas-fox-news-problem/
The misinformation promulgated by the Fox News(???) network is way, way beyond sad and tragic. For the life of me I have no idea why folks watch and believe what they see and hear there and can't see most of it for the garbage it is. Just mind boggling.
Fox is at least obvious (or should be) even to the unlearned.
More insidious I think is Sinclair Broadcasting (ultra right political) which has been on a buying binge of local TV affiliates. Here in northern Michigan (comprising several large counties) they own 2 of the 3 major broadcast affiliate outlets (NBC and ABC). Their “local” newscasts are punctuated daily with several nationally focused pre-recorded “analysis” segments (prepared by Sinclair) purporting to be fair and factual, but lacking both attributes.
It’s blatant abuse of older, less affluent and less educated citizens who often lack internet access / skills and tune in to these 6 PM local shows primarily for weather, sports and a few scintillating local stories. Very sad to see this c*** shoved down their throats. Oh, I realize that in the end it’s the viewer who’s responsible for what they consume (be it food or media). But still find it tragic when big money can buy up local stations and do this on such a large scale across the country.
In terms of being "fair and balanced" Fox has always been bad. By contrast, Sinclair is downright evil. Here in DC, the local Sinclair affiliate now runs CGI-generated gently-fluttering American flags on the lower third of pretty much every story. It reminds me of the 'forced patriotism' in the years after 9/11 when the cable nets felt obligated to stick the flag on-screen 24x7.
At the risk of contributing to "both-siderism" arguments, cable 'news' (er, NOISE) generally has contributed to this downward spiral in America's civic and civil discourse since the mid-90s in the interest of ratings and profits -- not to mention, contributing to the dis- or mis-informing of our fellow citizens.
After 9/11 I got disgusted & gave up US cable news. PBS Newshour & BBC are my staples these days --along with other regional networks around the world as needed for better coverage/context of events overseas.
Fox News survived because CNN is/was crappy. It's not about misinformation, it's about quality of news.
I have mentioned before we live in an era where we go to Comedy Central to get news and News Channels for comedy.
I sometimes watch CNN and also FOX News - the latter to simply know WTF those guys are cooking up - get informed not on the facts (which don't exist on Fox) but rather, just to try and be prepared.
I think there's some part of most Fox viewers' brains that realizes what they're watching isn't true. It's not that they believe it to be true. They desperately want it to be. It's like reading fairy tales to children. At some point they recognize that frogs don't turn into princes and ducklings into swans, but they still love the mythology and want it to be true. Fox is a species of entertainment that unabashedly promotes the American myths and attacks all critics of those myths. It also helps that they have attractive blond women presenting these myths. I know viewers--elderly white males all--who watch Fox because that pretty young blond news anchor has something to tell them and they'll be damned if anyone is gonna say they shouldn't listen to her.
LB: Yeah, Fox is the leader in providing 'newsfotainment' ... give folks their hourly/daily 'hit' of drama or emotion, and drag it out for as long as possible. CNN and MSNBC do their share as well, but Fox has it down to a science. (CNBC does that too, which I find unconscionable for a retail-oriented financial 'news' channel.)
VF: Very true. It's sad that places like The Daily Show or Last Week Tonight do deeper investigative dives into stories the MSM ignores. Yes, there is plenty of snark, wit, and jokes, but (at least with John Oliver/LWT) there generally is solid 'reporting' taking place and opposing sides are acknowledged.
Fox News survived because CNN is/was crappy. It's not about misinformation, it's about quality of news.
Agree with first part - CNN is crappy. Most cable news is. As to the second issue, as long as it’s clearly labeled (or easily identifiable) as opinion or commentary I have no problem with high quality editorializing. That would seem to fall under the purview of the First Amendment. Problems arise when it’s not high quality (ie fact based) or when it’s mixed in with the routine reporting of normal news without any clear differentiation.
A rare exception to cable is Rachael Maddow. What she does is unique to broadcasting as explained by the linked article. In the October 2017 issue of The New Yorker this article was titled “To Tell A Story”. That best describes her journalistic approach. Unfortunately, I think, it’s been retitled here to reflect her political leaning. It’s one of the few shows left on cable where you don’t feel like you’re being shouted at by an angry person sitting across the room from you.
Come on, Fox News survived and thrived because of its pandering and inflaming of already resentful, aggrieved, faux-outraged adult babies who think avenging their personal butthurt coupled with Woodstock payback is the most important thing in life, personal, political, cultural, global.
When we go to Costco the immense displays of huge televisions with wonderful color and fantastically clear pictures are of course right by the entrance, so you can't miss them. Sometimes I stop and look for a minute or so. Then I remember that there's not much worth watching on those TVs, and keep moving right along.
This just in! Not to worry- Fox will now have the real story... everything else is fake news.
White House Taps Former Fox News Executive For Senior Communications Job
"Former Fox News co-president Bill Shine has been named White House deputy chief of staff for communications and assistant to the president, the White House announced Thursday."
Just when I thought it couldn't possibly get any stupider or funnier. Honestly, I watch the nightly news solely to see what dumber thing he said or did than the days before.
Like Rachael Maddow show too. PBS Newhour is pretty good in presenting views from both sides. It take patience for the 30 minutes show with little commercials in between.
Like Rachael Maddow show too. PBS Newhour is pretty good in presenting views from both sides. It take patience for the 30 minutes show with little commercials in between.
@Sven, Thanks - Probably should watch News Hour. For whatever reason I lost interest when they reformatted several years ago. Lost some great anchors like Terrance Smith. But if JW is still there ... she’s top notch. I am able to catch CBS / ABC back to back. By no measure are they great news shows. But it’s nice to be aware of the garbage millions are consuming.
Maddow is tilted left. I hope no one thinks I view her program as completely “objective.” But she does what she does with grace and some degree of fact based authenticity. It’s a great article I linked if you can get past the opening trivia about how she dresses. A real study on how the show is put together and what makes it different.
Able to get The New Yorker on Audible for a reasonable price. Enjoy listening late at night while dozing off. Just happened to catch the Maddow piece one night.
>> Maddow is tilted left. I hope no one thinks I view her program as completely “objective.”
So goes the automatic charge, but it makes me wonder how closely you read the article, as she's regularly labeled as this leftwing Jewish dyke on cable, when chiefly she has real investigative interest in rightwingnuts and their culture (and is not notably Jewish).
Regardless, it's kind of an insubstantial character / background piece, even for Malcolm, whom the New Yorker lets do anything she wants.
Maddow's deep ignorance of and resistance to psychotherapy and meds for someone with true depression is dismaying to say the least.
Regardless, it's kind of an insubstantial character / background piece, even for Malcolm, whom the New Yorker lets do anything she wants. Maddow's deep ignorance of and resistance to psychotherapy and meds for someone with true depression is dismaying to say the least.
Depression? I’ll cut her some slack on that one. A lot of it’s been going around since 11/08/16.
Okie dokie.
Sorry you didn’t appreciate the piece. Makes me wonder if you even read or enjoy The New Yorker. Some like it. Some don’t.
No David. It was a different kind of question mark. Think of someone exclaiming “Oh, Really?” and you might get it. (But I’m not overly confident at this point).
Yes, I had listened to the article (on Audible) when it was first published last October. But, just for you, I re-read it again this evening, Some biography (like this piece) delves into very personal matters. While other types of biography avoid that gist. I’m very open minded and appreciate a wide variety of writing styles. If hearing about her depression, same sex partner, etc. troubles or offends you, distracts you from the more substantive portions, or simply runs contrary to your editorial prerogatives I do understand.
Yes - I understand where you’re going re the lack of treatment and unfortunate example to other depressed people she may be setting. That’s rather typical of your beat the dog to death approach when others disagree with you.
>> Sorry you didn’t appreciate the piece. Makes me wonder if you even read or enjoy the New Yorker.
Been reading it, every word about, for ~55 years, have had friends and colleagues who work there; loyal and faithful subscriber.
>> offends you, distracts you from the more substantive portions, or simply runs contrary to your editorial prerogatives >> I understand where you’re going re the lack of treatment and unfortunate example to other depressed people she may be setting. That’s rather typical of your beat the dog to death approach when others disagree with you.
? - Is this wackness because I queried whether you'd read the piece carefully, including the detailed section about her politics and background / upbringing after you posted 'Maddow is tilted left' ? As for 'I hope no one thinks I view her program as completely “objective”', I got nothin', although it's funny to imagine anyone thinking that.
So I certainly don't know where this response could be coming from, or what the triggers were, or even recognize your view of my dog-beating 'approach', much less the source of your rhetorical snot. But yeah, I would say we're done here, and for keeps.
Comments
More insidious I think is Sinclair Broadcasting (ultra right political) which has been on a buying binge of local TV affiliates. Here in northern Michigan (comprising several large counties) they own 2 of the 3 major broadcast affiliate outlets (NBC and ABC). Their “local” newscasts are punctuated daily with several nationally focused pre-recorded “analysis” segments (prepared by Sinclair) purporting to be fair and factual, but lacking both attributes.
It’s blatant abuse of older, less affluent and less educated citizens who often lack internet access / skills and tune in to these 6 PM local shows primarily for weather, sports and a few scintillating local stories. Very sad to see this c*** shoved down their throats. Oh, I realize that in the end it’s the viewer who’s responsible for what they consume (be it food or media). But still find it tragic when big money can buy up local stations and do this on such a large scale across the country.
In an especially egregious episode in April, Sinclair forced local anchors across the country to read the same script. The results (video) were hilarious.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/4/2/17189302/sinclair-broadcast-fake-news-biased-trump-viral-video
Wikipedia story about Sinclair. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinclair_Broadcast_Group
In terms of being "fair and balanced" Fox has always been bad. By contrast, Sinclair is downright evil. Here in DC, the local Sinclair affiliate now runs CGI-generated gently-fluttering American flags on the lower third of pretty much every story. It reminds me of the 'forced patriotism' in the years after 9/11 when the cable nets felt obligated to stick the flag on-screen 24x7.
At the risk of contributing to "both-siderism" arguments, cable 'news' (er, NOISE) generally has contributed to this downward spiral in America's civic and civil discourse since the mid-90s in the interest of ratings and profits -- not to mention, contributing to the dis- or mis-informing of our fellow citizens.
After 9/11 I got disgusted & gave up US cable news. PBS Newshour & BBC are my staples these days --along with other regional networks around the world as needed for better coverage/context of events overseas.
I have mentioned before we live in an era where we go to Comedy Central to get news and News Channels for comedy.
I sometimes watch CNN and also FOX News - the latter to simply know WTF those guys are cooking up - get informed not on the facts (which don't exist on Fox) but rather, just to try and be prepared.
LB: Yeah, Fox is the leader in providing 'newsfotainment' ... give folks their hourly/daily 'hit' of drama or emotion, and drag it out for as long as possible. CNN and MSNBC do their share as well, but Fox has it down to a science. (CNBC does that too, which I find unconscionable for a retail-oriented financial 'news' channel.)
VF: Very true. It's sad that places like The Daily Show or Last Week Tonight do deeper investigative dives into stories the MSM ignores. Yes, there is plenty of snark, wit, and jokes, but (at least with John Oliver/LWT) there generally is solid 'reporting' taking place and opposing sides are acknowledged.
A rare exception to cable is Rachael Maddow. What she does is unique to broadcasting as explained by the linked article. In the October 2017 issue of The New Yorker this article was titled “To Tell A Story”. That best describes her journalistic approach. Unfortunately, I think, it’s been retitled here to reflect her political leaning. It’s one of the few shows left on cable where you don’t feel like you’re being shouted at by an angry person sitting across the room from you.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/10/09/rachel-maddow-trumps-tv-nemesis?source=search_google_dsa_paid&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIjPrTsJKI3AIVBg5pCh0_HAdUEAAYASAAEgL82_D_BwE
https://i.redd.it/q41tkzosm6711.jpg
White House Taps Former Fox News Executive For Senior Communications Job
"Former Fox News co-president Bill Shine has been named White House deputy chief of staff for communications and assistant to the president, the White House announced Thursday."
Link to NPR article
Maddow is tilted left. I hope no one thinks I view her program as completely “objective.” But she does what she does with grace and some degree of fact based authenticity. It’s a great article I linked if you can get past the opening trivia about how she dresses. A real study on how the show is put together and what makes it different.
Deleted
Able to get The New Yorker on Audible for a reasonable price. Enjoy listening late at night while dozing off. Just happened to catch the Maddow piece one night.
Regards
>> Maddow is tilted left. I hope no one thinks I view her program as completely “objective.”
So goes the automatic charge, but it makes me wonder how closely you read the article, as she's regularly labeled as this leftwing Jewish dyke on cable, when chiefly she has real investigative interest in rightwingnuts and their culture (and is not notably Jewish).
Regardless, it's kind of an insubstantial character / background piece, even for Malcolm, whom the New Yorker lets do anything she wants.
Maddow's deep ignorance of and resistance to psychotherapy and meds for someone with true depression is dismaying to say the least.
Okie dokie.
Sorry you didn’t appreciate the piece. Makes me wonder if you even read or enjoy The New Yorker.
Some like it. Some don’t.
Okie dokie.
You mentioned her depression w a question mark, which made me wonder if you had read the article you posted.
Yes, I had listened to the article (on Audible) when it was first published last October. But, just for you, I re-read it again this evening, Some biography (like this piece) delves into very personal matters. While other types of biography avoid that gist. I’m very open minded and appreciate a wide variety of writing styles. If hearing about her depression, same sex partner, etc. troubles or offends you, distracts you from the more substantive portions, or simply runs contrary to your editorial prerogatives I do understand.
Yes - I understand where you’re going re the lack of treatment and unfortunate example to other depressed people she may be setting. That’s rather typical of your beat the dog to death approach when others disagree with you.
Been reading it, every word about, for ~55 years, have had friends and colleagues who work there; loyal and faithful subscriber.
>> offends you, distracts you from the more substantive portions, or simply runs contrary to your editorial prerogatives
>> I understand where you’re going re the lack of treatment and unfortunate example to other depressed people she may be setting. That’s rather typical of your beat the dog to death approach when others disagree with you.
? - Is this wackness because I queried whether you'd read the piece carefully, including the detailed section about her politics and background / upbringing after you posted 'Maddow is tilted left' ?
As for 'I hope no one thinks I view her program as completely “objective”', I got nothin', although it's funny to imagine anyone thinking that.
So I certainly don't know where this response could be coming from, or what the triggers were, or even recognize your view of my dog-beating 'approach', much less the source of your rhetorical snot. But yeah, I would say we're done here, and for keeps.