(these SI servers were down for most of the day, weren't they?)
Arch,
I'm afraid I've never heard of Richard Rorty.
I'm not sure what "Hate TV" is, although I'm pretty sure I know what people label as "Hate Radio," although they tend to lump in the worst (like Michael Savage) with someone like Michael Medved, which seems ridiculous. If your radio can be tuned to NPR you can find all sorts of "liberal" talk shows, interviews and points of view.
Paul Krugman yesterday in the NYT (editorial) accused the Republicans of being hateful toward Slick Willie when they wanted to investigate the Arkansas river deal, Hillary's incredible futures trading acumen and Monica's need for kneepads and Bill's innovative use of cigars while generally trashing the fanciest piece of government property we citizens own and pay for. I guess everybody's got a different opinion of what is "hateful." Me? I figger it's all pretty much free speech.
Fox TV is just one channel, competing with ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, and it's pretty much an infant. The 3 major networks have been the only show in town from 1945 to about 1990 or so. CNN, after inventing 24 hour news, owned the franchise for about 25 years. As for NYT versus Fox, I think you have it backwards. The NY Times decides what stories are newsworthy, what slant is the correct slant, and the major (lazy) networks pick it up and play it in their nightly news broadcasts. In that sense, the NY Times (and its colleagues, the LA Times and the Washington Post) set the agenda not only for almost all regional and local newspapers but for broadcast media as well.
One example should suffice. Despite the fact that California has suffered under the most ridiculous governor for an entire term and then reelected him for more incompetence, the newspapers decided that Arnold was the only candidate worth "investigating" and made a full court press to stop the recall and see that Arnold was not elected. But their efforts were so transparently partisan that most of California (or Cally-forniya) ignored Grope-gate and 25 year old interviews and the trumped up Hitler supporter charge. You imagined the reporters sitting around the water cooler exhausted in their efforts to disgrace the candidate they feared most. And yet they claimed it was "reporting" and the exercise of freedom of the press. Silly.
Why is Fox so popular (personally I loathe O'Reilly, a total know-nothing, and can't really stand the other shows, but find the Brit Hume/Tony Snow hour to be very informative)?? I think if you compare the sanctimonious way Dan Rather, Peter Jennings and Tom Brokaw present the news, and the incredibly slanted presentations on CNN, you find that a lot of people would like to get the news, editorial and commentary without Dan Rather deciding not only what news story is worthy but what slant is the correct slant.
In the good old days, Cronkhite and Huntley-Brinkley presented the news and were very important, but they had a sense of restraint and integrity which is totally lacking in any powerful news person from a major network.
I don't know why "liberalism" (I have to use quotation marks because in truth there is very little that is truly liberal about liberalism and liberals) doesn't sell, its candidates win Senate seats and the presidential residence fairly often. But I agree it doesn't.
Kb |
