William Boardman -- Reader
UNIVERSAL WARNING SIGN by islandvisuals.com
MSNBC Can Be Trusted by the Established Order -- That's a Problem
MSNBC's slogan, "Lean Forward," does not encourage actually moving forward
The central argument of Michael's Arria's lively new book about America's so-called "progressive network" is not that MSNBC is bad at what it does, but that, all too often, even what MSNBC does well doesn't do much good for most Americans. As Arria puts it in the introduction of Medium Blue (a spring 2014 release by CounterPunch Books):
"This book doesn't possess a hidden agenda. It's an attack on MSNBC from the left, an attempt to highlight and track the problematic ties between the network and America's ruling class. The message of MSNBC juxtaposed with the propaganda of Fox, forms a false dichotomy and leads Americans to believe a strong debate is gripping the nation". [MSNBC] is very much part of the problem."
Since MSNBC is part of NBCUniversal, which is part of Comcast, it would be naÃ¯ve for anyone to expect much more than infotainment from a company that has a history of being a political style opportunist without any noticeable principles or ideology, those being mutually exclusive qualities. MSNBC is not "Fox for Democrats," as Bill Clinton and others have claimed. Fox is reliably ideological and unreliably factual. MSNBC is not reliably ideological (at least not in the same predictable way -- what would Democratic ideology sound like anyway?) but MSNBC is moderately reliable factually in the sense that what you hear on MSNBC is pretty much factual (at least in prime time). When MSNBC misleads, it's mostly by indirection, through cliche and conventional demonization, by over-emphasis and omission.
As Arria sees it, "MSNBC is packed with true believers who preach the false hope of objectivity". Everyone working for the station seems to believe that they operate without restriction, often defining themselves as independently minded journalists attempting to squash the lies of a deceptive media."
Arria doesn't call this self-regard delusional, but he provides ample evidence that it is. In America today, an "independent broadcast or cable news operation" would be an oxymoron (if it could exist at all), since ratings and corporate profits depend on predictability within a limited spectrum of perspective that excludes actual independence. Or as Arria succinctly makes the point: "How much disrupting can a network like MSNBC ever really do?" [emphasis in original]
Did MSNBC ever try to disrupt anything important, like a drone war?
Perhaps even more to the point, as Medium Blue argues with more than enough documentation, the question is whether MSNBC as a corporate entity wants to disrupt anything meaningful to the country as a whole. MSNBC's history looks like rather inchoate groping to disrupt the cable news ratings, but not much more. As Arria argues, MSNBC programming predominantly reflects the conventional wisdom of the permanent government on "fundamental issues that impact our world" trade policy, nuclear disarmament, the World Bank, IMF, WTO, the private prison boom, the 'War on Drugs,' corporate welfare, Israel, Cube, drone policy, the global assassination program, etc."
Medium Blue does not attempt a comprehensive analysis of every program and every host on MSNBC, and such an exhaustive approach would likely be exhausting, and could never be timely. Aria's book went to press in August 2013, and so inevitably misses more recent MSNBC performances such as under-reporting on Ukraine and over-demonizing Vladimir Putin, both of which inhibit rational understanding. But Medium Blue is rich with incidents from recent years that encourage the inference that the network's inadequate coverage of Ukraine fits a dismal pattern that seems unlikely to be broken any time soon.
The defining moment for MSNBC came in the 2002-03 run-up to the Iraq war, when the Bush administration was lying and the New York Times was printing the lies on page one as if they were true. Voices challenging the dishonest rationale for war were few, but one of them was on MSNBC, Phil Donohue. "Donohue" first aired July 15, 2002, to good ratings, which soon dropped (to levels also registered on occasion by both Chris Matthews and Joe Scarborough, who remain on the air). In the fall, Donohue emerged as an open critic of the rush to war. By February, "Donohue" was MSNBC's highest-rated show. On February 25, 2003, MSNBC cancelled the show "for poor ratings," a false claim that CBS News reported as fact. "Donohue" was replaced by an expanded version of the war drum beating "Countdown: Iraq" with Lester Holt and the Iraq War proceeded on its course of dismal failure that hasn't ended yet.
MSNBC's legacy, which it has yet to repair despite any "progressive" tendencies, is the common corporate complicity to sacrifice any short-term advantage for the sake of long-term accommodation with the powers that be. MSNBC said as much in an internal memo prior to Donohue's firing. The memo called Donohue a "difficult public face for NBC in a time of war" (which hadn't started). Then the memo clarified that there was no principle at stake, since "Donohue" might provide "a home for the liberal antiwar agenda at the same time that our competitors are waving the flag at every opportunity."
Why can't MSNBC hold onto its best news people?