John Podesta on Cable News
One thing that always bothers me about discussions of the transition to online media is that the conversations often seem to skip very quickly from how things were in 1975 and leap ahead to what started to emerge around 2005. The whole key phenomena of the 1980s and 1990s—the rise of talk radio and 24-hour cable news—just kind of vanish. But I’d unquestionably rather read any major conservative blog than listen to Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck on the radio. Blogs have links and you can check these stories out. And honestly just about anything is a better way of informing yourself about politics than is following the rapid-fire talking heads on cable TV. Just going on vacation for two weeks and not paying attention to anything might be better. As the boss says:
“On the cable networks, the intensity of conflict is what drives their shows, so everything is turned into a referendum,” said John D. Podesta, president of the Center for American Progress, who served as chief of staff for President Clinton and the co-chairman of the transition team for Mr. Obama. “It’s worse than it was four years ago, and its worse than it was four years before that. It’s on a new slope.”
You can remember this from the campaign. The statistical fluctuations in tracking polls were given as a reason to paint this very exciting narrative in which each and every round of attack and counter-attack had enormous implications for the outcome. It’s not clear what alternative the producers have. I don’t think “no need to watch today, the news isn’t actually that interesting” would attract many viewers. And doing real in-depth reporting is very expensive. You’d probably attract a few more viewers with meatier content, but it wouldn’t be worth the cost. So it is what it is.
But the truly strange thing is how much influence these things have. Almost nobody watches daytime cable news (the prime-time shows are a different matter). But a very high proportion of people who work professionally in the political arena, including reporters for print publications that often have a much larger audience, do watch daytime cable news. Consequently, whether or not something is playing well on cable or driving the cable conversation ends up having a big psychological impact on people “in the game.”
24 Responses to “John Podesta on Cable News”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
March 30th, 2009 at 2:50 pm
But I’d unquestionably rather read any major conservative blog than listen to Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck on the radio
Yuck. Gag me with a spoon. I’d waaaaay rather listen to Rush than read Red State or some other mindless blather online. The guy is a legitimate and talented performance artist. His show is fascinating, entertaining, and hilarious (not a regular, mind you, but it’s good company when making long road trips through scary, depopulated places). Beck, though, I simply can’t stomach.
March 30th, 2009 at 2:52 pm
Classic Greenwald quote: “If you watch cable television news during the daytime, you can actually physiclly [sic] feel your brain shrinking.”
March 30th, 2009 at 3:05 pm
The really strange thing to me is how having CNN, FOX or CNBC on a television with the volume muted is regarded as such a badge of seriousness in so many offices. As if something really important were likely to appear at any moment. And yet, the more news we have, the less important it becomes–most cable news is at about the level of a celebrity gossip column.
March 30th, 2009 at 3:19 pm
To every village its idiots.
As we are not likely to get rid of the cable “political news” it seems we have little choice but to do away with the professional political arena-istes.
Up against the wall Podesta!
March 30th, 2009 at 3:26 pm
I had the vague sense that cable news seems much more awful now than it used to, but I don’t watch it regularly enough to judge, and it’s good to have my growing revulsion ratified.
It’s like 24 hours of Crossfire.
March 30th, 2009 at 3:33 pm
I get the sense that the way non-news junkies get the news is a bit like a game of telephone where no one is really trying very hard. The wires rattle off story after story, and the cable news chatter kicks around some of those stories, the nightly news shows pluck from the best of the cable chatter, and the sunday shows regurgitate the highlights of the week. And then the casual news consumer picks up bits and pieces from some collection of these sources, or from headlines, and latches on to a few key phrases. It’s like overhearing a conversation about a conversation about a conversation. And the modern art of politics and PR is getting your bit cranked up to the maximum volume to pierce the veil.
Very little about this process seems to reflect any actual reality, and it does a haphazard job of informing anyone about anything. There’s very little context and even less perspective and almost no real diversity of opinion or viewpoint, and a small number of individuals have an enormous impact on the way things are talked about. Because of all of this, the system is easily gamed.
March 30th, 2009 at 3:36 pm
The really strange thing to me is how having CNN, FOX or CNBC on a television with the volume muted is regarded as such a badge of seriousness in so many offices
It’s even worse in bars. I guess they feel mixing this crap in with sports will attract a “more professional” crowd. But they play it muted without the closed captions. If you ask them to put the captions on, they look at you like your crazy, as if to say, “do you really care about this shit?”
March 30th, 2009 at 4:00 pm
What I’d like to see is an in-depth discussion of a specific policy that would take it apart and show all the ways it could go wrong and all the things its backers aren’t telling us. If they could make it brief and entertaining – perhaps by spreading it over several days – they could really do a public service.
March 30th, 2009 at 4:12 pm
The deference by the political classes to cable news media is fascinating. It’s like they think the media works for the public like it works for them. The media takes the politicians message to the public, and the political class seems to think that the public uses the media in the reverse way. This might be true of a local newspaper or local news network, but definitely not of cable news.
Watching cable news, you just see routinely see groups of people that just don’t fucking get it. Part of what i love about Obama is that his team is just as cynical of the mainstream press as I am.
March 30th, 2009 at 4:22 pm
“What I’d like to see is an in-depth discussion of a specific policy that would take it apart and show all the ways it could go wrong and all the things its backers aren’t telling us.”
Well, see, that would be awfully partisan. Because Republicans don’t have any specific policies.
March 30th, 2009 at 4:52 pm
Shut the fuck up, Lonewacko.
March 30th, 2009 at 4:54 pm
The print media does reflect cable news, much to the discredit of both. And Matt Drudge rules their world, which is just cringe inducing.
March 30th, 2009 at 5:03 pm
The press (and even the cablenewsers) forget talk radio for a few reasons. Talk radio positioned itself as samizdat, whispering under the radar. You don’t have readily-available transcripts of Limbaugh from his early days. They’re not fetchable on Lexis-Nexis.
As for cable news, it’s pure reactive lizard-brain bullshit.
March 30th, 2009 at 5:45 pm
I’m going to agree with Jasper. At least with Fox News you know it’s all about ratings. The blowhards on most conservative blogs actually believe the stuff they right.
March 30th, 2009 at 5:46 pm
write*, though I guess it’s a clever enough typo
March 30th, 2009 at 7:48 pm
Who is this “Everyone” who writes “STFU, Lonewacko”, every time 24AheadDotCom writes a post? Seriously, it’s annoying. Let the strength or weakness of Mr. 24Ahead’s right-wing views stand on their own merits.
March 30th, 2009 at 10:22 pm
Years ago, Daniel Boorstin wrote a book about the rise of pseudo-events in media, called “The Image”. He was complaining about the manufacture of events in the 50’s, but one of the things that really stands out to me from the book is his comment that the reader of a newspaper that reported “Nothing happened today” would think to themselves not “What a dull day”, but “what a dull newspaper”.
I actually think that television news accentuates the worst of all moods – television isn’t an introspective medium in the way that print is, you’re spoon-fed the information and you can’t really move backwards or sideways through it. It’s best served by simple, emotional images. News is education, and education requires concentration, and I don’t think TV news is equipped financially or as a medium to provide that.
March 31st, 2009 at 6:52 am
Who asked you, nbt?
March 31st, 2009 at 9:57 am
‘What I’d like to see is an in-depth discussion of a specific policy’
Then watch the News Hour on PBS. This is really quite a unique show. After an hour I feel like I’ve learned something I didn’t know before. Not perfect but the best news show out there.
April 1st, 2009 at 11:39 am
I asked him.
April 4th, 2009 at 12:16 pm
What is really rich is complaining about certain popular talk hosts who are engaged with issues while posting items like this long dull obvious statement that never aspires to be more than a statement of personal preference. Why?
April 6th, 2009 at 4:44 am
Does your boss pay you to quote him?
April 9th, 2009 at 4:40 pm
My fellow on Facebook shared this link and I’m not dissapointed at all that I came to your blog.
April 15th, 2009 at 11:01 am
Hello, I found your blog in a new directory of blogs. I dont know how your blog came up, must have been a typo, Your blog looks good. Have a nice day.