My profound, instinctive aversion to collective thinking may be a bit idiosyncratic for a democratic socialist, nonetheless there it is. It's a given that my aversion would extend to rightist versions of collective thought--namely Fox News--but it is perhaps only another of my warped idiosyncrasies that my aversion runs even deeper to MSNBC--the left's unofficial broadcasting arm, much as the right has Fox. There's something about watching (as I do less and less) one's own side shamelessly whore itself for rank partisanship, though, that seems to intensify the pain.
Anyway, I find this quite genuine explanation a plausible counterargument to the inevitable charge of "false equivalency." I don't contend that Fox and MSNBC are equivalent whores--just that both cause me headaches. Tom Ricks, however, who was a two-minute hero of MSNBC fans the other day, relates his differing counterargument to The Dish:
My response to those who claim a "false equivalency" is this: When I told the guy from MSNBC that if I went on his network, I would say they were just a less competent version of Fox, they should have invited me on to discuss that. That would have underscored the difference, if it were there. The fact that they shied away from the criticism indicates to me that they are indeed similar.
It's tough to find a plausible counter-counterargument to that. Ricks's truncated appearance on Fox was an authentic news story, yet MSNBC failed to interview the newsmaker, for fear of the interview's content. And that differs from Fox--how?
I believe that I'm capable of recognizing "shameless, whoring, partisan" drivel when I see and hear it, and there is some of that on MSNBC, so, I ignore the worst of that part. But, Mr. Ricks does create a false equivalency (and is full of shit!), when he says that MSNBC is "just a less competent version of Fox"! Anyhow, I'm not opposed to a bit of rank partisanship on my side after enduring the last several years of Republican lies, hate, and stupidity! Unlike some folks, I don't believe that "fair and balanced" political reporting exists anymore (if it ever did).
Posted by: Ansel M. | December 04, 2012 at 02:28 PM
I'll watch Rachel for all of you and report. How much does it pay?
Posted by: W Caulfield | December 04, 2012 at 04:53 PM
For rational discussions and interesting guests that seldom make me want to throw things at the tube there is always Up with Chris Hayes and Lawrence is usually worth the time. I like Rachel too but if Rachel 2.0 doesn't have a fast forward button I will scream.
Posted by: Peter G | December 04, 2012 at 06:22 PM
Btw your profound aversion to collective thought is why I read everything you post. Every day I can. What you say clarifies my own thinking. I learn things here. And I like to learn things.
Posted by: Peter G | December 04, 2012 at 08:17 PM
Ricks claims that MSNBC thanked him for his candor when he said they were just like Fox. That alone makes them not just like Fox.
The Sullivan reader who listed 7 differences was right. I quote:
"MSNBC is partisan. Fox is false."
Posted by: Jaylemeux | December 04, 2012 at 11:06 PM
I don't watch either but if forced to choose between all three, I would choose MSNBC. MSNBC's reaction would have been different than FOX's so I don't agree that they are the same.
Cable news free since 2009
Posted by: Alli | December 05, 2012 at 09:52 PM
Here are more comments from Dish readers pointing out none too subtle differences between Fox and MSNBC:
http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/12/fox-news-vs-msnbc-ctd-1.html
Posted by: BobB | December 06, 2012 at 09:26 AM