Thursday, May 22, 2003
MSNBC's Painful Journey
MSNBC couldn't beat 'em, so they're now hoping to join 'em. I'm talking about their pursuit of the Fox News audience. I, along with the rest of America, have watched MSNBC's tortured journey to find and claim an identity. Before the present evening line up of Keith Olberman and Joe Scarborough (as well as the new addition on saturday night, arch-conservative Michael Savage), there was Editor-in-Chief Jerry Nachman, and the mothballed Phil Donahue. During the first manifestation they were attempting to gouge a chunk out of Fox's outsized share of the cable news market, by confronting Fox's conservative slant with a decidedly liberal one. The oversized Nachman was a nightly fixture sweatily spewing the type of liberal ideology (he recently claimed that racial preferences played no part in the NY Time's deferential treatment of Jayson Blair) that was undoubtedly crucial in his rise to the top of a major news organization. Next to Nachman in the line up was Phil -the ultimate liberal. This strategy was fundamentally flawed, and rapidly failed due to CNN's death-grip on the liberal cable news niche. MSNBC simply couldn't compete. Chris Matthews was the anchor of the evening line up, and continues to host "Hardball" in his uniquely forceful manner. At least management knew enough to leave Matthews in place. Soon, Nachman returned to his desk behind the camera, and Donahue was, mercifully, forced back into retirement. Next, MSNBC decided on a strategic shift in their operations. Rather than pull viewers away from Fox utilizing a liberal lineup, they would try to capture a portion of Fox's niche by directly competing with them at their own game. Ex-ESPN anchor, Keith Olberman, is by no means a leftist talking head, and former congressmen, Joe Scarborough, far eclipses Bill O'Reilly's conservative tendencies. This type of flakey, contrived, programming renders the station's claim of being "fiercely independent," a very hollow statement indeed. How does one trust that which is constantly fluid in concept, philosophy and creed? An LA Times article (4/23/03) listed that Fox News pulled in 3.1 million viewers on average, as opposed to MSNBC's & CNN's 1.8 and 1.0 million respectively. Caught between the two vastly differing philosophies of Fox and CNN, MSNBC has got to be arriving at or near the crisis point. The best and only choice left to MSNBC, is to pick one side of the ideological fence, drop anchor, and stay awhile.
MSNBC couldn't beat 'em, so they're now hoping to join 'em. I'm talking about their pursuit of the Fox News audience. I, along with the rest of America, have watched MSNBC's tortured journey to find and claim an identity. Before the present evening line up of Keith Olberman and Joe Scarborough (as well as the new addition on saturday night, arch-conservative Michael Savage), there was Editor-in-Chief Jerry Nachman, and the mothballed Phil Donahue. During the first manifestation they were attempting to gouge a chunk out of Fox's outsized share of the cable news market, by confronting Fox's conservative slant with a decidedly liberal one. The oversized Nachman was a nightly fixture sweatily spewing the type of liberal ideology (he recently claimed that racial preferences played no part in the NY Time's deferential treatment of Jayson Blair) that was undoubtedly crucial in his rise to the top of a major news organization. Next to Nachman in the line up was Phil -the ultimate liberal. This strategy was fundamentally flawed, and rapidly failed due to CNN's death-grip on the liberal cable news niche. MSNBC simply couldn't compete. Chris Matthews was the anchor of the evening line up, and continues to host "Hardball" in his uniquely forceful manner. At least management knew enough to leave Matthews in place. Soon, Nachman returned to his desk behind the camera, and Donahue was, mercifully, forced back into retirement. Next, MSNBC decided on a strategic shift in their operations. Rather than pull viewers away from Fox utilizing a liberal lineup, they would try to capture a portion of Fox's niche by directly competing with them at their own game. Ex-ESPN anchor, Keith Olberman, is by no means a leftist talking head, and former congressmen, Joe Scarborough, far eclipses Bill O'Reilly's conservative tendencies. This type of flakey, contrived, programming renders the station's claim of being "fiercely independent," a very hollow statement indeed. How does one trust that which is constantly fluid in concept, philosophy and creed? An LA Times article (4/23/03) listed that Fox News pulled in 3.1 million viewers on average, as opposed to MSNBC's & CNN's 1.8 and 1.0 million respectively. Caught between the two vastly differing philosophies of Fox and CNN, MSNBC has got to be arriving at or near the crisis point. The best and only choice left to MSNBC, is to pick one side of the ideological fence, drop anchor, and stay awhile.
Wednesday, May 21, 2003
"Progressive" Enlightenment
Chris Hedges of The New York Times fulfilled his self-conceived obligation as a liberal: to enlighten us all. Who the hell did he think he was to crash the graduates big day at Rockford College by making a long winded, politically motivated and absurdly innapropriate speech? He refers to those in the military as hapless have-nots who die in accordance with the will of America's powerful elite. I presently know a Captain in the army who is a lawyer by trade, but serves out of a sense of duty. What about him Chris? Hedges is a perfect example of the disconnect between the media elite and the American public. The media elite is fueld by a self-righteous belief that they are obligated to guide the public, whose "ignorant" views they are beholden to shape. Why? Why did Phil Donahue disrupt North Carolina State's ceremony with his sappy idealogy? Why did Jessica Lange do the same at her daughter's alma mater? As former CBS journalist Hank Goldberg stated, liberals marry their beliefs with their self-images. The reason it is impossible to argue with a liberal without them becoming offended is because they are not wired for debate. An affront on their ideals is perceived as an affront on their person. A schsim is heard in the audio recording of Chris Hedges address, common sense does not tolerate rarefied upper east side politics, because it faithfully attacks the very system which has made America the world's truest beacon for dissent and free speach. A stance so predictable cannot be objective nor based in logical reasoning. With the advent of alternative news sources, the arrogant and stagnant liberal (or as they prefer to now be called "progressive") media is coming under attack by all sides. The American masses are assembling at the gates, torches in hand, venting their anger at having foreign values rammed down their throats for decades. As Matt Drudge commented "the statue of Peter Jennings has been toppled." America is in revolt, just ask Chris Hedges.
Chris Hedges of The New York Times fulfilled his self-conceived obligation as a liberal: to enlighten us all. Who the hell did he think he was to crash the graduates big day at Rockford College by making a long winded, politically motivated and absurdly innapropriate speech? He refers to those in the military as hapless have-nots who die in accordance with the will of America's powerful elite. I presently know a Captain in the army who is a lawyer by trade, but serves out of a sense of duty. What about him Chris? Hedges is a perfect example of the disconnect between the media elite and the American public. The media elite is fueld by a self-righteous belief that they are obligated to guide the public, whose "ignorant" views they are beholden to shape. Why? Why did Phil Donahue disrupt North Carolina State's ceremony with his sappy idealogy? Why did Jessica Lange do the same at her daughter's alma mater? As former CBS journalist Hank Goldberg stated, liberals marry their beliefs with their self-images. The reason it is impossible to argue with a liberal without them becoming offended is because they are not wired for debate. An affront on their ideals is perceived as an affront on their person. A schsim is heard in the audio recording of Chris Hedges address, common sense does not tolerate rarefied upper east side politics, because it faithfully attacks the very system which has made America the world's truest beacon for dissent and free speach. A stance so predictable cannot be objective nor based in logical reasoning. With the advent of alternative news sources, the arrogant and stagnant liberal (or as they prefer to now be called "progressive") media is coming under attack by all sides. The American masses are assembling at the gates, torches in hand, venting their anger at having foreign values rammed down their throats for decades. As Matt Drudge commented "the statue of Peter Jennings has been toppled." America is in revolt, just ask Chris Hedges.
Tuesday, May 20, 2003
A Price Paid In Full
Every now and again, when the world is sleeping, quiet descends on one's life and allows for retrospection to unfurl and work it's mojo beneath and between the night's silvery shadow world. I've spent a great deal more time than I care to claim dulling my senses to what life was always faithfully trying to reveal. Lately, whenever I've emerged from a recent marathon session of "partying," carousing with friends, and the indulgences that inevitably accompany such activities, I find that my psychic foundation pulls through chipped away at, and temporarily eroded. It seems my mind is an impossibly complex stereo equalizer which God sets with exacting precision - resulting in a proper and balanced existence. After a relatively long stretch of sobriety, I find the clouds of anxiety which inevitably follow a chemical binge eventually ascend and reveal (thankfully) the same comfortable consciousness I've always known. But here's the kicker: I'm getting older and my mind is finally beginning to behave accordingly. Suddenly, partying and seeking distraction in alcohol and it's even more malignant chemical cousins is no longer such a priority. I can actually say that I prefer waking up early on a saturday morning and not having to worry about the previous night's activities; and I love not being subjected to the stale hellish existence a hangover always demands. The vibrancy in life is found when the day is at full throttle and your body's biorythms are humming in accord with the rest of the world - not when spun out, drunkenly working your way around a shifting, smokey bar room. To me, it seems that life taps you on the shoulder and ushers you along when its ordained natural path becomes violated. As the shadows grow longer across the landscape of my youth, the time for maturation, and the necessity for growth are now clearly revealed. Indifference will no longer function.
Every now and again, when the world is sleeping, quiet descends on one's life and allows for retrospection to unfurl and work it's mojo beneath and between the night's silvery shadow world. I've spent a great deal more time than I care to claim dulling my senses to what life was always faithfully trying to reveal. Lately, whenever I've emerged from a recent marathon session of "partying," carousing with friends, and the indulgences that inevitably accompany such activities, I find that my psychic foundation pulls through chipped away at, and temporarily eroded. It seems my mind is an impossibly complex stereo equalizer which God sets with exacting precision - resulting in a proper and balanced existence. After a relatively long stretch of sobriety, I find the clouds of anxiety which inevitably follow a chemical binge eventually ascend and reveal (thankfully) the same comfortable consciousness I've always known. But here's the kicker: I'm getting older and my mind is finally beginning to behave accordingly. Suddenly, partying and seeking distraction in alcohol and it's even more malignant chemical cousins is no longer such a priority. I can actually say that I prefer waking up early on a saturday morning and not having to worry about the previous night's activities; and I love not being subjected to the stale hellish existence a hangover always demands. The vibrancy in life is found when the day is at full throttle and your body's biorythms are humming in accord with the rest of the world - not when spun out, drunkenly working your way around a shifting, smokey bar room. To me, it seems that life taps you on the shoulder and ushers you along when its ordained natural path becomes violated. As the shadows grow longer across the landscape of my youth, the time for maturation, and the necessity for growth are now clearly revealed. Indifference will no longer function.
Monday, May 19, 2003
Dem's Poor Showing
As a tweny-something person coming of age in today's political climate, my overwhelming impression of the Democratic party can be summed up in one word: childish. Whether it be Daschle or the recent collection of clowns who comprise the democratic presidential candidacy, they all appear petty and transparently partisan. Now, I realize that politics is petty and disingenuous by it's very nature but the stances that the democrats have recently taken are so contrived (the $$ spent by the white house during Bush's recent carrier visit, etc.) and futile that they should be instantly stripped of any credibility before being filtered into America's collective neurosis. The latest position being jockeyed by democratic presidential hopefuls is that Bush is weak on homeland security - this from the same party that attacked Atty. Gen. Ashcroft's crackdown on people living in America who originated in nations known to sponsor terrorism. They labled such actions as extreme and un-American. The democratic leadership was beligerant in their assertion that Bush's harsh response to terrorism was allowing the hijackers to "win" due to the fact our "freedom as Americans is being eroded." Such inappropriate and dramatic attacks create a perception of the republican party as being the party of "adults." Since my awareness of politics has been fairly short-lived, I can't help but wonder 'Are democrats always this pathetic?' Do the appointments of San Francisco liberal Nancy Pelosi and the histrionic Terry McCaulife (sic) to leadership positions signal a new horizon for the democratic party in which it will grow even more liberal and unpredictable? If so, the Grand Ol' Party can count me in for several years to come.
As a tweny-something person coming of age in today's political climate, my overwhelming impression of the Democratic party can be summed up in one word: childish. Whether it be Daschle or the recent collection of clowns who comprise the democratic presidential candidacy, they all appear petty and transparently partisan. Now, I realize that politics is petty and disingenuous by it's very nature but the stances that the democrats have recently taken are so contrived (the $$ spent by the white house during Bush's recent carrier visit, etc.) and futile that they should be instantly stripped of any credibility before being filtered into America's collective neurosis. The latest position being jockeyed by democratic presidential hopefuls is that Bush is weak on homeland security - this from the same party that attacked Atty. Gen. Ashcroft's crackdown on people living in America who originated in nations known to sponsor terrorism. They labled such actions as extreme and un-American. The democratic leadership was beligerant in their assertion that Bush's harsh response to terrorism was allowing the hijackers to "win" due to the fact our "freedom as Americans is being eroded." Such inappropriate and dramatic attacks create a perception of the republican party as being the party of "adults." Since my awareness of politics has been fairly short-lived, I can't help but wonder 'Are democrats always this pathetic?' Do the appointments of San Francisco liberal Nancy Pelosi and the histrionic Terry McCaulife (sic) to leadership positions signal a new horizon for the democratic party in which it will grow even more liberal and unpredictable? If so, the Grand Ol' Party can count me in for several years to come.
