Ego time

Early in Charles Pierce's pretty much spot-on polemic against deficit hysteria and the activist fraud that calls itself "Fix the Debt" and the coy hypocrisy of one of its steering-committee members who also profits as a board member of tax-avoiding and thus deficit-boosting General Electric, he notes:

[I]t's necessary to point out that, among other things, GE owns a big part of liberal cable-teevee network MSNBC. I wanted to get that in because it's been about 28 minutes since Lawrence O'Donnell reminded me that he went to Harvard, worked in the Senate, and did some time in Hollywood, and I hate to interrupt.

Ouch. But Pierce has another sharp and equally valid point to make here, even if he doesn't make it: Hosting a cable-network news program is often an excellent professional route by which otherwise distinguished careers promptly de-professionalize themselves. Hosts are commonly chosen by networks such as MSNBC for their political knowledge and experience, yet their metamorphosis from analytical maven to egotistical buffoon is, frequently, as complete as it is prompt.

Some are organically hopeless, namely, the hustler Rev. Al and the befuddled Ed Schultz, who are such offensive blights on even a stabbing semblance of network news as to merit simply the averting of one's eyes and trusting that they'll soon go away. Others, though, are something of a pity to watch as they professionally deteriorate: O'Donnell's ... emphatically ... delivered ... diatribes; Bashir's nearly instantaneous shift from journalist-moderator to schoolyard sarcasm vendor; Maddow's Hey, look at me, I'm so clever and gosh darnit just morally righteous to a fault--yet what else can the idealistically perfect do?

There are, and all of you know them, people who should never be given a badge and a uniform, since trinkets and cloaks of authority will go straight to their swelling heads. Network camera-time, too, should be dispensed with discretion.

Comments

[Jimiskin]

I simply cannot understand your continued campaign against MSNBC. It reeks of the whole "false equivalency" thing repeated so often by the right. It is the one political area on which we disagree. It sounds as if there is something personal going on here.

[japa21]

Jimiskin, I can't speak for PM, of course, but I can tell you my concerns with MSNBC. And this may even be close to PM's concerns. although my anti-MSNBC feelings are not as great as PM's.
I have great respect for the intellects of people like Maddow, O'Donnell and Bashir. I have respect for the commitment of Rev Al and Scheultz.
But I think all of them (and I think this is where PM is going with this post) have tended to think that they as individuals are greater and more meaningful than whatever they are talking about.
Schultz, even when he was purely radio, had a tendency to go the hyperbolic route. On television he has gone even further.
Maddow, when she first switched from raduio to TV was much more contained than she is now.
LOD started his TV stint really trying to be an informer more than a personality.
They have all allowed their egos to grow to the extent that they are more preachey than informative. They tend to ooze moral superiority.
Now this same thing occurs on the right. The big difference between Fox and MSNBC is that Fox pays no attention to facts, figures, reality in its moral superiority. So I agree with you that trying to create a full equivalency between the two would be wrong.

[Chris Andersen]

I suspect there is something in the nature of the medium that essentially requires that a TV host have an elevated sense of self-importance.

These people are not facilitators of ideas because facilitators, of necessity, have to remove themselves from the center ring in order to allow other players to work things out between themselves. I recently attended a memorial for a man who was superb at this kind of facilitation. He knew enough about everyone around him that he could get people to start talking, and then step away and let the conversation grow without him. He was one of the most ego-less individuals I have ever known, and, as such, he probably would have made a terrible TV host.

Instead of criticizing the Maddows of the world for being what their medium demands of them, I prefer to see if there is something I can appreciate about them within that particular medium. That's why I can still enjoy watching her and *some* of the others: not because I expect them to facilitate a real change, but because they are good at getting me to think about things in an entertaining fashion (TV, at it's core, is an entertainment medium).

[R. Jacob]

Although I am certainly sympathetic to the criticisms of MSNBC's weekday line-up, I think that Chris Hayes' weekend show is quite good. His guests are rarely the same-old guests that seem to rotate among the weekday shows, and he often has on principled and intelligent representatives of widely varying views. Chris is extremely bright and well informed and I'm always impressed by the depth of his understanding of a wide range of issues. He seems able to engage his guests without ever belittling them and some NEVER appear anywhere else on television. If you are not familiar with his show, Up, check it out. Unfortunately, it is on at ungodly hours, especially for those of us in the Pacific time zone. A DVR is definitely a boon.

[Ansel M.]

My comment would only echo what has been written in the first four comments: I share their somewhat minor criticisms about MSNBC programming and can tolerate most of the ego-tripping. I strongly concur with R. Jacob's comment about Chris Hayes and his weekend programs!

[Beulahmo]

Oh, face it, P.M. You keep having the expectation that a cable news network should be about news and serious commentary, but it's about entertainment. MSNBC is a purveyor of "pop politics" because that's where our public discourse happens these days, and it's where narratives grow and succeed or fail.

[Peter G]

I think I see your problem. You are confusing MSNBC and their political programming with news. A wise man I know wrote some sage advice to Andrew Sullivan regarding the advisability of having corporate sponsorship for one's opinions. Based, accurately I might add, on the observation that such corporations do not give a rodent's rectum what the content of such opinion based entertainment might be, as long as it sells. And sell it does. This is watch talk radio. I find some of it occasionally entertaining despite the fact that Rachel's forehead lacks the requisite fast forward button needed to get her to the point she wants to make. Ed and the Rev I can confess remain largely unwatched for much the same reasons you cite. And sadly Lawrence, who I still watch occasionally, has indeed been on a downward slope since his offer of combat with a Romney heir. He still occasionally redeems himself with some interesting insights. Even Chris has had some troublesome moments of late and I do like the discussions he has on Saturday and Sunday mornings. Just last week for example he had a whole panel discussing the terrible FISA law, how it was instituted by playing on fears post 9/11 and how it's draconian provisions could mean the end of all civil liberties and how it's reenactment was totally inexplicable. And everyone on that panel was completely oblivious to the fact that none of their fears had come true, were likely to come true and that their fears about the Occupy Movement being sent en masse to Guantanamo as terrorists were nothing but fear mongering. Such is life.

[JayJay]

I justlove all the "dignified" lefties beating up on the one cable outlet we have. Liberal media's ass is being kicked everyday on FM, AM and TV by the craziest wingers. Yet, we have PM spending pretty words to cut them down. I love Maddow. Chris is good and I can tolerate Al, ED and Bashir.

[Beulahmo]

JayJay,

I understand P.M. because I'm a little unnerved by the proliferation and expansion of cheap pop politics too, and MSNBC is definitely selling it. But hey, I understand your sentiment too -- liberals didn't create the present-day, entertainment-FIRST platforms for political discourse (Fox News Channel did), they're just participating in it because, unfortunately, they can't afford NOT to.

[Jim Milstein]

Who are these people of whom you speak?

Should I get a TV?

[Peter G]

Come now JayJay, this criticism must be considered exquisitely progressive. Such criticism of the president himself is de rigueur merely to establish one is actually progressive. Without it one is merely an Obamabot. if I am not mistaken the progressive community is currently celebrating their great victory in forcing the president to cravenly cave on the choice of some preacher to give the benediction at his inauguration. Despite the fact that neither they nor the president had ever heard of that person before and no one with a functioning brain cell would imagine the president had anything to do with such a minor detail of the inauguration. This was big news on MSNBC.