Media Thread

there's a space in the mediasphere that is currently unoccupied. it's the long-format political debate. the kind of thing buckley did back in the 60s and 70s. you'd get a competent and well-read academic type to moderate and mediate between guests occupying different ends of a very radical spectrum. it wasn't just buckley, there were many others. but the quality of debate on newsshows has been in the shitter for twenty years and that represented a decline from the 70s. you can watch three hour debates between white conservatives and black nationalists from the 1960s which are not only interesting but also much more respectful and courteous than anything you'll find on the major networks today. that's pretty fecking remarkable considering the times we're talking about. the civil rights movement, jim crow, general racism. yet they still had better political shows then than they do now. the hosts didn't shout the guests down or berate them with preconceived talking points. they let the conversation evolve organically and then pushed back in places and it generally went from there. it was and is superior to anything on air today. that format gave way to the monologue and to the howard beale styled host who pretends to mirror the frustrations of his viewers. the fox news model in a nutshell but cnn and csnbc replicated it and it's absolutely useless. anyone watching these shows regularly must have a penchant for self-reinforcing orwellian yell at the screen for a few minutes kind of masochism.

don't know if that's what cnn is aiming for but there is a massive market open for it. look at callin. or any other internet alternative medium. the reason people are listening to these longform political shows is because they are substantive and push beyond the constraints imposed by advertising demands and partisan editorials. the mainstream is heavily overproduced and saturated with what is largely a bunch of crap. they've just given the substantive market to youtubers, podcasters, tweeters, and bloggers. that's a stupid mistake.

cspan up until recently was a good model in terms of political debate. you couldn't just replicate their model because it wasn't edgy enough and had the vibe of an early morning call in instead of an evening debate, but in terms of quality that's the kind of thing the corporate media does not do any more. chris hedges does a good line in that sort of thing but it's usually limited to one guest. sackur in the uk on hardtalk does something similar but more narrow. or a kind of two and a half hour version of question time without the obligatory labour mp and tory mp each repeating the party line of the day is what they should aim for, only with the production values scaled all the way back and with a host who is not a performer, or only a performer, but actually intelligent. a dimbleby type figure who chaired question time really well until bruce, who is absolutely shit, would work well within a revamped version of the 60s/70s buckley format.
 
Last edited:
neverdie said:
there's a space in the mediasphere that is currently unoccupied. it's the long-format political debate. the kind of thing buckley did back in the 60s and 70s. you'd get a competent and well-read academic type to moderate and mediate between guests occupying different ends of a very radical spectrum. it wasn't just buckley, there were many others. but the quality of debate on newsshows has been in the shitter for twenty years and that represented a decline from the 70s. you can watch three hour debates between white conservatives and black nationalists from the 1960s which are not only interesting but also much more respectful and courteous than anything you'll find on the major networks today. that's pretty fecking remarkable considering the times we're talking about. the civil rights movement, jim crow, general racism. yet they still had better political shows then than they do now. the hosts didn't shout the guests down or berate them with preconceived talking points. they let the conversation evolve organically and then pushed back in places and it generally went from there. it was and is superior to anything on air today. that format gave way to the monologue and to the howard beale styled host who pretends to mirror the frustrations of his viewers. the fox news model in a nutshell but cnn and csnbc replicated it and it's absolutely useless. anyone watching these shows regularly must have a penchant for self-reinforcing orwellian yell at the screen for a few minutes kind of masochism.

don't know if that's what cnn is aiming for but there is a massive market open for it. look at callin. or any other internet alternative medium. the reason people are listening to these longform political shows is because they are substantive and push beyond the constraints imposed by advertising demands and partisan editorials. the mainstream is heavily overproduced and saturated with what is largely a bunch of crap. they've just given the substantive market to youtubers, podcasters, tweeters, and bloggers. that's a stupid mistake.

cspan up until recently was a good model in terms of political debate. you couldn't just replicate their model because it wasn't edgy enough and had the vibe of an early morning call in instead of an evening debate, but in terms of quality that's the kind of thing the corporate media does not do any more. chris hedges does a good line in that sort of thing but it's usually limited to one guest. sackur in the uk on hardtalk does something similar but more narrow. or a kind of two and a half hour version of question time without the obligatory labour mp and tory mp each repeating the party line of the day is what they should aim for, only with the production values scaled all the way back and with a host who is not a performer, or only a performer, but actually intelligent. a dimbleby type figure who chaired question time really well until bruce, who is absolutely shit, would work well within a revamped version of the 60s/70s buckley format.
Click to expand...
I think Dick Cavetts show also had these longform debates.
 
neverdie said:
there's a space in the mediasphere that is currently unoccupied. it's the long-format political debate. the kind of thing buckley did back in the 60s and 70s. you'd get a competent and well-read academic type to moderate and mediate between guests occupying different ends of a very radical spectrum. it wasn't just buckley, there were many others. but the quality of debate on newsshows has been in the shitter for twenty years and that represented a decline from the 70s. you can watch three hour debates between white conservatives and black nationalists from the 1960s which are not only interesting but also much more respectful and courteous than anything you'll find on the major networks today. that's pretty fecking remarkable considering the times we're talking about. the civil rights movement, jim crow, general racism. yet they still had better political shows then than they do now. the hosts didn't shout the guests down or berate them with preconceived talking points. they let the conversation evolve organically and then pushed back in places and it generally went from there. it was and is superior to anything on air today. that format gave way to the monologue and to the howard beale styled host who pretends to mirror the frustrations of his viewers. the fox news model in a nutshell but cnn and csnbc replicated it and it's absolutely useless. anyone watching these shows regularly must have a penchant for self-reinforcing orwellian yell at the screen for a few minutes kind of masochism.

don't know if that's what cnn is aiming for but there is a massive market open for it. look at callin. or any other internet alternative medium. the reason people are listening to these longform political shows is because they are substantive and push beyond the constraints imposed by advertising demands and partisan editorials. the mainstream is heavily overproduced and saturated with what is largely a bunch of crap. they've just given the substantive market to youtubers, podcasters, tweeters, and bloggers. that's a stupid mistake.

cspan up until recently was a good model in terms of political debate. you couldn't just replicate their model because it wasn't edgy enough and had the vibe of an early morning call in instead of an evening debate, but in terms of quality that's the kind of thing the corporate media does not do any more. chris hedges does a good line in that sort of thing but it's usually limited to one guest. sackur in the uk on hardtalk does something similar but more narrow. or a kind of two and a half hour version of question time without the obligatory labour mp and tory mp each repeating the party line of the day is what they should aim for, only with the production values scaled all the way back and with a host who is not a performer, or only a performer, but actually intelligent. a dimbleby type figure who chaired question time really well until bruce, who is absolutely shit, would work well within a revamped version of the 60s/70s buckley format.
Click to expand...

Agreed. The old school Buckley debates were fantastic. They probably wouldn’t fly today because of network homophily, where people have increasingly short attention spans and are incentivized to communicate only with people who agree with them. This is one of the main reasons societies have become so fractured - because of the impact of technology and how it incentivizes humans to communicate within their own tribes.

Showe like Crossfire on CNN we’re also great when it was on.
 
Raoul said:
Agreed. The old school Buckley debates were fantastic. They probably wouldn’t fly today because of network homophily, where people have increasingly short attention spans and are incentivized to communicate only with people who agree with them. This is one of the main reasons societies have become so fractured - because of the impact of technology and how it incentivizes humans to communicate within their own tribes.

Showe like Crossfire on CNN we’re also great when it was on.
Click to expand...

Just like saying Bloody Mary or Beatlejuice, typing those words will always summon this
 
WI_Red said:
Just like saying Bloody Mary or Beatlejuice, typing those words will always summon this
Click to expand...


The good old days when the likes of Tucker Carlson and Glenn Beck had shows on CNN.

The irony of Stewart's schtick here is that Crossfire actually had people talking amongst one another, which rarely happens today.
 
Raoul said:
Agreed. The old school Buckley debates were fantastic. They probably wouldn’t fly today because of network homophily, where people have increasingly short attention spans and are incentivized to communicate only with people who agree with them. This is one of the main reasons societies have become so fractured - because of the impact of technology and how it incentivizes humans to communicate within their own tribes.

Showe like Crossfire on CNN we’re also great when it was on.
Click to expand...


not even the best of firing line but night and day between what political television offers today. buckley pushes each guest. he puts logic above ideology even though he disagrees with hitchens' ideology according to his own logic.
 
calodo2003 said:
Since they are lurching to the right, this seems to be the appropriate thread...

Click to expand...


Oddly, I haven't seen this reflected in CNN's coverage at all. They have Republicans on just as they did during the Zucker led Trump years - they even had clowns like Kayleigh McEnany, Jeffrey Lord, Paris Dennard, and Rick Santorum on during that time and have since switched to moderates like Mia Love, Kasich, Charlie Dent, Scott Jennings et al.
 
Raoul said:
Oddly, I haven't seen this reflected in CNN's coverage at all. They have Republicans on just as they did during the Zucker led Trump years - they even had clowns like Kayleigh McEnany, Jeffrey Lord, Paris Dennard, and Rick Santorum on during that time and have since switched to moderates like Mia Love, Kasich, Charlie Dent, Scott Jennings et al.
Click to expand...
'Lurching' might be a little strong a word,, but for me on the macro, it is who has been recrntly pressured out / resigned, who is apparently on the chopping block, & the words of the new head to become more right wing. Who gets those positions could very well make 'lurch 'seem not strong enough word. I don't watch enough CNN to know how the broadcasts are faring on the micro level.
 
calodo2003 said:
'Lurching' might be a little strong a word,, but for me on the macro, it is who has been recrntly pressured out / resigned, who is apparently on the chopping block, & the words of the new head to become more right wing. Who gets those positions could very well make 'lurch 'seem not strong enough word. I don't watch enough CNN to know how the broadcasts are faring on the micro level.
Click to expand...

Which is why i view all of this Chris Light stuff as a storm in a teacup. Until I see a noticeable change in CNN's narrative, they will always be the same CNN I've watched for the past 40 years.
 
Raoul said:
Which is why i view all of this Chris Light stuff as a storm in a teacup. Until I see a noticeable change in CNN's narrative, they will always be the same CNN I've watched for the past 40 years.
Click to expand...
Seeing reporting of stuff like this, especially Keilar & Cizilla (sp?). Not sure if this indicates a shift on the micro level, but by not fact checking & offering a rebuttal, is their reporting becoming skewed to appease higher ups? If the edict is real, they all have to look out for themselves...

 
Figured this was the least "offensive" thread for this. The replies are pretty funny and I agree with the consensus that #3 looks like she could feck shit up.

 
WI_Red said:
Figured this was the least "offensive" thread for this. The replies are pretty funny and I agree with the consensus that #3 looks like she could feck shit up.

Click to expand...

#7 looks hardcore, straight up comic book villain, not even #3 would mess with that.
 
calodo2003 said:
Thought he was already out the door?
Click to expand...

I hadn't hear that. Him and Acosta were names rumored to be on their way out, but both are still there.

I think Licht wants to avoid the perception he is going right wing (which will automatically happen when he cans libs).
 
Raoul said:
I hadn't hear that. Him and Acosta were names rumored to be on their way out, but both are still there.

I think Licht wants to avoid the perception he is going right wing (which will automatically happen when he cans libs).
Click to expand...
My bad. He was shifted to a morning show from prime time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.