What Stewart gets--Bill Moyers is a better advocate journalist than Keith Olbermann

[jpgray]

That's not to denigrate Olbermann. You could make the argument that Olbermann's sillier segments; his tendency to focus on the trivial but narrative-pushing story; and his whiplash jumps from tidbit to tidbit are determined by his forum and format. But that's the entire point.

If I were looking to convince someone that his/her ideology is misguided and missing fundamental pieces of the picture, I would send that person directly to the Bill Moyers Journal archive. I would send someone to Olbermann if that person was looking to hear a friendly voice reinforcing beliefs the person already holds. A GOP fan would see it as smug superiority and condescension, easily dismissed, while we see it as a refreshing and natural reaction to the madness we see in the other side.

The worst of it, though, is the reinforcement of the idea that GOP voters abused and kept in ignorance by their leaders are irredeemable. Some undoubtedly are, but most? All? The worst indictment of liberal advocacy journalism on cable is its curious lack of interest in -why- a more or less ordinary person could see Obama as a socialist, or -how- any Oklahoman could feel the need to officially ban Sharia law. The message is more that such people exist, and how silly that seems.

That has its place, but it's not what I want from my advocacy journalism. I don't want my beliefs reinforced. I want journalists to go where I can't go, talk to those I can't talk to, and show me things that can change my beliefs on how and why things happen. If Moyers's interviews with Bill Black, Simon Johnson, Wendell Potter, etc. had been broadcast on network prime time, the debate on financial reform and health care reform might have gone very differently.

[BrklynLiberal]

1. Bill Moyers is a better journalist that just about anyone who is

doing journalism today. I do not consider ANYONE at FAUX NOISE a journalist.

There are some good ones out there...but none are of the caliber of Bill Moyers.

[EFerrari]

2. But Moyers had to go to independent media to do what he does.

Moyers and Olbermann are in two different universes. :shrug:

[jpgray]

4. Isn't that the point, though?

How fucked is our news system when the only room for an advocate in establishment media is on a cable news format that completely undermines one's ability to do important journalism?

[EFerrari]

7. Agreed. n/t

[GrpCaptMandrake]

3. I don't see the two

as sharing any equivalence whatsoever.

I don't see Olbermann as a "journalist" at all. Maybe we need a new word. How about "Opinionist?"

Moyers is almost the very last in a league all his own. He comes from the Cronkite/Murrow school, and it's pretty much turned out the lights, locked the doors and boarded up the windows.

Amy Goodman is the only person out there getting close to Moyers' territory.

[stray cat]

6. What we need then our real journalists and opinionists who know real versus lies

[jpgray]

9. Now I'm going to accuse you of being too dismissive of Olbermann

:)

Both men do an hour-long primarily digestive show, bringing on guests to speak to current affairs. It's rarely "Countdown/the Journal has learned...," it's frequently "this is happening; here is someone to talk about what it means." The difference comes in with the format and its pressures, but also with the content.

You won't see Moyers spend a segment riffing on a trivial public figure just because the person's action or soundbite furthers a narrative about how the other side is silly--instead he goes to people knowledgeable about why and how such things happen, and seeks to understand the larger issue. Olbermann by contrast frequently brings on establishment media voices, whose primary focus is simply that a silly person did some silly things, and that it fits with a general trend of silliness from such people. Too often it goes no further than that--too often it simply reinforces our views on the madness of this country's politics without deepening our understanding of it.

[stray cat]

5. And we need more true journalists than pundits or politicos

[GrpCaptMandrake]

8. I'd go even further . . .

What we need is more actual, on-the-ground, decently educated REPORTERS.

Talking heads on the TeeVee box only read copy. The gathering of information comes from actual reporters in the field, who are becoming more and more scarce.

[howaboutme]

10. Exactly - as far as I'm concerned they can fire all the pundits.

Give us objective investigative reporting and the honest facts, and the media can fire all the pundits (both L and R) as far as I'm concerned. I've had it with the ranting and raving that goes on all with the same intent as fire and brimstone preachers, which is to incite the congregation and bring them to their feet.

Bill Moyers provided objective honest reporting that was not intended to move an agenda except for honest government.

[GrpCaptMandrake]

30. And you'll notice . . .

. . . that FoxNews/RadioRwanda, via O'Reilly wasted no time attacking Moyers and thoroughly demonizing him. To Moyers' enduring credit, he shot right back. He didn't complain about the other side's tone. He gave 'em as good as he got. Bless his heart, he's a Texan. He may not be able to help himself in his unwillingness to lay down and be a doormat.

[howaboutme]

32. Some people thrive on being doormats

and others thrive on standing up and doing just the opposite. The more one allows himself to be a doormat and the more others will treat one as a doormat.

[jpgray]

11. This is exactly right.

The shuttering of bureaus and the buy-outs of experienced hands have completely degraded the institution of the press in this country. All to look pretty for Wall Street. As David Simon put it, the content was too often treated as the shit that goes around the ads.

[sally cat]

12. Which means dropping the word "advocate" from the phrase "advocate journalist".

[jpgray]

13. The real tragedy of cable news is that people's views of true journalism become massively distorted

There are those who believe those on FOX are "true" journalists. Insofar as they have a news and reporting department, they do have journalists. So does MSNBC, and so does CNN. Yet all of these seem far from true journalism to me. The proliferation of bias-peddling in terms of narrative has a tendency to isolate people from independent voices, and such voices are excluded from the debate because they spoil or complicate the narratives.

When anyone says "I'll wait until I hear it on FOX to believe it," that to me represents more than anything the tragedy of losing an independent press whose important reporting both sides will be forced to acknowledge. You don't have to acknowledge this anymore--you can decry all establishment voices as tainted, and can freely doubt those revealed scandals that go against your own beliefs.

Now there is a growing and ascendant cabal of assholes in the independent press that is obsessed with their own political savvy and narratives, cramming issues that don't fit into the same old tropes. The inability to recognize Bush's administration and party as truly radical compared to what came before was evident on every major issue.

[MagickMuffin]

14. Olbermann has had Wendell Potter on his project regularly during the health care debate

and before.

Of course there aren't many other people who would have these guests on their shows. They would expose to much.


Interesting tidbit from watching PBS newshour earlier this week about the Olbermann suspension. They showed the clip with Olbermann making the case about his contribution, but as the clip got closer to the point Keith was making about the donation being transparent and if he had made the donation through the US Chamber of Commerce they cut it off, In other words they didn't allow Keith the decency or respect to finish his point about transparency. Damn that "liberal media" and them using our tax dollars to fund propaganda.

[jpgray]

16. Newshour is completely reprehensible

Their funding indicates this, as does the presence of Mark Shields and David Brooks. They bring in the same old establishment voices, and repeat the same old tropes despite the utterly volcanic changes in circumstances in the past twenty years.

It's great that Olbermann had Potter on, but how would you compare the interviews by the two hosts? Again, Olbermann is at a disadvantage due to forum and format, no question. I don't doubt he has the intelligence, passion and capability to do great journalism. But rather than dig deep into Potter's experiences, he's essentially forced to extract only a few soundbites; then perhaps to move on to a story about Tina Fey's Palin impersonation.

Would you say that the very format of cable news prevents in-depth discussion of the why and how of events? Or do you think I'm unfairly characterizing here?

[MagickMuffin]

23. Of course the format prevents all in depth discussions

But I always thought Keith did a pretty good job with asking Wendell well thought out questions and discussions about the insurance companies and why Wendell got so fed up and left his job. So, yeah Keith gets a whopping 3 to 5 minutes while Bill got anywhere from 10 to 15 minutes.

Would you say that the very format of cable news prevents in-depth discussion of the why and how of events? YES

Or do you think I'm unfairly characterizing here? NO

It would be great if programs like Keith's and Rachel's could focus more on a couple of interviews but I don't see that happening. I suppose the producers don't give viewers the required respect to our attention span and think we were get bored with just a few guests.

One more thing about PBS and the newshour in general (which I never watch, just caught this channeling suffering and saw Keith and was curious what they or how they would portray the events) is the very people who want to defund it from taxpayer money don't have a problem with going on there to spew their "wisdom" like drown the government in the bathtub Grover Norquist.

[jpgray]

25. I completely agree

Olbermann often asks intelligent questions that rarely if ever get asked anywhere else--it's part of the reason I think writing him off as simply a commentator is too simplistic. I think both he and Maddow have the ability to make programs as in-depth as Moyers made, but in many ways they lack the opportunity.

I certainly don't want to throw Olbermann under the bus. I posted the FAIR action alert on his suspension here. :D

[JVS]

15. You're wrong. Moyers isn't going to change anyone's mind, neither is Olberman.

What Olberman does is keep people who are going to be engaged in conversation with conservatives informed of the information they need to resist and attack the points of the enemy. There are a lot of people who don't have access to places like DU who if they have no source like olberman have nothing to combat the wall of bullshit that gets spewed.

[jpgray]

17. Moyers helped change my grandparents' minds. Slinging opposing talking points achieves exactly zero

Some GOP voters are irredeemable, but not all. Moyers wasn't decisive in changing their minds so much as friends and family were. If I listened to Olbermann and Maddow, I would have safely dismissed my grandparents as terminal Bushies, incapable of change and wholly representative of a ridiculous old white person madness that we can only shake our superior heads at in disgust until they kick off.

Look at some of the stereotyping of the South that goes on here. This is an environment that produced Molly Ivins, Jim Hightower, Moyers himself, etc. Yet to many here it's simply Dumbfuckistan, and the truly irredeemable and radical few are generalized into a slur of the whole population, and certainly a slur of every GOP voter.

It was easy for me to believe there would be no convincing any '04 Bush voter of anything. How could anyone be that ignorant and ever come around? What would be the point of reaching out? That belief, however, is often wrong. The numbers of '08 prove that just as much as my two old, white and in many ways racist grandparents' Obama votes prove it. By no means do GOP-friendly states represent a majority of lock-step support of all the GOP stands for. For many, if not most, it's a tenuous fealty based more on fear and isolation from independent voices than anything else.

[JVS]

18. Your personal anecdote doesn't generalize.

[jpgray]

19. How does Indiana turn blue if GOP voters are irredeemable?

How could those who voted for Bush in '04 vote for Obama in '08? If they buy into "conservative" ideology so irretrievably, the shift in '08 should be utterly impossible. I presented trees and forest as evidence, because it's good to know a few trees before you generalize about the forest.

[JVS]

20. That's unrelated to the part of your statement that I was responding to.

Moyer vs. Olberman is what I talked about. I'm not inclined to discuss the issue of Indiana. I'll just say Olberman is not for GOP voters, he's to keep democratic voters armed for confrontation with GOPers. He should no more appeal to GOP voters than EWTN appeals to atheists.

[jpgray]

24. The point is to have more than our own dismissive insults to sling

The point is to inform and convince people. That's what Moyers v Olbermann is all about, in my mind. Shouting "aqua buddha" isn't going to stop the likes of Rand Paul--the level of crazy that is unharmed by ridicule of its craziness is extremely high in this country. You have to get into Angle/O'Donnell territory for it to have an impact, and it's still smaller than one would expect.

Ridicule has its role, but it can't drive the debate. What we need to focus on is not each discrete piece of madness, but the forces driving it.

[Posteritatis]

21. I see him as a mix of that and keeping his target audience fired up

Most of what Olbermann tells me - or, I imagine, a lot of other people around here - isn't exactly new to us, even if it might be to some other viewers, or people who come across facts he mentions secondhand and so on.

Doesn't mean I don't regularly get an "oh, hell yeah" rush from some of his statements that make keeping up on the state of things feel, for a little while, a bit less like going to a drunken dentist.

I don't like bringing military-type metaphors into political discussions a lot of the time, because they're usually hyperbolic or carry the conversation in unpleasant directions, but sometimes simple morale matters, especially when it's so easy to just put a brick on the "Despair" button. Knowing there's someone out there regularly, very publicly, driving some points home as unsubtly as he does helps, and that has helped me change a mind or two on a personal level before.

[jpgray]

26. That's true, and I don't want to dismiss that at all

That at least some people on cable news share our immediate reaction to the unhinged GOP certainly has value. Olbermann is also good for debunking obvious but widely-spread lies and misinformation, such as the "$200 billion India trip" nonsense. You can Google it, but to have the evidence lined up and articulated professionally is often very helpful.

[bullwinkle428]

22. Wingnuts hate each of these guys equally, so I'm not sure

if there's much relevance in trying to distinguish between the two.

[jpgray]

29. Do you think all GOP voters would not distinguish them?

The true blue wingnuts might not, but those on the margins are by no means automatically dismissive of all criticism or non-FOX news. Take a look at these polls from major midterms.



Those numbers would seem to be impossible given the election, but I think they are accurate. People have been ginned up into fear and hatred, but not into total faith in the GOP. There will be hard-line irredeemable types, but not all fit that description.

[ProudDad]

27. Just a little heads-up -- Stewart is a comedian first... (n/t)

[malaise]

28. Moyers is one of the best of all time

I found the Rachel/Stewart discussion fascinating.

[sally cat]

31. Moyers was doing advocacy journalism before people knew there was such a thing.

[PurityOfEssence]

33. If you really want to convince, you don't humiliate, belittle, mock and sneer

You raise a very good point, and it calls to the very heart of what people are trying to do when engaging in discourse. Much of it is NOT trying to coherently put across a point and sway people of differing or unformed opinions, it is bullying to humiliate opponents into silence or withdrawal, and mockery to score points with one's own ilk.

This is something people simply can't grasp or feel somehow entitled to defy. The privilege of the downtrodden is that they're so put-upon by evil overlords that they have the carte-blanche to strike out at any they see as oppressors, while the privilege of the reactionaries is that they are the defenders of all that's good and true. Both engage in the same kind of sneering and shrill hectoring, and both are outraged at the other side doing precisely the same.

Olbermann and ESPECIALLY Maddow are in a constant snotty mode of sneering and dismissal of the right-wingers as literally stupid, as well as incompetent, hypocritical and fashion-challenged. Okay, so it's largely true, but I literally can't watch either of them for more than a moment or two because there's always a sneery, self-satisfied arrogance that is not only embarrassing to my view of discourse, but simply unwatchable nails-on-blackboard noise. Maddow especially likes to repeatedly have the camera hold on her twinkly-eyed smirkiness as she lobs bon-mots at the expense of the inferiors, and it can't simply be me among the lefties who are on edge about it.

Say a word against either, though, and all hell breaks loose around here.

Moyers is an avuncular voice of decency and reason, and he surrounds himself with voices that truly pierce the fog like Kevin Phillips. He is a fine advocate for us, and one who can actually change minds. So is Jim Hightower: there's a joyousness to him that isn't simply the result of the skewering of others. To me, deriving humor from the humiliation of others is more the province of conservatives, and I don't like being invited in to be part of the in-crowd laughing at the class misfit.

To me, both Olbermann and Maddow only seem to get real joy from the humiliation of others, and this deeply makes me cringe. The shows are literally wall to wall belittling, and my candy-assed empathy gets piqued even for the demonstrably unpleasant reactionaries they skewer.

Standing one's ground is one thing, but constantly, constantly, constantly repeating how mentally inferior anyone of a differing political affiliation is isn't very entertaining, except for the vengeful powerless. If nothing else, they each need more varied performance schtick. Olbermann looks with the stolid and matter-of-factly dudgeon, followed by the "you, sir..." rectitude of the self-appointed monitor of intellectual honesty, and Maddow holds the shot waaaaaay too long on a single of herself with the snarky, sneering smile and a twinkly-eyed reverie at the cupidity of whoever she's slagging at the moment.

When she's seriously interviewing and restraining herself from ridicule, as she was with Jon Stewart, she's got her moments, but those moments are precious few.

Both of them--and sadly, seemingly most pundits--take far too much time hammering anyone who personally takes them to task. This bespeaks a hunger for stardom which, although a hazard of the trade, is more than just a bit of a sin against the soul of journalism.

There's a clubbiness that they both use when interviewing lefties, which just smacks of the kind of "isn't it great to be hanging with the chosen few" that is more befitting of an NPR fund-drive. Lest we forget, this kind of intellectual smugness is just what the right uses to demonize and marginalize the left. It's a problem.

[jpgray]

34. Exactly. Great post

To me, both Olbermann and Maddow only seem to get real joy from the humiliation of others, and this deeply makes me cringe. The shows are literally wall to wall belittling, and my candy-assed empathy gets piqued even for the demonstrably unpleasant reactionaries they skewer.

Standing one's ground is one thing, but constantly, constantly, constantly repeating how mentally inferior anyone of a differing political affiliation is isn't very entertaining, except for the vengeful powerless. If nothing else, they each need more varied performance schtick. Olbermann looks with the stolid and matter-of-factly dudgeon, followed by the "you, sir..." rectitude of the self-appointed monitor of intellectual honesty, and Maddow holds the shot waaaaaay too long on a single of herself with the snarky, sneering smile and a twinkly-eyed reverie at the cupidity of whoever she's slagging at the moment.

Couldn't have said it better. I don't want to build a clubhouse where we point and laugh at the "gov't hands off my Medicare" guy from a distance. These people are getting badly used and misled by appeals to their fear and hatred. So long as we only take note of them to point out how ridiculous they are, and avoid any empathy or understanding, I'm unclear as to how we're supposed to turn around the decay of all our major institutions in this country. It's that decay which provides the opening for abuse and exploitation.

People in this country doesn't simply distrust government, but the press, big business, Wall Street, etc.--all by large majorities. Progressives can explain this decay better than those who stir up hate speech against immigrants in service of tax cuts, but we can't reach out to someone if we're convinced he's too irredeemably stupid and foolish to listen.

[Awsi Dooger]

35. That's one of the truly great posts I've seen on this site

The header alone was a jolting truth, and exactly what I'd hoped Stewart would emphasize to Maddow, that she and Olbermann forfeit impact solely on style, the "constant snotty mode of sneering and dismissal," to use your wonderful summation. I've clumsily tried to point it out many times, including in a thread last night in this forum, when someone said he'd lost all respect for Jon Stewart.

I'm among the progressives who find them embarrassing and majority unwatchable, unless Maddow opens the program with a straight face, instead of her typical smugness and grinning digs, the hand waving, "I know, I know, and it gets even better...," approach. She tips early. I'll extend credit for that.

Olbermann disgusts me with another tendency; he's never advanced beyond middle school crotch jokes. If there's a juvenile double entendre in the news, regardless how obscure or irrelevant, Olbermann will abuse it. There was the "bulging disk" example several months ago, when the Golf Channel female reporter accidentally misplayed the second word, in regard to Tiger Woods. You can imagine what she said. Olbermann can spend several minutes there, and delight to promo the segment repeatedly, on the same day or week he expects us to be awed and inspired by a special comment.

[PurityOfEssence]

45. Nice to know I'm not alone

The sheer jubilation of the "love Keith" or "love Rachel" threads is astonishing, and ANY dissent is met with a resounding pile-on.

I don't like being played with the bullying playground tactic of "aren't you glad to be one of the cool ones" for mocking the weirdos. It's mean. It's against what I hold dear in my heart as pluralism, and it's hardly that I'm some kind of shrinking violet, I just don't like the dynamic of groupthink, group-tyranny, peer-pressure or any other version of faddish nastiness.

Contrary views exist for reasons, and they're not just that the ninnys that hold them are somehow defective. Slagging the messenger largely lets the message go forth unmolested, and being full of icky ridicule doesn't help sway any of the fence-sitters. Personally, if I was shopping for a club, I wouldn't want to join the one with the nastiest brutes...

Sigh.

Nice to know you're out there, though; we can't possibly be THAT alone.

[TheKentuckian]

36. Why does there have to be a solitary format to address only the broadest audience despite having a

very finite platform by the nature of the industry?


Your problems and concerns are systemic and structural yet you hold the individual liable for fitting your frame while insisting your cup of tea be the only kind on the market.

You folks refuse to understand that the news cannot be profit driven and come out as you desire. We have been diminishing since the departments have been expect to bring revenue versus being a public service.

Moyers is wonderful but I assure you he is not for everyone and isn't going to sell a shitload of consumer goods.

I cannot fathom why Maddow cannot be Maddow, Olberman be Olberman, Hartman be Hartman, and so on.

ADD VOICES

ADD VOICES

ADD VOICES

Stop crying that these people have styles, shticks, and their own audiences and encourage more voices.

Holy fuck the arrogance and not a little hypocrisy!

Let me know when you get the big 3, Faux, CNN, Bloomberg, and MSNBC to invest in reporting and global desks and the staffing it takes to do what you want and keep us hip to when you get them to even greenlight the format they willfully destroyed in the first place.

[jpgray]

37. Where am I trying to deny or persecute anyone's voice?

I posted the FAIR alert on Olbermann's suspension, because it was ridiculous.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9496772

I'm not calling for his head. I'm saying what comes out of it is not as good as it might be, and frequently promotes trivia and farce over depth. That's not a call for silencing voices, it's just criticism.

[TheKentuckian]

42. You want one type of message and one type of messenger.

Your criticism belongs to the greedy bastards that decided that news and reporting are not a part of the social contract that gives them use of our airwaves for profit and killed journalism and hard reporting.

You understandably want your cup of tea but wrongheadedly demand Lady Grey become Earl Grey to suit you rather than forming an Earl Grey push that calls for news as a public service to inform the population rather than a revenue generating arm to entertain them.

You also refuse to accept that Keith does a fine job of being Keith, not once have I flipped him on and expected Dan Rather much less Murrow or Cronkite because it ain't that sort of program. Even in a much more rational and less profit driven environment there is plenty of room for what Keith is. The choir likes to catch a sermon too.

[JI7]

38. that has nothing to do with Jon Stewarts criticisms

[jpgray]

39. Doesn't it?

The whole point is that ideological cable news represents a haven for believers; it isolates, excludes, and dismisses; it is not a source for deeper understanding. It is all about furthering narratives, promoting even the most trivial events in service of them. There is no figure so petty and no act so superficial that they will not be seized upon, flogged, and driven to support a narrative. Based on the coverage, you'd have thought Juan Williams murdered someone, or that Sarah Palin's tweets are calling for a final solution.

Then there is the total lack of empathy for some of the most tragically deluded people in the country. Rank and file tea partiers are misguided, fearful and sometimes very hateful, but I'm looking for more insight than a mere gloating over their ridiculousness, or the fact that they're demographically old, white and ignorant. These petty symptoms provide the most superficial glimpse imaginable of the unhinged right, they don't get to anything systemic, they don't endeavor to explain why or how such people could come to act the way they do, and I'm baffled by those who see glib, soundbite coverage of such things as somehow above criticism.

The larger issues go far beyond the petty stereotypes of one group, but such stereotypes are the bread and butter of ideological cable news.

[Major Hogwash]

40. Do Republicans identify with Jon more than Keith?

Do you think any Republicans watched Rachel Maddow's interview with Jon the other night?

So, this really isn't about Republicans or influencing Republicans at all, is it?

[tsuki]

41. I don't understand what you are saying. Moyers' interviews going

prime time? Fat chance. He cannot even get a corporate sponsor on PBS.

Would you be happier with no Olberman? Reinforce your natural "superiority".

[Flubadubya]

43. The tragedy of American journalism is that Moyers is basically "underground media"...

Voices like his should be "mainstream media" but, alas, they are not. It's the kind of journalism you find ONLY if you go looking for it.

I think this is an indictment of the American mindset and culture more than anything else. We essentially "can't handle the truth"!

[Iggo]

44. Yay, Jon Stewart! Yay, Bill Moyers! Yay, Keith Olbermann!

Jesus, people.