During this political season I have been struck by a curious phenomenon occurring on these left-leaning channels. To reiterate, both MSNBC and Progress 127, and their hosts for the most part, are outspoken supporters of the Democratic Party and of Hillary Clinton. The two exceptions, again, are Ed Schultz and Thom Hartmann who are in the Bernie Sanders camp and to whom the following comments do not apply.
A Curious Paradox
Given the political orientation of the channels one would reasonably expect them to be devoting a lot of air time to informing the public about the Democratic presidential candidates, promoting their policies, contrasting them with the Republican candidates and generally working to ensure that a Democrat wins the election. What I observe, however, is rather quite different. I hear the hosts devote hour after hour to trashing the Republicans, and referring to the Democrats only indirectly if relevant to the conversation. The amount of time specifically given to Democrats pales in comparison. A couple of weeks ago Ben Carson was center stage, with his every silly or intemperate comment analyzed and criticized to death. Currently, Donald Trump is the subject of never-ending discussion and ridicule.
Although these men have clearly earned the criticism, it just bewilders me how this in depth dissection of the opposition actually benefits the Democrats. A recent caller to a Progress 127 show asked the very obvious question that has been screaming in my mind: "Why do you spend so much time talking about Trump and them rather than the Democratic candidates". The host just danced around the question and made short shrift of the call. He was obviously uncomfortable and unprepared for the direct challenge to the dubious thrust of his program.
Trivializing Presidential Elections and Dissing the President
We know from Hollywood that celebrities thrive on attention, and for their purposes it really does not matter whether that attention is negative or positive. Think Sharon Stone getting out of the limo. Today, some political celebrities are no different. Presidential races have devolved into marketing opportunities where some supposed candidates exploit the public exposure to sell their book, establish or grow their brand or set themselves up to cash in on their new celebrity status, following the campaign.
This dilution of what has been and ought to be a serious national undertaking by crass, unserious individuals does great harm to our nation and makes us a laughing stock around the world. To date, this mischief has only occurred on the Republican side but the die is cast. I have a hunch about why this is so. At the beginning of the first Obama Administration the Republicans decided to take a page from the Koch libertarian playbook and reduce the role of government. They did this by simply refusing to govern at all. Instead of functioning as one of the three arms of government, they became a united block whose goal was to obstruct the initiatives of the Obama Administration at every turn.
In so doing they made a mockery of Congress. They have repeatedly mocked the President as well over the last seven years, so it is no great leap for them to now be full out mocking the presidential election.
The Paradox Explained?
It may be that the liberal hosts believe that by exposing the craziness of Republican candidates it indirectly benefits the Democrats. However, listening to these hosts I cannot help but wonder how this approach could possibly be better than full throated, full time, direct promotion of the Democrats. By focusing so much on the occupants of the Republican clown car, aren't they giving them the publicity that they seek, while at the same time suggesting that the clowns are more important than they seem?
The only explanation that makes sense to me is that all of these hosts, liberal that they may be, work for corporate employers who always have their eye on the bottom line. The bosses may have determined that focusing on the wacko Republicans makes for better ratings for the programs, consequently, more advertising revenue. Sirius/XM has individual channels dedicated to listener interests across the spectrum. Thus, they have a right oriented political channel as well as one that is supposed to look objectively at politics. Clearly, the corporation does not reveal its own bias in their programming. Rather, they seek to profit from all points of view.
MSNBC is a subsidiary of NBC Universal, which in turn is owned by Comcast. It is the company's only political cable channel and has reflected the owners Democratic leanings. Between the Fall of 2008 and this Summer, MSNBC had a strong lineup of liberal/progressive hosts. Reportedly due to declining ratings, management dropped all of the daytime talk/opinion shows in favor of "hard news" programming. Coincidentally, the change also eliminated some of the channel's most outspoken progressive hosts, particularly Al Sharpton and Ed Schultz.
Over the years NBC Universal has received much criticism for their left-liberal programming from establishment types. Together with the ratings drop, it appears these factors have led the company to back away some from that programming commitment.
Restore the Fairness Doctrine, Rebuild an Informed Public
The majority of the talk shows on the channels I discussed fit the model of infotainment. Their primary role is to attract and hold an audience by titillating it with made-up or exaggerated controversy, placing political differences in sharp relief and spotlighting unusual personalities. The commonplace is boring.
This is not to say such programs do not have redeeming qualities. There is often good, solid information tucked in between the grabber segments. Their version of balance. Overall, however, "news" programming designed primarily to score ratings and make money is simply not in the same league as serious, responsible news and will never replace it. Programs aimed solely at informing the public so as to make them better citizens are hard to find.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
