Skip to main content

View Diary: You won't believe why MSNBC cut away from this interview (303 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  If Mitchell had an ounce of credibility (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Brown Thrasher, Sharon Wraight

    she would have commented anyway.

    It's not about "holding back". It's about "Mitchell is either merely pretending to be embarrassed or she's a coward."

    This all started with "what the Republicans did to language".

    by lunachickie on Fri Jan 24, 2014 at 07:57:10 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Actually, I am not a fan of Mitchell or (10+ / 0-)

      Harman for that matter, but both of those women are serious people who have major egos about focusing on what they view as important issues.  Mitchell was never going to be the weather girl or the fluff reporter who covers wedding dress trends.  Harman chose the military and defense as her focus in Congress.  She didn't go to Congress to do work in areas that women are often assigned because they are women - especially women of their generation.

      So, when I say that they were holding back, I am not saying that they are cowards and I don't think that that is a fair characterization of them.  Neither of those women are cowards.  I'm going to guess that Mitchell pitched a fit after that show about the interruption, actually.

      •  It's time for them to do it on the air (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Brown Thrasher, Sharon Wraight

        I'm not really talking about Harman when I say "coward"--let me make that clear, first of all. The reference was really to Mitchell.

        She, of all people, could do it and not only probably get away with it, to a large extent, it would make a damned long-overdue statement and clue everyone in to how bogus American News is.

        If she's not a coward, then she's a great actress and perhaps she even approved of it. And while we'd expect a prima-donna to pitch a fit after the show--and Mitchell is one of those, too--it doesn't matter if she did or not. The FLUFF ruled over a serious discussion ON THE AIR. Period.

        And Mitchell didn't push it back like she should have. That's embarrassing, all right. For everyone involved.

        Then again, if she did, someone would immediately pop up and accuse her of "making it all about her". Which it wouldn't be. But who cares? She's old enough to not care what strangers think of her anymore.

        This all started with "what the Republicans did to language".

        by lunachickie on Fri Jan 24, 2014 at 08:14:57 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Did you see the entire thing unfold? (4+ / 0-)

          Start to finish?  Because I was watching the interview.  I am not sure if Mitchell actually knew what the Breaking News was when she was told that they were going to cut away - she actually sounded a little bit surprised as she read the copy to introduce the live feed.  

          It is difficult to convey the ironic tone in Mitchell's voice when they came back to her and she resumed her interview with Harman.

          Honestly, that's what makes it an instant classic.  Two super serious women discussing major national security issues are asked to stop to allow producers to cut to a teenager's DUI bond hearing.

          But it is important to remember that Bieber's and all of those other celebrity stories pay Mitchell's salary - that's where the advertising dollars are.  That's the reality of our media in this era.

          That means that every single on air talking head is going to be forced to cover Bieber - no matter how powerful or serious you perceive them to be.

          •  Disagree (4+ / 0-)

            this is irrelevant to the viewing audience. Completely. Sorry.

            But it is important to remember that Bieber's and all of those other celebrity stories pay Mitchell's salary - that's where the advertising dollars are.  That's the reality of our media in this era.
            Mitchell is so wealthy she doesn't need to worry about her salary, first of all.

            And our "media" in this "era" needs a reality check and so do the people who insist on finding a way to justify what they've become, particularly if they're a part of it or ever have been. That Andrea Mitchell won't stand up and take the lead on something like this, when she sure as hell could, tells you exactly where she "stands".  

            Sorry if she's someone you hold in high regard for any reason, or if The Media is the hand that feeds you. I see no need to sugarcoat this stuff anymore. The gloves are off. These people--all of them, not just MSNBC--lie, mislead, misdirect and propagandize us daily and they've divided our people. Bitterly and with malice aforethought.

            There's not an excuse in this world that will ever justify it. Not one.

            This all started with "what the Republicans did to language".

            by lunachickie on Fri Jan 24, 2014 at 08:31:07 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  LOL - it is not irrelevant to the viewing (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Sharon Wraight

              audience.  

              The information is arguably irrelevant to viewers' lives, but the fucking viewing audience keeps showing up in massive numbers to watch the media every time some idiot celebrity gets into trouble - and the viewer numbers drive ad dollars that pay for the news channels' productions.

              If you really want to mad at someone, you should write a letter to Ted Turner who is the man who decided that commercialized news was a reasonable model - and claimed at the time that the integrity of new production and reporting could be preserved in that model.  That was a pipe dream.

              •  This assumes the networks (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Brown Thrasher

                still live by the old traditional models.

                Don't look now, but they're moving away from them. Just ask Rush Limbaugh.

                A letter to Ted Turner wouldn't help. What would help is someone on "the inside" of the Propaganda Machine to stand up and say NO MORE.

                This all started with "what the Republicans did to language".

                by lunachickie on Fri Jan 24, 2014 at 08:49:32 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  NO ONE in the media is moving away (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Sharon Wraight

                  from making money.

                  Your Limbaugh example is completely ridiculous as his problem is that he has been forced to adjust as advertisers have moved away from him because he has pissed so many people off.  Limbaugh's content hasn't changed, though.  He's still the same hateful guy he was on air.

                  •  That's not what I said (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Brown Thrasher

                    at all.

                    Limbaugh continues without many advertisers. There's no way that guy could possibly be making money for anyone. He's probably what's known as a "loss leader" at this point.

                    Your argument's essence is "No, you're wrong". Why are you so bound and determined that the line of thinking--essentially, that stronger steps must be taken to shut down America's propaganda machine--is so laughable?

                    Don't you want them to stop lying to people? Don't you want them to quit waving Shiny Things around so we all forget what's important, or to obscure outright what's really News?

                    What they do must be stopped. And the "old means" of doing it--writing letters to the networks, and other weak tea--no longer cuts it.

                    This all started with "what the Republicans did to language".

                    by lunachickie on Fri Jan 24, 2014 at 08:59:25 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  It is what VIEWERS want them to do (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      mmacdDE, inclusiveheart

                      You and many political "animals" (myself included) may find it ridiculous to cut away from a serious political discussion to cover celebrity news, but that is not where the average viewer is.  The average CNN or MSNBC (or FoxNews, for that matter) viewer WANTS the network to cut away to cover celebrity news live as it happens.  The idea being that the pundits and guests can pick up their conversation where they left off before the interruption while you don't get "live as it happens" back.   I guess you really need to take issue with the average American on stuff like this, not Mitchell or other pundits.  

                      •  It really is not what Mitchell's typical (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        SoonerG

                        audience wants them to do, but that's a whole other layer of the problem.  The parent company and executives of MSNBC want that coveted 18-34 demographic because they yield the highest ad dollars, but you can't really cover real news (John Stewart & Colbert) excepted and expect to capture that demographic audience.  What we end up with is this perverse hybrid of "real" news and unimportant stories about 19 year olds getting arrested for DUIs.  The worst is when they become pained contortionists attempting to take the dumb-ass celebrity story and put it into a larger context that they think could be passed off as relevant and important.

                        News outlets in this era do not know who they want to be anymore.  Remember when Fox suddenly emerged as this rightwing nut bag channel espousing counter-factual stories and lies?  Remember that their ratings started to soar?  Remember what the other news organizations did?  They didn't say, "Fox is a bunch of trash and if we go the other direction we can capture the audience that would now NEVER watch them."  No.  The other news organizations, including the New York Times, adopted the rightwing spin figuring that they could get Fox's viewers.  Of course, that special kind of person who would watch Fox and believe their crap was never going to get a subscription to the New York Times.  Meanwhile, the news organizations that were reality-based lost audience share because they were offending the only audience they were ever going to have.  That's really how the blogs came to have an audience.  Liberals had no where else to go.

                        •  MSNBC has become the defacto answer to Foxnews (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          inclusiveheart

                          Let's be honest here.  They do it by typically telling the truth and they don't have Foxnews' Pravda-like propaganda BS going on that forces FN to go to bizarre lengths to misquote, lie, twist reality.   But you can't look at a network full of pundits like Rachel Maddow, Lawrence O' Donnell, Ed Schultz, Sharpton, Hayes, etc. and their usual lineup of guests ("Morning Joe" notwithstanding)  and conclude otherwise.  

                          CNN decided to move to the right to answer FoxNews, and lost many viewers as a result.  They compounded their losses as a result of FoxNews right-wing march with more losses to MSNBC as a result of THEIR rightward adjustment.  

                          http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/...

                          CNN used to be the #1 network, now they are a distant third behind Foxnews and MSNBC because of their "identity" mistakes.  

                          Stewart and Colbert take political news and package it in an entertaining joke/satire format, but you can be guaranteed that even though they typically satirize political figures and news stories, even they aren't going to pass on Justin Bieber's DUI arrest/drug/drag racing/egg throwing stories.  Even many political "animals" want to see massive train wrecks as they happen, just like most of the general population.

                           Also, don't forget that MSNBC is considered a "general" news channel, like CNN and Foxnews, although most of its original programming happens to be political, and as such items that are considered big, breaking news in a general sense will interrupt running programming.    

                          Why is Bieber bonding out of jail considered "Big News"?   That you have got to ask the American people.  

                          •  By and large I agree with all of your points. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            floridageorge

                            Although, I would say that I'm getting tired of and bored by the sermonizing on MSNBC.  And they have avoided criticizing the current administration out of fear of losing their audience even when this administration deserved some criticism at times.

                            A high functioning media apparatus - one that actually helps people - does not pull punches out of favoritism.  

                            That's the irony of CNN's rightward march, really.  They had a chance to establish themselves as the gold standard and instead wagered on running to the pot of gold at the end of the Republican rainbow - a pot of gold that they were NEVER going to find or be allowed to have.

                            I've pretty much started to rely on the BBC for the majority of my news reporting.  They aren't perfect and sometimes their American political analysis is deficient due to the fact that they aren't American and don't totally get our laws, etc., but they are better about writing whole and complete stories than our news media seems to be in this era.

                          •  MSNBC has to tread carefully (0+ / 0-)

                            Let's face it, the current GOP is unhinged and practically dangerous to the American people.   Even if the administration deserves criticism at times (and I have seen Maddow speak critical of the admin at times, as have Schultz and others) you don't want it to be Foxnews-lite, full-throated, feverish, because you give those tools massive ammunition they don't hesitate to use right away (and bastardize by leaving important passages out of quotes) against Democrats running, against the ACA, etc.  

                            As for CNN, they clearly misread the mood of the country at the time they pulled to the right.  They saw election results like Ws two terms, Republicans taking over the House and conservative talk-radio showing high ratings (vs. low ratings for liberal talk radio) as proof positive that the American people were moving to the right.   They were in micro mode instead of macro mode, not seeing the big picture.   We know now that, even back then, the country has steadily moved towards the left as the "old guard" has died away, new young voters more inclined to be environmentally conscious and accepting of people's different lifestyles have come of age, religious doctrine continues to lose interested ears, minorities have grown and have become more politically aware, etc.    Best thing for CNN to do would be to do an immediate left lurch to capture the current and long-term shift the country is experiencing, but that is easier said than done, depends a lot on who is in charge of the whole thing.    

                            I am not with you on the BBC reporting of American news.  It is a bit painful.  When I do go there it seems that most of them have a kind of arrogant "lookie here, the US is a joke, we Brits are the best" attitude, which is far from correct.  

      •  What would've happened to them if they hadn't (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        rmabelis, inclusiveheart, Matt Z

        "held back"? Harman, for one, would most likely never get an on-screen interview ever again from any of the major networks. Mitchell might be a little more secure but at the very least they'd bury her stuff in the early morning hours. Unless it was about Justin Bieber & resisting arrest...

        You don't fuck with the networks if your status or career depends on exposure. They control the vertical; they control the horizontal; they control the spin & the speed...

        The greatest trick the GOP ever played was convincing the devil they had a soul to sell.

        by Uncle Cosmo on Fri Jan 24, 2014 at 08:18:05 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I actually think that both held back (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Amber6541, mmacdDE, Uncle Cosmo, Matt Z

          not so much out of fear or reprisal as they knew that they only had so much time for their segment and likely did not want to waste that time talking about Bieber.  Again, that's why it was an instant classic.  It was more like a commercial interruption - like nothing happened that they would ever talk about.  That's why this clip without the part where they came back doesn't quite tell the complete arc of the story.

        •  It's time for someone to (4+ / 0-)

          fuck with the networks. Someone inside them.  
           

          Mitchell might be a little more secure but at the very least they'd bury her stuff in the early morning hours.

          It's time for these people to put themselves second if they can get away with it on any level, and quit worrying all about themselves and whatever they're pushing today. Someone who could get away with it. Mitchell would be a perfect person to try. At worst, she'd be forced into retirement.

          Our future as a cohesive nation depends on that action or something akin to it. The propaganda is killing this country. Something that drastic is called for. And long overdue.

          This all started with "what the Republicans did to language".

          by lunachickie on Fri Jan 24, 2014 at 08:40:04 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site