For whom does Fox's Bubble toll?

Maybe I'm just an incurable malcontent. "On three nights in a row after the election last week," writes the NY Times' media correspondent, Brian Stelter, MSNBC "had more viewers than Fox" in one prized demographic and is gaining in others. But I wasn't among them. Well, now and then, if my muted television screen was displaying the visage of a promising interviewee, I'd unleash the audibles. Otherwise I was perfectly content with being discontented with so much virtue being hurled my way.

I missed this quote at the time: "Of MSNBC, former President Bill Clinton remarked last winter, 'Boy, it really has become our version of Fox.' " Boy, was he right, even if Rachel Maddow's mitigating observation is also true: "I think that we are more information-based" than Fox. In other words, the two networks are exactly the same, except in the way they aren't. 

Where MSNBC and Fox are virtually indistinguishable is in that aforementioned, insufferable virtue: Fox's comes from scolding, nihilistic hellhounds of anarchism--a kind of right-wing paradise; while MSNBC's droppeth gently like Hurricane Sandy from the self-righteous celestialism of Schultz, Maddow and Sharpton. It's inarguable the latter are "more information-based." Nonetheless piety on parade is still piety on parade. Nearly as intolerable are Schultz's nightly teleprompter-challenges; Maddow's hand-clapping and endless repeating of and riffing on the selfsame point; and Sharpton's ceaseless boom of a delivery (has no one informed him there's a mike on his tie?).

I'm not in denial. I grasp my problem, and a personal "problem" or character flaw it may well be. I don't know. But I do know I simply don't like being part of a community of passionate, like-minded people. And as Stelter reports, MSNBC sells "its audience as ... a community of passionate, like-minded people." I find this dangerously synonymous with boosterism and GroupThink. Color me Emersonian if you like, but to my mind a uniformity of behavior leads only to the conformity of thought--and both are lethal to innovation. 

Put another way, MSNBC's audience awaits, perhaps, Fox's Bubble--and the ensuing popping thereof.

Comments

[Joy]

I thought I was the only one annoyed with Rachel's handclapping and "endless repeating and riffing" on a point. Sometimes I feel like I am in a lecture class. Schultz, I never watch. Having said that, I'm glad they are around as they are more information based, but I get your point of the community of like-minded people.

[Janicket]

Normally I don't watch MSNBC, but I took in some of their Election Night coverage. Couldn't stomach much; it was all tribalistic glee, and I find that approach to "news" delivery just as offensive from my own side as from the Fox swamp.

[Peter G]

I watch Maddow and O'Donnell time permitting. If Rachel had a fast forward button on her forehead I would probably use it quite a lot. First to get to her point and then to skip the next three repetitions of her point. To her credit she has interesting guests from time to time and adheres as closely to reality in her use of facts as can be expected in modern times.
Despite his occasional lapses in decorum Lawrence has decent political instincts. for the rest I concur. Unwatchable mostly.

[Peter G]

And now for something completely different and yet, to me, interesting. I am not sure if you have noticed but there is some little danger of you creating a community of like minded people. And why the hell am I here? A little self examination is in order.
One of my favorite literary characters happens to be Lecarre's George Smiley who Lecarre described in one book, as unlead and unleadable but who nevertheless is a deep thinker and humane yet pragmatic observer and manipulator of events. He is a very solitary figure. If I had to pick a literary persona I would probably pick Smiley. Yet I criticized the Occupy movement severely for exactly the same reason, they were unlead and unleadable. On reflection I think the difference is that the community I find here, and that you have created, is not goal oriented. It is a place to debate ideas at a deeper level than one generally finds in blogs and to indulge in some well written and funny vituperation too. I suspect I will have to leave if I find myself agreeing with you too much though.

[R. Jacob]

Although I generally concur with your analysis of MSNBC, I do think that Chris Hayes' show, "UP", is an exception. He has guests that are found nowhere else on MSNBC, much less, "television", and the discussion is much faster moving and more intelligent than the on the shows you mentioned, with few exceptions. Unfortunately, it's only on in the early weekend mornings (very early for me on the West Coast). A DVR helps solve this for me, but they do post the whole show on the website for those without a DVR.

[W Caulfield]

Sorry I can't join in on the group condemnation. I like Rachel and I like her style. I watch her most nights, when there's not a new episode of "International House Hunters."

Yes, I get and agree with most of her points and grow a bit bored with the repetition. I assume the repetition is not meant for me.

My question is: "If it were possible to get into a fact based discussion with a Republican/Conservative/Libertarian (or whatever they want to call themselves), who would you want in your corner."

[Anonymous]

Rev. Al was the first commentator anywhere to report new voter I.D. laws and voter suppression.

Rachel was the first commentator anywhere to report on Republican-led state legislatures -- and the Republican congress -- attempts to eradicate a women's right to choose and to control women's health.

Compare that to Fox "reporting" on the New Black Panthers voter intimidation or the alleged War on Christmas.

You can quibble with Sharpton's or Maddow's styles, or decry MSNBC playing toomuch to the home crowdn, but it's nowhere near the same as Fox's Pravda-like propaganda and dumbed-down bullshit. It's not even close.

[McJeff]

It's a thin line. On one hand, it's good to have a more informed news and opinion network out there. If it veers too far into group think, then there's danger. The days of Cronkite are long gone, unfortunately.
I'm fine with MSNBC, and with Ed and Rachel and Al, stylistic tastes aside. In an era of Fox News, it's good to have a different voice out there.
That thin line applies to all free-thinking, independent types. It's great to meet and mix with others of the same type, but differences must be honored, and no bludgeoning into group consensus. It makes it harder to get things done, but definitely helps include the most creative solutions.
I suppose it's fair to say there needs to be balance between group-think, which leads to blindness; and including every opinion out there, which can lead to indecisiveness and inaction.