Why the Monkees are Important

The untimely death of Davy Jones raises the question of why The Monkees were and are important.  They sold millions of records in the late 1960s, but beyond that -

The Monkees were the first example of something created in a medium - in this case, a rock group on television - that jumped off the screen to have big impact in the real world.   The Monkees didn't exist prior to their television series.  They didn't play clubs, didn't make demos, didn't play at all because they didn't exist, prior to NBC's television show, which ran for two successful seasons from1966-1968.

But the group sold real records to real people, and paved the way for all subsequent media creations that moved through the screen and out into the real world.  Not only groups like The Partridge Family and The Archies (which were cartoon characters with a million-selling record), but more recent creations of new media which crossed over in the real world owe a tip of the hat to The Monkees.   These range from Julie Powell's blog which served as one of the inspirations for the 2009 movie Julie & Julia, to Justin Halpern’s Twitter feed “Shit My Dad Says” which gave rise to the 2010 CBS series $#*! My Dad Says" and the best-selling book Sh*t My Dad Says, to Tucker Max's blog which begat  the best selling book  I Hope They Serve Beer in Hell (2006).

The Monkees hit in more gentle times. Strange to think of the 1960s as gentle, but they were in many ways, compared to now.  Davy Jones' "Daydream Believer" - written by John Stewart, of Kingston Trio fame- was always my favorite Monkees song.  Hey, Rock 'n' Roll Hall of Fame, wake up and induct The Monkees.  It's too late now for Davy, but his memory and the rest of The Monkees deserve this.

Olbermann vs. Koppel: I Mostly Agree with Olbermann

So, we were just treated to one of Olbermann's "Special Comments".  It was advertised as about Ted Koppel, which indeed it was.  I consider Koppel one of the greats of TV news people - successor with his Nightline (which I watched raptly for more than 25 years) to Murrow and Cronkite.   I was prepared to say in this blog post, well, I came to Olbermann's defense over MSNBC's inane suspension of him last week, but now I'm back to disliking his tone and even the content of many of his "Special Comments".  Except - I think Olbermann is mostly right in what he just said about Koppel.

Ted Koppel's op-ed in the Washington Post - Olbermann, O'Reilly, and the death of real news - is what, understandably, attracted Olbermann's attention and ire.   You all know the points that Koppel makes - that Fox and MSNBC are conservative and progressive equivalents,  presenting opinions not news, and their success has destroyed "objective" i. e., "real" news.

I agree completely with Koppel on the first point - the style and partisan equivalence of Fox and MSNBC - and that's in fact the one big point Olbermann made with which I flatly disagree.  I don't know why Olbermann and Rachel Maddow and others on MSNBC insist that they are more factual and less partisan than Fox.  Maddow made this same point to John Stewart, in her superb interview with him last week. 

But otherwise - neither Fox nor MSNBC are newsless.  Indeed, the news reporting of Bret Baier and Shep Smith on Fox is every bit  the factual equivalent of actual news that is reported on MSNBC throughout the day and night.   On that point, then, Koppel is point blank wrong, and Olbermann is wrong in saying that MSNBC has more respect for facts than does Fox.

Were this where Olbermann vs. Koppel ended, I might give the match to Koppel - right where Olbermann was wrong on the first point (Fox and MSNBC are indeed equivalent), then both wrong on second (Koppel that neither Fox and MSNBC present facts, Olbermann that Fox does not but MSNNC does).

But Olbermann showed his mettle and rose to the occasion with as lucid an analysis as ever I've seen about the myth of objectivity in news.  It was never true and therefore, of course, is not today.

I often make the point to my classes that when The New York Times says "all the news that fit to print" - who are they kidding?  What we're really getting is all the news that the Times deems fit to print - i.e., selects for us to read.  And the same for Walter Cronkite, "and that's the way it was".  Not really.   A more truthful tag line might have been "and that's what the editors here at CBS thought you should think it was".  This is called gate keeping, and it's one of the things the Internet, and what I call new new media, have reduced and in some cases eliminated.

Olbermann correctly cited the finest moments of Murrow and Cronkite as not being objective, but partisan - as when Murrow called out Joe McCarthy and Cronkite spoke out against the Vietnam War.   The fact is that the public is best served not just by blind reporting of the facts, but by strong opinions and keen analyses right along with the facts.  That's what op-eds in newspapers - such as Koppel's about the death of news - are all about.  That, as Olbermann correctly noted, is what Koppel and the news media did not do during the build-up to the Iraq War, when all that was reported was the "fact" that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction.

Olbermann's  point - that the pursuit of the illusion of objectivity in journalism may hurt the democracy that journalism serves - may just be the important point Olbermann ever made.  It's certainly not made clearly or often enough.

Obama at Midnight: "Power Concedes Nothing Without a Fight"

Obama saved the most important words of his rousing speech in Florida at midnight, with Bill Clinton at his side, for the end: "Power concedes nothing without a fight." In other words, don't rest confident in the polls. If you Obama to be President, make sure you vote, and encourage all of your friends to vote, too.

It was a high intensity day politically, especially in the evening -

1. Obama's 30-minute advertisement to the American people was excellent. It wouldn't have been necessary, had not the Republicans been constantly lying about Obama wanting to raise "your" taxes, repeating the idiocy of Obama being a "socialist," etc. Obama made his case to and for the American people. He looked Presidential, speaking, in part, from what looked like an Oval Office. I consider that not presumptive but appropriately predictive.

2. CNN made a show of taking some high road by refusing to air the commercial, and keeping to its (usually boring) political coverage. And what did CNN put on instead? John McCain, in a typically inarticulate interview by Larry King. So much for CNN's political coverage: what they did instead was give McCain free air time, opposite the time that Obama paid for, with money donated by the American people.

3. Obama also was on with John Stewart. Both were humorous and vibrant. Good thing for anyone who might have been falling asleep watching Larry King.

4. But I thought the best moment of the evening was Obama on the stage with Bill Clinton in Florida. It was good to see the previous Democratic President on stage with someone who so many hope will be the next one. (Obama quipped that Jimmy Smits - whom we saw with Obama and Clinton back stage before the speeches - was a Democratic President. Well, he did beat Alan Alda's Republican character-candidate for President on the West Wing. As long as Dexter wasn't there...)

But will Obama be elected? "Power concedes nothing without a fight" - an important update of Frederick Douglass' "Power concedes nothing without a demand." Obama will be elected only if everyone who supports him goes to the polls and votes.

Critics of Joe Biden's FDR-TV Gaffe Are Ignorant of History Themselves

Republicans, the media, and John Stewart have been yukking it up about what Joe Biden said to Katie Couric, "When the stock market crashed, Franklin D. Roosevelt got on the television and didn't just talk about the, you know, the princes of greed. He said, 'Look, here's what happened.'"

John Stewart sagely informs us that (1) "Roosevelt wasn't President when the stock market crashed" (in 1929), and (2) "no one had televisions". And The New York Times helpfully offers that "Herbert Hoover was president when the stock market crashed, in 1929. Roosevelt did not take office until March of 1933. When he did, Roosevelt communicated to the people over radio — not television."

Well ... apparently neither Stewart nor the Editorial Board of The New York Times are media historians.

Here's a little history for them:

1. Herbert Hoover (then Secretary of Commerce) and Walter S. Gifford (President of AT&T) participated in a conversation via television hook-up between Washington and New York in .... tada tada ... 1927!

2. FDR gave a televised address from the 1939 World's Fair in New York ... thereby becoming the first U.S. President to be televised.

3. FDR was televised from a Democratic Rally in Madison Square Garden in October, 1940.

So, here is what is TRUE about what Stewart, the New York Times, et al have been saying about Biden's gaffe: (1) FDR was indeed not President when the stock market crashed in 1929.

And, here is what is FALSE about what Stewart, the New York Times, et al have been saying about Biden's gaffe: (1) Contrary to what Stewart said, there was indeed television in 1927. (2) Contrary to what The New York Times said, although FDR was known for his fireside radio chats (see my The Soft Edge: A Natural History and Future of the Information Revolution for details), he indeed also communicated to Americans via television.

Now, television service was indeed much less common in the late 20s and the 30s and early 40s than it would soon after become, and Biden indeed was mostly in error in his statement to Couric ... But, media, next time you publicly take potshots at a VP candidate, open a book, look around a little on the Web, get your facts right ... It's not that hard.