What passes for news these days

[pinboy3niner]

In a way, this may be the biggest topic at DU. It bleeds into virtually every topic.

I often find myself in disagreement with posts about the corporate “MSM”. Many here express the view that the news media intentionally steer right. I believe that, generally, they are politically apathetic--they only steer toward the money.

Personally, what I want from the news is objective reporting. “Just the facts, Ma’am”. I don’t want any partisan “spin”, even spin that serves my end of the political spectrum.

Here at DU, we love MSNBC’s Keith and Rachel. These are partisan shows, but they are not “news” shows. They are news/commentary, and don’t pretend to be nonpartisan. Some lib/prog journalism purists say we shouldn’t even have these types of spin shows. I wish we didn’t have to have them, but I recognize the necessity of having programming that that can counter the BS spewed by Fox. News soundbites from dem pols and celebrity activists just won’t cut it.

From what I can see, the difference between MSNBC and Fox News is that Fox does, in fact, promote a political agenda. Where MSNBC has straight news shows--like those featuring Contessa Brewer, Alex Witt, and the wonderful Andrea Mitchell, the news shows at Fox are not straight news--they are partisan political spin. Probably the only news show at Fox that comes even close to being neutral and nonpartisan is Shepard Smith’s .

(I know, we’re supposed to refer to the “bad” cable news network as “Faux News” or some other disparaging term. Myself, I think of them as “FU News”. How else to describe a “news” network that knowingly and intentionally spews lies and distortions and shamelessly manipulates its viewers? They certainly can‘t think very highly of those gullible souls they manipulate, so they really are giving them a big FU.)

Another disagreement I have with many here concerns David Shuster. I liked him when he was doing straight news. But, several months ago, he began spinning left, becoming a partisan voice, and I was disappointed to see that. I thought he might be positioning himself to eventually succeed K.O. He was in MSNBC’s lineup of straight news, and he no longer fit.

We seem to have a hypersensitivity here to any news or commentary personality who says anything that doesn’t that doesn’t promote our partisan viewpoint. The least departure from our party line, and we’re jumping up and down. I’ve seen Chris Matthews denounced here over absolutely frivolous crap. My advice is: Lighten up, don’t apply a partisan filter to every single word or phrase, and watch the big picture. I happen to still like Chris, and I refuse to call him “Tweety”.

I also have some thoughts about referring to the opposition as “repukes” and “rethugs” and such. I don’t think you persuade people, or even have a constructive dialogue, by hurling insults. But that’s a post for another day . . .

[truedelphi]

1. Even Thomas Jefferson complained back in the day

That the newspapers were often guilty of "spinning" the news, the spin being dependent on which advertisers were involved with shoveling advertising money to the press before it was printed.

Look at all the drug ads, then think about how little we were told by M$M during the drafting of the Health Care Reform bill.

Have you noticed on TV that every other ad is about oil this week, as if to indoctrinate our subconscious that they don't need to apologize - they are our clean and friendly energy source.

Same as it ever was.

[pinboy3niner]

2. Yes, our forefathers also had to deal with a lot of "crap" news

Broadsheets were filled with the most scurrilous lies about political opponents.

I still don't believe the MSM were bought off on HCR, or that they are being bought off now by big oil. The current news coverage is hardly friendly to oil interests.

Apologists? I really don't see that.

Ed.: another stupid typo