It's a Good Time to Stop Watching Cable News

I barely watch CNN. When I do turn it on, there are a bunch of pundits around a table. What the hell is the point? Here's a few Republicans, some Democrats, a Libertarian, and a host. No thanks. Jeff Zucker flat out saying what we knew was true--that cable news is a game about ratings and profits--is reason enough to avoid cable news.

There is nothing you can do to get me to watch Fox News. I've written about them before. Sean Hannity is all in with the Donald. No thanks. Bill O'Reilly still plays the part of a working-class Irish guy despite the fact that he's been making millions of dollars for years. Hey, let's celebrate Megyn Kelly--she's the reasonable one, right? No thanks, I have no interest in feeding her brand or contributing to her next enormous contract.

And then MSNBC, starring Mika and Joe. What the hell is their deal with Trump? Whatever their relationship with Trump is, it's just too weird for me. I don't want to hear them talk about Trump in their capacity as friends or quasi-advisers or whatever. Yes, they'll be tough on him occasionally for cover and to appear fair, but I have no reason to trust what they say. Nor do I want to watch Chris Matthews ask 1,400 word questions or continue to constantly interrupt his guests. The sad thing is, he has good guests on his show at times. Recently, I watched a Hardball segment with Molly Ball (from The Atlantic). She was smart and insightful when she actually had a chance to say something. Problem is, Matthews kept interrupting her. And the guy just gets too damn excited about the sport of politics. MSNBC loves horse race politics. There are plenty of times that Rachel Maddow and Chris Hayes offer something other than horse race politics, but they still are part of a corporate cable news landscape that offers superficial analysis and too often lapses into "he said, she said" coverage. This is a channel that parted ways with Melissa Harris-Perry, apparently because she didn't do enough horse race politics on her show. It's a channel with Brian Williams on air. Am I to believe that Brian Williams can give a reliable account of events, knowing he was suspended from NBC for not telling the truth???

Why do I continue to watch these channels knowing they will not deliver news and analysis in a responsible manner? I can't bear to watch them be played by Trump during his presidency. I can do without cable news. It's a good time for me to stop watching. As a news junkie I'll be looking for ways to fill the void. I intend to pay more attention to how BBC and CBC cover news, politics, and world affairs.

President Obama is Called a "Total Pussy" on Fox News

Lt. Col. Ralph Peters, "a strategic analyst" for Fox News, called President Obama a "total pussy." A total pussy. Everybody got that? I don't think this got enough attention. I saw the story here at NYMag but it didn't seem to attract a lot of discussion. Granted, there's a lot of things to worry about and infinite fodder available for water cooler talk, but it's not everyday you hear a commentator go out of his way to emasculate the president. Even on Fox News. I have no special ax to grind against Fox News. I think cable news in general is awful. But as I've written previously on this blog, Fox News has somehow become the default station at a variety of places. For whatever reason, there's many a business owner that plays this station for its customers. It's just not a station I want to see at a restaurant or a grocery store. I know there's a significant portion of the country that doesn't care for the president. But I'd bet most of his critics have little or no interest in him being insulted in such a crude way. I'm not super outraged or losing sleep over this segment. But I honestly find it disgusting to insult the president like this.

First TVs, Then Fox News on TV

Increasingly, Fox News seems to be the default station in restaurants and other establishments that I visit. I live in Western New York (also known as the Buffalo-Niagara region), a place that a friend once described as "a red part of a blue state." There obviously was a time when flat screen televisions weren't playing in grocery stores and diners; now it's common for me to see Fox News airing in these and other places.

The experience of being in airports with CNN on every screen is familiar to many. When CNN is on the screen, it's easier for me to grasp. After all, CNN was the first cable news operation, and is still considered by some to be a neutral news source (or at least to provide the appearance thereof). If Fox and MSNBC occupy polar opposites of the cable news spectrum in their overall presentation of politics, CNN exists somewhere in-between, at times closer to MSNBC, other times nearer to Fox.

It's rare for me to see MSNBC airing in local establishments. MSNBC projects something resembling the liberal viewpoint, however 'liberal' is to be understood when presented by a corporate-cable news entertainment operation. MSNBC hosts and pundits don't always flatter President Obama and other Democrats. But the channel tends to give Democrats the benefit of the doubt in its construction of 'progressive' politics and viewpoints. MSNBC, in a 'lean forward' corporate way, sends signals about politics and culture that are qualitatively different than those that come from Fox News.

The most recent instance of seeing Fox News on a screen in public was when I went to a diner with my family. I'd never been to the diner before. We were seated at a booth. Two big TV screens were easy for me to see: a local news station on one and Fox News on the other. A music station was playing, so the TVs were muted. So one screen was Fox News (known for sensational headlines and coverage obviously unflattering to President Obama and anything approximating the liberal cause). The juxtaposition was interesting: local news doing what local news does (crime stories, pet stories, profiles of local businesses, weather forecasts) alongside Fox News (consistent undermining of President Obama and other Democrat politicians).

I'm not sure what place Fox News has in a diner. Or a supermarket. If you're wondering, it's not MSNBC that I want to see on these screens. The torso and head of Chris Hayes or Ed Schultz doesn't naturally fit into a diner or supermarket scheme either. I don't walk into a coffee shop hoping to see Morning Joe on the screen ("brewed by Starbucks"). I don't know any self-described liberal who eagerly anticipates the next opinion from Ed Rendell or Eugene Robinson. Corporate cable news-entertainment from any station at the pub and elsewhere in public feels to me like an intrusion; an unwanted and unnecessary infusion of politics into my everyday life.

All of this to say: It used to be that television screens were reserved for sports bars and airports, now they appear in more and more places where I live, and usually set to Fox News. Why? To what effect?

I hope a few readers will share observations. What is it like in your daily life--TVs set to The Weather Channel, ESPN, local news, or something else? How do you feel about what's on? In terms of the stations that are on, what messages do you think are being sent to patrons?

.

Interview with HOTT News Founder Steve Rose

I hadn't talked with Steve Rose, the founder of HOTT News, in several months. I just finished interviewing him. Here is the full transcript of our interview:

TS: You always have interesting opinions about the cable news business. Where do you think you stand in the cable news landscape and what do you make of your competition?

SR: Let's start with the facts. We're the hottest. No one brings hottness like HOTT News. Our on-air talent (and off-air talent) are all hot. So we've got the edge there. Substance doesn't matter (obviously) but we also score highly on substance. Without even trying (in fact, in trying not to have substance) we actually have more substance than our competitors. It's true in daytime and in prime time.

TS: Can you be more specific?

SR: I can, but I like to avoid specifics. C'mon, this isn't rocket science. CNN is floating in the deep end, flailing its arms wildly in search of a life jacket. MSNBC is busy doing a fine impression of Fox News. Current TV lasted a few weeks. So we're shooting up the charts.

TS: You compare MSNBC to Fox News. Isn't that false equivalency?

SR: Nope. Increasingly, they are offering the same product. Obviously one is from the left and the other is from the right. No doubt Fox News is better at inventing reality. But overall, MSNBC and Fox News play loosely with a different set of half-truths. MSNBC just hired David Axlerod and Robert Gibbs as contributors. That kills their last shred of credibility. Period.

TS: But isn't it perfectly reasonable that MSNBC take advantage of their political insights?

SR: It's perfectly unreasonable. MSNBC's slogan should be "Inside Baseball" or "Horse Race Politics." That's all they have to offer. In that vein, Axlerod and Gibbs make a lot of sense. But the genre is called cable news for a reason. We are supposed to be in the business of delivering news. MSNBC and Fox News are both terrible at delivering news.

TS: And CNN?

SR: If there's a cruise ship disaster, you dial up CNN. Otherwise, don't even bother.

TS: Your network continues to be a lightning rod for criticism. One observer even called  you the "Hooters of cable news." How do you respond?

SR: Awesome. That's right on target. I need to tweet that person immediately and offer a job. That's pithy and pitch perfect. That's the kind of honesty we need right now. Is the person who said that hot?

TS: I'm confused.

SR: Don't be. Americans need news and they need it now. They like news delivered by hot people. We offer  real news by really hot people. Don't over think it. This is good.

The End.

HOTT News Adds Pundit to the Mix

HOTT News--set to debut next month--has hired a full-time pundit to cover the 2012 presidential election. Che Clinton, who will only say his educational background is having a Ph.D. in punditry, is excited to join the HOTT News team. "I join the cable news industry at a critical time. CNN is on life support, FOX News is completely discredited, and MSNBC has hit a ratings ceiling. No one can find Current TV in their cable package. So here we come."

Curious about his first name, I asked if it was a tribute to Che Guevara. "I'm sorry, but I don't know who that is. Che is short for cliche. I specialize in cliches. You know, you can't spell my name without cliche!" I asked Mr. Clinton what kind of political expertise he will bring to the HOTT News round table. "Not much. Basically, I just repeat what I hear other people saying, but I say it in more interesting ways. Analysis is paralysis, as I like to say. Analysis is for goons is another. Primarily, I'm here to fun chat." Fun chat? Did I hear that right? Mr. Clinton continued: "Cable news excels at manufacturing controversy. And the talking heads are admirable in their blowhardness. But there's no fun. Except for Bill O'Reilly's quizzes about pop culture from the 1960s. That's super fun. Aside from that, it's miserable. Talking, talking, talking. It's bad enough to be stuck in an airport. Can you imagine being stuck in an airport and having to watch CNN? OMG, I'm having a nervous breakdown just thinking about it."

I asked Mr. Clinton if he wanted to share any observations about the 2012 presidential contest. "This election is going to be about paper or plastic. 2008 was all about the kitchen table. You know, the kitchen table as a metaphor for families hunkering down to figure out their budget and pay bills. Well, any pundit who says "kitchen table" or "pocketbook" is working with yesterday's cliches. This year the big cliche is "paper or plastic," meaning when you go to the grocery store you're given the choice of paper or plastic. Personally, I ask for both, because the paper sack is a perfect container for my empty cans and bottles, and I use plastic bags to seal up my one-year-old's poopy diapers. Sorry, TMI! But really, "paper or plastic" as a metaphor for grocery bills is going to be my bread and butter cliche. Bet on it."

Wow, he sure is good. I have to admit, I'm likely to tune in when Mr. Clinton mans the cliche machine next month on HOTT News.

HOTT News Developing Show to Compete with 60 Minutes

Lee Roger Hodgson, Developer of Programming for HOTT News, plans to take on 60 Minutes. Hodgson grew up watching 60 Minutes and has profound respect for the show. "Ed Bradley was my hero growing up," said Hodgson, "He was an outstanding journalist." But Hodgson believes the show needs a serious tweak, and that's where HOTT News enters the fray. Hodgson envisons a thirty minute show with shorter segments. Tentatively, the program is called 30 Minutes. Hodgson explained what he has in mind: "The premise is that sixty minutes is just too long. So why not cut it in half? We're thinking four segments, each of them slightly over seven minutes in length. Fast and fun, baby! And no commercial breaks. Instead, the occasional advertisement will scroll at the bottom of the screen. We're also toying with the idea of our correspondents occasionally wearing corporate logos for a revenue stream."

I asked Hodgson if investigative journalism would be the key feature of 30 Minutes. "Absolutely not," he said without blinking. "No no no no no. No. We plan to take the investigative journalism out of investigative journalism. I mean, maybe a correspondent will be able to slip a piece of investigative journalism by us once in a while. But ultimately, we regard investigative journalism as a thing of the past."

So what does Hodgson have in mind? And if it's not investigative journalism, how does he expect 30 Minutes to compete with 60 Minutes? "Did you see Anderson Cooper's interview of Michael Phelps?" Hodgson asked. "That was brilliant! Cooper palling around with Phelps, the two of them playing a video game. That was inspiring television. You won't find a television executive who wasn't impressed by that. I won't kid you, that's exactly the kind of thing we want to do. Infotainment. What the world needs now is more infotainment. We believe that's the direction 60 Minutes is heading. Believe me, we won't be out-infoentertained by 60 Minutes!

So there you have it: 30 Minutes will offer short segments of infotainment without commercial breaks. Sounds to me like 60 Minutes will soon have a serious competitor to confront.

In Cable News Wars, HOTT News Sees An Opening

HOTT News is the brainchild of Steve Rose, a young man who describes himself as a "rich kid from Malibu." He is busy courting investors as he develops a twenty-four hour news channel. He does not consider himself an expert in cable news. At 24-years-old, he depends on a wise source to understand the history of cable news: his father. "My dad tells me that CNN used to be relevant, which is hard for me to believe," says Rose, finishing a game on Xbox. Rose doesn't care much for news, except to the extent that it can make him money. Rose is rich by virtue of inheritance. Other than the Jaguar he drives, he does not possess a lot of material goods. He is determined not to squander his riches. Even with slight understanding of the cable news industry, he sees opportunity: "Look at Current TV. Actually, don't. It'll hurt your eyes. What's going on over there doesn't make sense. 'Let's go left of MSNBC.' How is that a successful strategy?"

Rose flips through the channels as we talk, staying on MTV for a while, then ESPN, and lands on Fox News. "Everything about Fox News has already been said, so I won't repeat it. I'll only say that the clock is running out. Sooner or later, their viewers will get it. And then they'll change the channel." So where will the viewers turn? Rose hopes it will be HOTT News.

Rose has a vision of a channel in which news is delivered in unconventional ways. "The anchors and reporters will be, shall we say, hot. Very hot." But won't that compromise the integrity of the content, I ask him. "Integrity? You live in America, right? Where do you see integrity? Integrity has left the building. Enter hotness." Confused, I probe for a clearer description of what viewers can expect if HOTT News comes to fruition. "Look, it's not going to be a case of opinion masquerading as news, or news hiding behind a thin veil of supposed objectivity. This is not your parents' cable news station. This is MTV meets ESPN meets the old CNN." That doesn't make any sense to me, so I ask again what he means. Frustrated, he offers a blunt answer: "Hot people delivering news and opinion. But finally, you'll know which is which. That's it." Is he concerned about what demographic he will attract, or what segments of the population he will leave out? "Absolutely not," he says with confidence. "Everybody likes hottness shaken and stirred." Still confused, I thank him for his time, and leave the interview very concerned about the future of cable news.

We Don't Need No Thought Control

I’ve heard “Another Brick in the Wall” by Pink Floyd approximately 7,000 times in my life. But on this beautiful Sunday morning the line “We don’t need no thought control” stood out to me in a new way. It made me think of cable news and general punditry that surrounds it. The cable news talking heads offer unlimited opinions without facilitating critical thought. Sometimes, people with different views appear on a set and exchange perspectives. But even in those cases the segments are short, news of the day scrolls across the bottom of the screen, voices usually raise, people tend to get cut off, and then it’s over. The next conversation is always the least satisfying. Some of my best days are when I don’t watch the news. The news isn’t news anymore. It feels more like thought control.