Now, hard news today is admittedly light, but Fox had an important report about Ahmadinejad's upcoming speech on Channel 4 in the UK, CNN had some new analysis of Rahm Emanuel and Rod Blagojevich, and both had stories about troops celebrating Christmas, and the holidays around the world.
Over on MSNBC, beginning yesterday at 3pm, we've been treated to yet another round of documentaries, and a promise from David Shuster as he signed off yesterday that MSNBC would break in with any breaking news. Now, I have nothing against documentaries, and, in fact, I think they can make powerful and original contributions to our culture. But they are not the same as live news, or even replays of news that happened a few hours earlier. A documentary about Caylee Anthony - which has been on MSNBC at least three times since yesterday - is certainly topical, but right now MSNBC is showing a documentary from its "Crime and Punishment" series, "People v. Alfred Garcia". Ever heard of him? Do you want to?
This year, Christmas and Chanukah are being celebrated at the same time. Chanukah commemorates oil lamps that miraculously burned for eight days, when Judah and the Maccabees stood up to the Seleucid Empire. In remembrance of those days of light, presents are given for eight days.
If I could give a Chanukah present to MSNBC, it would be eight days of uninterrupted all-news programming. This would set them up well for the fierce competition in the all-news cable business in the New Year.See also MSNBC Runs Canned 'Doc Bloc' as Mumbai Burns
6 comments:
There you go again, Paul.
MSNBC is not obligated to provide you with continous news. You may find this irritatng. But clearly the company finds it cost-effective to program in this manner.
It's not a matter of how much hard news is generated today, it's a matter of how many eyeballs will be looking at the screen. After all, what's the point in putting on news if so few people are watching?
Think of it like a marriage. One way of looking at it is that there is a constant supply of sex for both partners. But in fact, both people have to be in the mood at the same time. So there are times MSNBC isn't in the mood to put on news, when you want it. Well, aren't there times when they are putting on the news and you aren't there watching it? HMMM? What about THEIR needs? All you can think of is you, you you!
Can you tell I'm on cold meds? Happy Merry Knishmas!
John Ordover
John - sorry about the cold meds, and hope you feel better, but ...
You're still not getting it :)
My irritation is not the point. Nor am I saying that MSNBC is "obligated" to do anything.
What I am saying is that, in my opinion, if MSNBC wants to thrive, it needs to stop wasting the viewers' time with these newsless documentaries.
MSNBC made it's bones for me during the Clinton sex scandals. With distaste and disappointment nontheless, I watched their harpies pouring over the latest lurid details, from the dress stains to the embedded cigar, to the impeachment. I was a brand new cable news wonk back then, hopelessly stuck in the news purgatory that was and is still, MSNBC. In those days I thought I was watching the "news."
I watch other cable news too, but always come back for a tastes of their version of events. I guess that's entertainment for me... but like Paul obviously is, I'm always slightly disappointed, yet still watching.
I realize now that it's the best I'm going to get from them. And I guess I watch to be infurated by the volatile liberal catholic insider that is Chris Matthews and the predictable bubba that is Joe Scarlborough, and to cheer on the equally predictable liberals that are Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddows. I guess it's a habit, but increasingly I do this when it is convenient instead of when it is time to watch.
Ditto for Jon Stewart, even less so for Steven Colbert. I guess this is all an outcome of MSNBC and others having long ago opted into "newsiness" (thanks Steve) rather than TRUE news, which I can now get from Google News or the BBC, anytime I want.
In fairness to MSNBC programmers, what else can they provide when their four or five program hosts must rake over the same day's material, day after day?
It must be a hell of a challenge for the execs over there, who probably knew all this about me before I did and likely see me and a few hundred thousand others drifting. If that's their niche, so be it.
But I agree that it's a fundamental failure for them to forego viewers during the holidays, when those viewers have so much time to view, and to contemplate on what it is they're viewing.
That decision must have come from the top.
Thank for the thoughtful comment, Bill. We pretty much agree on this, but irrepressible optimist that I am, I think MSNBC can do better. All they really need to do, for starters, is offer news when Fox and CNN do. CNN, especially, will continue to have the advantage of its huge international reporting force, but, as you say, MSNBC will still have its unique appeal.
What's odd to me is that you're all talking as if MSNBC has fallen in the ratings or is strugling somehow. In fact, their ratings have risen faster than any other cable channel in the last year. They must be doing something right.
I think MSNBC has risen in the ratings despite not because of the doc bloc non-news programming - in particular, because the political valance of their reporting was the most in synch with Obama, which I take as generally a good thing.
But I want them to continue to succeed, which is why I'll keep being on their case about their stultifying, non-news programming.
Post a Comment