The net is revolutionizing political discourse and breaking the stranglehold of television pundits. Intelligent viewers are fleeing TV in search of substantive discussion. While I applaud the ability of Rachel to close the gap between these two worlds, there is a troubling legacy architecture which threatens to undermine your credibility.
That legacy is personified in Pat Buchanan....
I understand entertainment. I know Pat is a straw man, masked wrestler, pulp comic villain who acts as an evil foil for Matthews/Maddow. Unfortunately he drags the conversation into a worthless circle of absurd statements that has little relevance to reality or important issues. You're doing a disservice to your viewers. Instead of Paul Krugman (Nobel Prize winner) explaining the intricacies of credit default swaps, we have Pat Buchanan (washed up fringe politician) successfully distracting us with Republican talking points.
MSNBC: Please remove Pat and replace him with a "thinker" who represents the Right. I can't take any of your programming seriously when you drag out party operatives disguised as contributors. Either make them an official party spokesman or find someone who can own up to their statements.
If the Republican party is not responsible for his views, then I must conclude that your permanent inclusion of Buchanan is an editorial decision of MSNBC news. You are responsible for his racist propaganda and I will no longer allow hatred to seep into my home. I will miss Maddow/Olbermann/Matthews but certainly not the toxic venom emanating from "contributors".
Pat Buchanan accusing Powell of racism isn't news...The McCain campaign calling Powell's endorsement racially motivated would be a front page headline. Allowing a platform for a pseudo-independents to lob incendiary statements is ratings dynamite but also deeply irresponsible journalism. Until this changes cable news can only be defined as entertainment.
We can see the television landscape changing and this represents an opportunity. Rachel's ratings are proof that an intelligent host who asks follow-up questions and leverages the web community is highly successful. There is no need for a straw-man. We don't want to watch Buchanan get humiliated by Rachel because it wastes time and detracts from the larger issues. Watching Pat haplessly lurch from one absurd statement to the next is painful and pathetic. We deserve more.
Reform is needed MSNBC and you're currently our best hope. Someone needs to redefine what television journalism means. You don't need to carve out an ideological spectrum like FOX and CNN, you can brand yourself as the intelligent choice in television journalism, the only choice in television journalism.
Ditch the theatrics of crossfire. Eliminate the extremist voices. I only want to hear Nobel Prize winners, NATO commanders and former Secretary's of State. Wait outside Charlie Rose's studio and snatch his guests, whatever it takes. Our nation is deeply divided and highly ignorant. The looming depression will test our solidarity. We must create a culture of intelligent discourse of we will descend into tribalism.
Expose the current format of cable news for what it is: entertainment.
(Update)
Many comments have suggested intelligent conservatives such as Andrew Sullivan and Christopher Buckley. While I agree that they would improve the conversation significantly, those same voices would be viewed with suspicion by a large part of the country. What is needed is an overhaul of the binocular discussion format. We've arranged our political programs to reflect our two party government. Maybe non-partisans need to featured more prominently?
What I'm hoping MSNBC can do is build a commonly acknowledged reality. Currently we're living in a far different world than someone who only gets their information from the teevee. This massive schism threatens our national identity. "Real American" means very different things currently depending on which political party and media outlet is framing the conversation. MSNBC has an opportunity to transcend that archaic paradigm and usher in a new age of mass media relevance.
How? One example would be to use pretty pictures (via WaPo):
The above picture should be flashed anytime a campaign spokesperson starts talking about taxes. Establishing a factual foundation is critical to productive discussion. Once the above visual aide is on the screen, it makes it impossible to misrepresent Obama's "spread the wealth around" philosophy. Even a stray Limbaugh devotee will quickly realize that his economic interests are better served by Obama.