President Obama was only partly correct when, as Senator Obama, he ventured that we live not in a red America or blue America. Because, oh, how we love to dwell tribally in our red or blue cable networks and news.
Tribalism -- even if, in the cases of Fox and much of MSNBC, it is structured electronically -- provides us a sense of security, a sense of oneness and wholeness, an elimination of any uneasy doubt, a barrier against the "Other" as well as a handy (if not righteous) social instrument to bludgeon the Other's political culture.
Tribalism is reinforcement; it is not exploration. Hence Keith Olbermann, like Senator Obama, was only partially correct when he told the Associated Press last month that the odd man out, CNN, "seems to still think it is the primary source for its viewers, that they know nothing until they tune in. This is, ever increasingly, nonsensical. People now watch news on TV for elucidation and context and analysis. They have brought the facts with them."
Context, yes. Loads, tons, lots and lots of context. And some analysis, too, but only if one is willing to agree that meetings of, say, a local John Birch Society contain legitimate "analysis."
But elucidation? That would seem to profoundly conflict with Olbermann's observation that viewers have already "brought the facts with them." So what Olbermann meant -- I guess? -- by "elucidation" was either further opinion-formation or instant opinion-reaffirmation.
And, lucky for us, we don't really need facts at all. Just give us a name or a subject; we can then provide an unshakable opinion, which of course Fox and MSNBC already know -- after all, they were both there, early on, in the opinion-formation process -- and which of course vastly simplifies their profitable efforts at reaffirmation.
A caveat here: Although they're both opinion-reaffirmation networks in their primetime offerings, Fox and MSNBC cannot entirely be equated, no matter how vigorously the former's defenders attempt just that.
Fox is ideologically committed. Roger and Rupert would go to the poorhouse before revamping their audience-comforting propaganda, whereas MSNBC (which, lest we forget, also presents the conservative Joe Scarborough every morning) is shareholder-committed; it is corporately convenient -- nay, opportunistic -- to lean left for the moment, because Fox doesn't and CNN is, well, adrift.
Let this nation take another hard, hyperpatriotic turn to the right, however, as in the post-9/11 buildup to Iraq, and Mr. Olbermann would do well to remember the fate of Phil Donohue; Olbermann would either be forced to adopt an "appropriate" attitude or literally resign himself to doing nothing but college-football commentary on ESPN, assuming they'd have him.
Some would say that makes MSNBC even worse than Fox -- it's an undiscriminating whore as opposed to Fox, the always-selective madam. I have no ultimate, metaphysical judgment on that, although personally, for the moment, I'll take the slatternly whore. Why? Why of course: because she agrees with most everything I believe. I have no illusions, however, that she'd dump me in a Baghdad-minute for someone with more cash.
The real problem with Fox, it seems to me, isn't that it's "conservative" -- because it isn't. Loyal and thoughtful adherents to traditional Burkean conservatism are absolutely appalled at Fox's primetime offerings, which are nothing but pure crack for right-wing addicts suffering from all manner of crypto-fascistic malevolence.
No, the real problem with Fox, in my book, is that, simply, it's so intellectually offensive -- it caters to and reinforces the very lowest of preconceived biases in such a laughably Goebbels-istic way that my amusement is invariably, spontaneously suppressed by my disgust. As such the network is, like Goebbels, poisonous; it hasn't the least respect for arguments even it knows are valid.
What prompted all this opinionated, negative gushing about Fox? An entirely non-unique comment made by the "retiring" White House communications director, Anita Dunn, yesterday at the Bloomberg Washington Summit, held at the Newseum: "The media environment in this country has changed so dramatically over the last decade."
By "the media" Ms. Dunn meant "cable-network news," yet, for all realistic purposes, "news" should be stricken from that traditional appellation. CNN goes virtually unwatched -- I never watch it, do you?; and Mr. Nielsen can't find many who do -- in the delivery of "straight news," while Fox and MSNBC merely pander and reinforce.
All of which, I think, is a testament to our increasing polarization -- a refutation of Senator Obama's hope that we live not in a red America or blue America.
I once bought into the pseudo-sophisticated theory that we, as a people, are no more polarized today than we were 20 or 50 or 100 years ago. The networks -- as does any politician who's served in Washington over the span of a few recent decades -- know better: Each of us has all the answers already, and all we really need is a big electronic eye to remind us we're right -- much, much righter than the other guy.
Buzz this on Buzzflash.net
Irony
That's right, we are country of polarized tribes, attempting to control the tribal in the the Middle East while rationalizing that our democracy is superior to their tribalism.
enough wrongness to spread around
Olbermann's wrong to state (assuming the quote is not misleading) that his program assumes the audience, aware of the news, takes that as its starting point into the realm of liberal interpretation. No, his program does deliver the factual information - in pretty much every case - before moving into opinion. And Carp is wrong that MSNBC cannot "equally" be considered the mirror image of FOX when in truth it is the antithesis of FOX. For, as others have noted, the former does NOT build upon a foundation of lies, while there is no Joe Scarborough on the latter, to balance the overall content. Nor, also noted by my fellow commenters, does MSNBC treat its viewers as children and morons, in fact precisely the opposite.
The actuality
I think the truth is apparent: you need to turn off your television set. Seriously, I recommend it. Pretend you don’t have one.
You’ll get bored; that’s in fact good, because you’ll have to find something to do. Note you can listen to radio or music while doing activity with the hands and eyes.
Hartmann's tribalism fantasies
Thom Hartmann has the worst
Thom Hartmann has the worst habits of so-called philosophers, to the detriment of both scientific thinking and common sense. Also he is a gullible conspiracy theorist. But otherwise he’s okay. :)
ADHD run amok
"Rhetorical Terrorism"
The human species is by definition "tribal" so you're not exactly breaking new ground here, Carp. Watch a football game lately? But I will admit--I never thought I'd see a day where a major US cable network would lie and fantasize about "truth" and "reality" to the extent Fox does and that my desire to see another network point that fact out would make me a "tribalist."
You see--you can't really equate Fox with any other entity that has the word "news" in the title. What Fox is doing is nothing short of insidious. That they are propogandizing and creating reality out of wholecloth is a given; but worse, the are practicing a form of intellectual terrorism--rhetorical terrorism--in which they consistently bastardize words and phrases to the point where they no longer have any meaning.
For example: why do you think Fox is going after ACORN so fervently, accusing them falsely of "stealing votes"? It is because of the REAL vote stealing the GOP and its front groups have done in the past and plan to do in the future. The plan is for them to project their fake voter-stealing outrage upon democrats just as demographics force them to plan a long-term strategy of vote-stealing themselves.
How about the word "fascist?" Fox has robbed the word of all meaning. In the future, when a real right-wing fascist (worse than Bush) takes power, no amount of screaming "this guy's a fascist!" by liberals will mean a damn thing, because FOX and the teanbaggers have robbed the word of all meaning by apllying it to a moderate democrat on a daily basis.
The reason I watch MSNBC is because I want someone to bloody well point this crap out. If that makes me a "triber for truth" so be it.
But if we get to a day where one network says the sky is purple and another network says "No it isn't, it's blue," and we can't embrace an objective, observable truth by watching the network which most closely points that observable, verifiable truth out without being equated with Fox viewers and being called a "tribalist," then what is left of rationality?
As usual, Carp, you make some salient points, but your premise suffers from a abject simplicity. Yes, we are all tribalists, but not all tribalists are the same. I am a member of a tribe that worships observable, verifiable truth (in all its forms), and I prefer watching a network which most closely relays that type of truth (which is actually why I prefer the Internet to cable TV), or at least points out the fact that another network (Fox) is falling dangerously short of any journalistic standard known to man.
Your seeming inability to discern any difference between these 2 tribes is predictable, but disturbing nonetheless.
This Is The Best We Can Get - For Now
Like you, I despise the sorry state of political discourse in American media, but we allowed this to happen.
There has been some discourse of late complaining about the wealthy lefties who abandoned the media to the right wing. It is as if they alone owe the nation a balanced media, forgetting about the massive assault on any media that wasn't staunchly corporatist that began toward the end of the Vietnam War. All across the nation, heavy economic pressure was applied against both the progressive media outlets and their sponsors, some of these being run out of business entirely should they not "see the light". Why would any sane person want to squander his personal wealth being a lonely David against the combined might of America's corporate media Goliath when one can't count on the public to stand with you when you need them? Look at how hard BuzzFlash has to plead for support!
Most of this progressive media was dead and gone long before we allowed Reagan to eliminate the Fairness Doctrine with scarcely a whimper. We didn't complain about Rupert Murdoch and Sun Myung Moon affecting the output of the "established" media with their fascist rags. We didn't bombard radio stations for removing rational and intelligent radio personalities and replacing them with lunatic ranters. We didn't prevent Bill Clinton from signing away what remained of favorable law with the 1996 telecom bill. This particular battle is ended, and the fact that we even have MSNBC part-time should be seen as a good thing.
But media as we now know it is going to change radically, and dinosaurs like television and radio are going to drive audiences away with their increasing dull programming lavishly interspersed with trite advertising for products we don't need and often can't afford. Rather than go back and re-fight the last war on the same battleground, we need to experiment with the newer technologies and develop our own media "conglomerates" to spread the word and expose the truth. BuzzFlash itself is one such example. To do anything else would mean total surrender to the corporatist agenda. I'm not willing to go there - are you?