Total Pageviews

Wednesday, August 7, 2013

No Scarborough, MSNBC is Not Like Fox.

Joe Scarborough
To view the video go here

This morning  Mika Brzezinski and Joe Scarborough were arguing about RNC Chairman Reince Priebus’s   decision to bar CNN and NBC from airing the GOP presidential debates if they show the documentary on Hillary Clinton.

Mika Brzezinski said that Priebus should come on their show and explain his position because he still had Fox for the friendly venue that he wants.  Joe stepped in and said “Every time you bring up Fox, you’ve got to bring up MSNBC."

If Joe’s comments comparing the networks and the rhetoric stopped there, I might tend to agree with him more often. MSNBC, low ratings and all, do not recruit people who are running in the democratic primary.  There's no doubt that the network liens liberal and they will discuss the issues from that point of view.  I don't think any one is blaming the RNC for trying to use their leverage but they can't be crying media bias.

Joe Scarborough always plays the moral equivalence card when confronted with some crazy things republicans say.  These days, moderates  like to stay above the fray by saying that both sides do it, but that's not true. The left has their fringe elements but they've been kept  out the limelight for several years now.  The right on the other hand has been out of power for several years, so they're more willing to show their frustration.  For example, Republicans are attacking Republicans right now and Democrats are sitting back and enjoying the show.

For whatever the reasons, liberals don't tune in to talk radio or view MSNBC unless it's during a presidential election year, and the network’s rating prove it.  I normally record the evening programming for some tidbits I might of missed during the day.  Oftentimes, a guest like Erza Klien will break down an economic theory enough to where I can understand it.  Lawrence O'Donnell will break down policy procedures as he did when he was a senior staff member in the U.S. Senate.

Fox on the other hand appeals to the older 65 year plus white viewer, who will turn on Fox at 6:00 AM and a leave it there until they go to bed.  It's a constituency that votes.  Christianity, conservatism, the Second Amendment and traditional values is what drives these people and Fox tailors their programing to suit their needs.

I don't see what Republicans are complaining about because they have more than their share of the media. Conservatives certainly dominate talk radio and Fox dominates political cable television.  I guess they want network television, Hollywood, the New York Times  and the White House as some sort of entitlement. They think that the country is center right even though the data doesn't support that.

A good illustration  of the media and political differences is someone's take on the George Zimmerman trial. I bet an avid viewer of Fox thinks that Trayvon Martin was a thug, and George Zimmerman had every right to kill him in self-defense.  An MSNBC viewer like myself watched most of the trial and was disappointed but not surprised at the verdict. It wasn't so much the network's influence because most of us already had preconceived notions about the outcome.I believe networks like MSNBC, and Fox serves as cheerleaders for a certain point of view and CNN does a disservice because they go out of their way to try to stay in the middle.  Look at the several George Zimmerman trial letters that have been written in our newspaper which are mostly about promoting an agenda.


born2Bme said...

I have no doubt that the Zimmerman trial was more about bringing the "stand your ground" law into the limelight, than it was about what actually happened that night.

Mike said...

Bingo! You can tell by the language that’s more about protecting the current Stand Your Ground law than what happened on that fatal night.

Some keep saying that Trayvon kept pounding Zimmerman’s head into the pavement but that’s just the defendant’s story which was never proved. A witness said he saw (or might of) Trayvon on top hitting Zimmerman.

There’s another story of Trayvon’s girlfriend saying that Trayvon might have thrown the first punch but she never said that during the trial….

They are relying on people who do not keep up with the facts.

born2Bme said...

I saw Trayvon's girlfriend on the stand, and she never said that Trayvon might have thrown the first punch, until she got led to say it. The defense attorney got her to say she couldn't be sure who threw the first punch, after she said that Zimmerman did. Then, he asked her if it could have been Trayvon who threw the first punch and since she had just said she didn't know, the only answer she could have given was yes. She never said that Trayvon threw the first punch, but it was enough to cast doubt and for the crazies to say she said that Trayvon threw the first punch. They seem to cherry-pick facts.

There were only 2 people that know and one of them is dead. What happened after that is what's up for discussion. One witness said Trayvon was on the bottom, and one said he was on top. They may be both right after they rolled around a few times.
Stand your ground has too many holes in it. It's a good law in theory, but there are too many ways to game it as it is written now.

Mike said...

I don’t agree that Stand Your Ground is a good law in theory because I know what ALEC and the NRA had in mind when they persuaded lawmakers to pass it.

We’ve always had a stand your ground as far as basic survival instincts… No jury in the world will convict a person for defending themselves, so no law was needed.

born2Bme said...

Yes, that is true and I don't disagree with you on that.
I guess it's just a different way of looking at things, even though it points back to the basic right of defending yourself.
Before the law, sometimes it was kind of hard for a person to prove that he/she was defending themselves, if there were only 2 people present and I'm sure many people who couldn't prove it, were convicted. The Stand your Ground law kind of goes too far in favor of the one left standing. There has to be a middle ground between the two scenarios.

Mike said...

I don't know if we ever had a rash of cases where one person was armed and the other was not ,to justify a new law....Police officers always go before a review board after a shooting and they are professionals.

It would never pass in Texas but I would favor a grand jury inquiry after every civilian shooting.

We"ll never have a perfect system but we don't have to back to the 1880s....Nationally crime and homicides are down.