(Ex) Broadcaster Says Serious News At Risk

mykevermin

CAGiversary!
Feedback
34 (97%)
The anchorman whose boss once characterized him as ice compared with his successor's fire was anything but chilly in the impassioned speech he delivered Tuesday at The Society of the Four Arts.

"Truth no longer matters in the context of politics and, sadly, in the context of cable news," said Aaron Brown, whose four-year period as anchor of CNN's NewsNight ended in November, when network executives gave his job to Anderson Cooper in a bid to push the show's ratings closer to front-runner Fox News.

Brown said he tried to give viewers a balanced diet of light and serious news with NewsNight. "But I always knew when I got to the Brussels sprouts, I was on thin ice," he said.

When NewsNight spent four hours covering the arrest of actor Robert Blake for the murder of his wife, Brown received thousands of e-mails criticizing the amount of time the show spent on the story. Nevertheless, that show, which aired in April 2002, received the highest ratings of any program since NewsNight's coverage of the November 2001 crash of American Airlines flight 587.

"Television is the most perfect democracy," Brown said. "You sit there with your remote control and vote." The remotes click to another channel when serious news airs, but when the media covers the scandals surrounding Laci Peterson, the Runaway Bride or Michael Jackson, "there are no clicks then," the journalist said.

With the departure from the screen of the "titans" — Tom Brokaw, Peter Jennings and Dan Rather — who "resisted the temptations of their bosses to go for the ratings grab, it will be years before an anchorman or anchorwoman will have the clout to fight these battles," he said.

Brown has spent most of his 30-year career in television news. He's covered everything from the Columbine High School murders to the aftermath of the space shuttle Columbia disaster. But viewers may remember best his on-the-spot coverage of the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center.

He's shocked "by how unkind our world has become," he said. E-mail and talk radio appear to have given people the license to say anything, regardless of how cruel or false it may be, he said.

He cited the example of an e-mail faulting what the sender considered to be NewsNight's inadequate coverage of an anti-war protest in Washington, D.C. The note ended with, "I hope the violence visited on the people of Iraq will someday be visited on your children."

Those on the opposite side of the political spectrum are no more tolerant, Brown said. "Any criticism of the administration is regarded as hatred of the president and hatred of the country itself," he said.

Important issues, such as the prosecution of the war in Iraq at home and abroad, are being clouded over by "mud-wrestling" that skirts substance, he said. Consider what he called "the swift-boating of John Murtha," the Democratic congressman whose war record was smeared when he called for an exit strategy in Iraq. "Cable didn't search for the truth, but engaged in mock debates pitting those making the charges against Murtha's defenders," he said.

Many Americans on the left and the right aren't interested in the truth, but simply want news that confirms their viewpoints, he said. "You'd think that it's no more complex than good vs. evil," he said.

Journalists have fallen short in presenting important news in ways that allow viewers to see how it matters in their lives. But viewers must take up the battle as well, he said. "It's not enough to say you want serious news. You have to watch it. It isn't enough to say you want serious debate. You have to engage in it."

http://www.palmbeachdailynews.com/news/content/news/brown0126.html

This is perhaps the most cogent assault on "news" in the modern era that avoids delving into trite partisan blather about some kind of "agenda" the news propogates. We can all agree that a great deal of what is covered on the news is total bullshit, from that dumbass missing girl in Aruba, to the Michael Jackson trial, to professional wrestling promos disguised as political talk (Crossfire, Hardball, O'Reilly, etc.). Kudos to Aaron Brown, though some may, perhaps rightly, accuse him of being a bitter ex-employee of CNN. This doesn't make his points invalid, in my opinion, but only the timing of them suspect.
 
Last week, we had Chris Matthews comparing war opponents to terrorists. Today, we have Katie Couric trying to tell Howard Dean that Democrats took $1.5 million from Jack Abramoff: http://thinkprogress.org/2006/01/26/couric-caught-on-tape

I like MSNBC's website, but HATE their programming. Tim Russert, Katie Couric, Brian Williams, and Chris Matthews. That show is joining CNN with trying to become the new Fox News.
 
[quote name='E-Z-B']Last week, we had Chris Matthews comparing war opponents to terrorists. Today, we have Katie Couric trying to tell Howard Dean that Democrats took $1.5 million from Jack Abramoff: http://thinkprogress.org/2006/01/26/couric-caught-on-tape

I like MSNBC's website, but HATE their programming. Tim Russert, Katie Couric, Brian Williams, and Chris Matthews. That show is joining CNN with trying to become the new Fox News.[/QUOTE]

I wish someday someone would take Katie to task on the Today Show, saying how full of shit she is for loving Bush. Basically embarrassing the shit out of her and letting the Fox News cover be shown.
 
I've known about this sh*t since I'm a journalism student and it makes me happier that I've not chosen broadcast. I had my gripes with it before, but it's confirmation is always nice.
 
So, what exactly is the allure of Anderson Cooper? I've not watched much of him, but what I have seen is just as boring as any other anchor.
 
[quote name='capitalist_mao']So, what exactly is the allure of Anderson Cooper? I've not watched much of him, but what I have seen is just as boring as any other anchor.[/QUOTE]

Chicks dig him.

You could join PBS senor but you'd never get laid. ;-P
 
[quote name='capitalist_mao']So, what exactly is the allure of Anderson Cooper? I've not watched much of him, but what I have seen is just as boring as any other anchor.[/QUOTE]

he got aaron brown's job with his work on katrina
 
[quote name='Sarang01']I wish someday someone would take Katie to task on the Today Show, saying how full of shit she is for loving Bush. Basically embarrassing the shit out of her and letting the Fox News cover be shown.[/QUOTE]

Isn't Katie Couric a liberal?
 
[quote name='senorwoohoo']I've known about this sh*t since I'm a journalism student and it makes me happier that I've not chosen broadcast. I had my gripes with it before, but it's confirmation is always nice.[/QUOTE]
I'm in the same situation as you, and couldn't agree more.
 
[quote name='munch']Isn't Katie Couric a liberal?[/QUOTE]

Yeah, Katie may be one of the show hosts that I hate most on TV, but I'm pretty sure she leans to the left politically. I just don't know how someone can be so sanctimonious on everything.
 
So, does not paying attention to Cable news make me any less of a political scientist? I read all these names, whom I know are anchors, but know nothing about.
 
Its been this way for many years now... I'm glad its finally getting more attention. John Stewart made the same point, and it was ridiculed because it came from a comedian... Basically the same ad hominem attacks (attack the messenger instead of the message) that they use every day on cable. Cable news isn't interested in the truth, it wants to take the two sides and let them bullshit each other as much as they want. Its not news, its theatre.

I liked Aaron Brown, but I only watched him because I was at work, in front of a TV when he was on. He'll get a job somewhere. I would say PBS, but they're no longer above this crap themselves, after what they did to Bill Moyers.
 
Hey, myke, you may be interested in this concerning Russert:

UPDATE: Lauer Says ‘Technically Speaking,’ It ‘May Be’ That Abramoff Gave Only to Republicans

Yesterday, Today show anchor Katie Couric falsely claimed that “Democrats took money from Jack Abramoff.” Challenged on her facts, Couric said she “would look into that and clarify that for our viewers.”

Returning to the topic this morning, NBC’s Matt Lauer and Tim Russert both reiterated the right-wing talking point that the Abramoff scandal is bipartisan.

LAUER: Katie pressed him (Howard Dean) on that and we did some research. We went to the Center for Responsive Politics and found out that technically speaking, Howard Dean may be correct. But here’s what we found. That 66 percent of the money in this situation went to Republicans, but 34 percent of the money — not from Abramoff, but from his associates and clients — went to Democrats. So, can Democrats wash their hands of this?

RUSSERT: No, they will say it is a primarily a Republican scandal because the personal money of Abramoff went only to Republicans. But Matt, the issue is broad and wide. Democrats also understand that they accept trips from lobbyists and meals and so forth , and that’s why in order to reform all this, it has to be a bipartisan approach. But Democrats get raging mad when you suggest this is a bipartisan scandal.

Matt Lauer doesn’t get it: Katie Couric’s claim was completely wrong. It simply isn’t true that Democrats received money from Jack Abramoff, and there is nothing “technical” about it.

Moreover, Tim Russert’s response to Lauer was misleading. Prominent Democrats haven’t denied that corruption is widespread in Washington. They acknowledge that ethical improprieties — such as the lobbyist-funded trips that Russert mentions — are a bipartisan problem. But they are right to get “raging mad when you suggest this is a bipartisan scandal,” because the Abramoff scandal is not bipartisan.


http://thinkprogress.org/2006/01/27/lauer-russert-abramoff

russertlauer012706II.jpg


The media is still trying their best to paint this as a bipartisan scandal.
 
[quote name='camoor']Yeah, Katie may be one of the show hosts that I hate most on TV, but I'm pretty sure she leans to the left politically. I just don't know how someone can be so sanctimonious on everything.[/QUOTE]

Pretty sure she leans right. She made a comment about how she wanted some of the items they were selling or giving away (I forget) at the GOP convention in NYC in 2004. She made specific mention of a glass elephant that they had.

I doubt she would have made such a comment unless she leaned that way politically.
 
I know I'm stealing this idea from someone else, I just don't remember who.

Everytime a politician takes money from a lobbyist they should have to add the lobbyist's logo to their suit just like NASCAR. If you're gonna be corrupt, at least let us know who you're beholden to.
 
The reason you don't remember is because it was Jay Leno, who may have accidentally told the only funny joke in his career when he said that.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']The reason you don't remember is because it was Jay Leno, who may have accidentally told the only funny joke in his career when he said that.[/QUOTE]
Yep, that's definitely why I blocked it out. I hate Leno. But I guess one of his writers had a good day when they came up with that idea.
 
I'm amused by a morally superior Dean painting the Democrats as not having received money from Abramoff, as if it's the only example of corruption in Washington and, as if democrats don't take money from any lobbyist. Dems are as pure as wind blown white snow.

And Couric is a definite left leaner, don't let her badgering of Dean fool you. She's trying to groom herself for her impending anchor position.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']I'm amused by a morally superior Dean painting the Democrats as not having received money from Abramoff, as if it's the only example of corruption in Washington and, as if democrats don't take money from any lobbyist. Dems are as pure as wind blown white snow.

And Couric is a definite left leaner, don't let her badgering of Dean fool you. She's trying to groom herself for her impending anchor position.[/QUOTE]
Well, then the morally superior Republicans would certainly not mind an independent investigation into this matter, would they?

Oh, wait. Their stalling and footdragging is the reason why the investigation has taken this long in the first place.

Oh, by the way. Democrats haven't received any money from Abramoff directly. From his clients, yes, not as much as Republicans, but yes. From Abramoff himself? Only Republicans.
 
[quote name='dafoomie']Well, then the morally superior Republicans would certainly not mind an independent investigation into this matter, would they?

Oh, wait. Their stalling and footdragging is the reason why the investigation has taken this long in the first place.

Oh, by the way. Democrats haven't received any money from Abramoff directly. From his clients, yes, not as much as Republicans, but yes. From Abramoff himself? Only Republicans.[/QUOTE]

This is just what I'm talking about. You think this should be centered around Abramoff and Republicans, as if it's the only example of corruption in washington. Guess what, it's not. Let's look at more than just lobbyists and talk about who gives money to campaigns besides lobbyists. I'm saying who gives a shit about ONE lobbyist. Lets put it all on the table and I'm not hearing that from ANY of you or anyone in the media.

I'm not excusing the republicans who took money from Abramofff, they should get what they deserve. And they aren't morally superior as Dean would like to think of his party. Abramoff is just the tip of the iceberg and focusing on this scandal for political purposes only serves to obfuscate all of the other corruption going on there. Just like the frenzy to find and publish photos of Bush shaking hands with him as if it's proof of Bush's corrupt administration. I'm sure he shook a lot more corrupt people's hands. And I'm sure there's a lot of handshaking going on in Washington as I type this that's a lot worse that Abramoff. You people are so far in the dark that you're blinded by the light that's nearest you and you don't realize there's a whole lit up sky above ground.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']This is just what I'm talking about. You think this should be centered around Abramoff and Republicans, as if it's the only example of corruption in washington. Guess what, it's not. Let's look at more than just lobbyists and talk about who gives money to campaigns besides lobbyists. I'm saying who gives a shit about ONE lobbyist. Lets put it all on the table and I'm not hearing that from ANY of you or anyone in the media.[/quote]
Of course its not the only example. Of course it happens all the time. Both parties do it, and it should be cleaned up. But, the senate and the house are both doing nothing. And they won't appoint an independent prosecutor to the Abramoff case. And who controls the house and the senate? The Republicans.

[quote name='bmulligan']I'm not excusing the republicans who took money from Abramofff, they should get what they deserve. And they aren't morally superior as Dean would like to think of his party.[/quote]
No party is or has ever been "morally superior". Though I do get irritated a little because a lot of Republicans run on "morals" in their campaigns, as if they have a monopoly on morality.

[quote name='bmulligan']Abramoff is just the tip of the iceberg and focusing on this scandal for political purposes only serves to obfuscate all of the other corruption going on there. Just like the frenzy to find and publish photos of Bush shaking hands with him as if it's proof of Bush's corrupt administration. I'm sure he shook a lot more corrupt people's hands. And I'm sure there's a lot of handshaking going on in Washington as I type this that's a lot worse that Abramoff. You people are so far in the dark that you're blinded by the light that's nearest you and you don't realize there's a whole lit up sky above ground.[/QUOTE]
So, you don't want this investigated, because its for a "political purpose"? I agree that there is widespread corruption on both sides and the system needs to change. But, I don't see the Republicans very willing to investigate themselves, so if they won't, then the only other option is for the Democrats to do it to advance their agenda. Its better than no investigation at all.

This is why we have more than one political party, to keep each other honest. The Republicans have complete power right now, they have the President, the Senate, and the House. And I don't see them doing anything about it. All I see them doing is obstructing this investigation. So, if it takes the Democrats to pressure the Republicans into an investigation for their own purposes, then so be it. Otherwise, they'd just sweep this under the rug and pretend nothing happened.

It serves the Republicans purposes politically to get everything out into the open as soon as possible, make this a big one day story instead of a long, 10 month story which will affect the midterm elections. It serves their purposes politically to take a stand on this, to say, "We, the Republican Party, will not stand for this type of corruption." It would help them more than anything in the midterm elections. But they're not doing it. They don't want this investigated and they don't want this information getting out, which only helps the Democrats.
 
If I was a republican I'd want the republican party to let those tainted with this incident burn. Totally disavow and out those involved to the best of their ability.
 
[quote name='dafoomie']So, you don't want this investigated, because its for a "political purpose"? [/quote]

No, not at all. If you read my earlier posts, I said everyone involved should get what they deserve.

So, if it takes the Democrats to pressure the Republicans into an investigation for their own purposes, then so be it. Otherwise, they'd just sweep this under the rug and pretend nothing happened.

If you think having two parties makes both of them more honest you're crazy. I expect to see maybe 1 or 2 of the most egregious examples forced to resign and then this problem will get side swept after the election in November. None of them, democrat or republican, wants serious investigation into lobbying and donation practices becuase it will shut down the gravy train.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']Abramoff is just the tip of the iceberg and focusing on this scandal for political purposes only serves to obfuscate all of the other corruption going on there. Just like the frenzy to find and publish photos of Bush shaking hands with him as if it's proof of Bush's corrupt administration. I'm sure he shook a lot more corrupt people's hands. [/QUOTE]
Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, "Brownie", Ashcroft, Libby, Rove, Gonzales, etc.
 
bread's done
Back
Top