Are you kidding? MSNBC is even more right wing than CNN. PBS is about it, as far as mainstream TV news goes. And even they are pretty much in the center, rather than on the left.
For some good left-wing media try Democracy Now!, Free Speech Radio News, and FAIR's Counterspin. Some college radio stations, WBAI in NYC, and Pacifica Radio afilliates are also good.
My problem with CNN and MSNBC is that both of them tried to follow Fox to the right once Fox became popular. A losing strategy if they were after Fox's right-wing audience, since they were clearly not as committed as Fox was to being further to the right than any other station on TV. They should have moved left instead, and provided a real alternative.
It's two hours of liberal opinion news during primetime. They are the flagship opinion shows on msnbc. But yea, they are just two people out of thousands that work at msnbc.
2 hours during primetime is still less than 24 hours, all the time. Hell, Fox News employs a convicted traitor (Ollie North) just becasue liberals don't like him.
As an observer from a country where the most conservative Prime Minister since federation was still some way to the left of Obama, I'd characterise both MSNBC and CNN as occupying the centre left of the right. In contrast, my Republican father in law considers them pinko-commie bastards. Who is right?
The problem you have with the flow of CNN and MSNBC towards Fox is the same problem I have with televised news of all sorts. TV as a medium does not do a good job of informing people much of anything outside of what it takes to keep them glued to the screen: flying infographics, plenty of hyperbole and lowbrow opinion.
My problem with CNN is that it provides nothing of substance. I don't need the off-the-cuff opinions of their "journalists" during news events. That's armchair stuff.
As a consumer of news, I want/need someone to break a story that took days, weeks, or months to construct. I can voice my own post-debate opinions - I don't need theirs. I can find feel-good/feel-bad stories in my own neighborhood - I don't need theirs. I don't need Anderson Cooper to give lip service to "keeping them honest." I need journalism from which I learn something.
And its fair to speculate that this lack of substance is contributing to the ratings decline by making places like CNN boring or immediately interchangeable with the web. Why spend your time watching what feels like "easily" produced news that often consists of summaries of YouTube/Twitter or a split screen featuring spin from either party made of pure opinion and devoid of critical analysis?
There is no production value in either of those categories that would build brand identity or loyalty from its consumers. Without actual journalism a news source is just a broadcast medium for press releases and there is nothing stopping consumers from tuning out or finding an interchangeable service.
There probably isn't a big enough market of people that care to sustain it, but it would be wonderful if a rainbow pot of gold could fund a 24/7 channel consisting of Frontline and This American Life caliber journalism.
I guess if you cook the books you can make them say anything. It's hard to take anything Bernanke says seriously. He didn't see this crisis coming and he was never right about anything before. Why would we think he's suddenly right about something?
Who defines GDP and how are they doing it? That's what actually matters. You can define your way out of any situation-it doesn't mean it actually changed for the better.
In the US, business cycles are declared by the National Bureau Of Economic Research - and their definition of recession is not just about GDP:
The NBER does not define a recession in terms of two consecutive quarters of decline in real GDP. Rather, a recession is a significant decline in economic activity spread across the economy, lasting more than a few months, normally visible in real GDP, real income, employment, industrial production, and wholesale-retail sales.
Well, ok then, but it does say something that they nod in the direction of "what everyone else defines a recession as, very specifically" before offering their own redefinition :)
Recession means whatever you want it to mean. The GDP stabilization we have seen (in America) is the result of Ponzi financing by the Fed and Treasury, along with continuing to turn a blind eye to financial fraud.
If I were the usual Atlas Shrugged-thumping Reaganite wingnut this is where I would point out that Ponzi financing is unsustainable and the size of the government must be slashed. Fortunately I am saved from that embarrassment by the fact that Berkshire Hathaway can now borrow money more cheaply than the U.S. Treasury. The bubble has popped and the economy is taking the second leg down.
You can see it in the grocery stores -- the deflationary decline is here. Wal-Mart tried heroically to raise prices for a while, but now they are back to cutting prices on basic necessities. The inventory rebuilding that stabilized GDP is finishing up.
And then there is the health care "reform" plan that is about to rip the guts out of the economy. If people are having trouble buying groceries, it will break them to be forced to buy a gold-plated health plan that covers singing chiropractors. Nor can they afford the massive penalty tax in lieu of insurance. Nor can they afford to neglect diabetes and medical treatment because of the new health care supply taxes.
And let's not even think about the energy rationing measures. The 2008-2009 leg of the recession was caused mainly by the spike in energy and metal prices. Cap-and-trade will spike energy prices just as badly, guaranteeing that the economy will plummet down again as much as it already has.
I appreciate the well-thought-out post, but you're contradicting yourself.
If the fed and treasury are keeping rates too low and increasing the money supply too aggressively, we should be seeing <i>in</i>flation. But we're not. That indicates to me that interest rates should be kept low and quantitative easing should be pursued until the threat of deflation recedes. You can't raise the specter of deflation and then demand that the government stops borrowing or raises interest rates -- that's contradictory. Japan in the 90s/00s and the US in the 20s/30s had a deflationary cycle precisely because they attempted austerity measures too quickly.
Also, I'm pretty sure singing chiropractors are not mentioned in the healthcare bill :). The rest of your points are similarly exaggerated or inaccurate.
EDIT: Wait. Seriously. Did you say that the 2008-2009 collapse was primarily caused by commodity prices? You never heard of a little industry called "housing"?
Money is created in a fractional reserve system by lending and defaults cause money to exit the system. The fact that the inflation that the government is generating is less than the deflationary effect of defaults explains what you're describing. We should be seeing more deflation and we need more deflation because we need bad debt to be written off as quickly as possible. All the attempts by the government to prop up shaky interests will only delay our pain and it make that much worse.
Japan has the largest Debt to GDP ratio in the G7. They have built every bridge to nowhere they can build. The only reason they haven't collapsed is because their culture encourages savings. Right now that country is a portrait of why Keynes was terribly mistaken about virtually everything written in his "General Theory". I'm not sure what the Keynesians would have them do now-where else can they go? I've read they've considered banning cash. I'm not sure this will have the effect they want. Eventually they will need to pay off their debt, let those banks fail, and roll back their government programs. One day they will have no choice in the matter.
More deflation increases the value of debt, making it harder to write off, no?
Also, almost everything I've ever read about Japan (not an expert) has blamed the high savings rate for the deflationary spiral there. As far as the general idea of keynesians being wrong, they have 29-32, 32-37, 37 double dip and the Japanese situation at the turn of the century as data points in their favor.
The other reply from jswinghammer is spot-on about central policy. $1 of marginal new borrowing is creating less than $1 of marginal economic activity. The borrowers have gone on strike. Trying to fix this with more lending (low rates, quantitative easing) is like putting a band-aid on an elephant that has been chainsawed in half. The proper solution would have been to forcibly default the bad debt, and simply give away money to busted depositors and certain investors until inflation kicked in. Unfortunately we adopted a policy of pretending there are no defaults, so the deflation will probably continue for decades (or until a great war intervenes).
Singing chiropractors: the singing part is an exaggeration, but not a big one. They are defining a mandatory minimum of "good" health care benefits. The specialists and pressure groups will rapidly purchase legislation requiring their favorite services be covered: the fanciest available birth control, massage, 30 therapist visits a year, and so forth. Give everything to everybody! Most people cannot afford this and will be fined harshly; many uninsured and self-insured will be much worse off.
Housing construction, manufacturing, furniture, etc. would have caused a sharp turn in the business cycle in 2008. However it was Chinese demand for energy and metals that spiked prices. Only a tiny fraction of families were in housing and affiliated industries, but every family paid thousands more a year for gasoline, heating oil, airfare, etc. That's what sent the broad economy into free fall. If we get cap-and-trade (an actual austerity measure), we will get a repeat of 2008.
The strength of your argument seems to rest on the statement "he was never right about anything before". If it is literally true, you have a very strong point. If it is only true in some handwavy, "you-know-what-I-mean" sense, then your argument is itself handwavy. While I admit to being undereducated in these types of discussions, my suspicion is that your statement is closer to the second option than the first one.
Bernanke consistently believed that there was no systemic risk in the financial markets, that the Fed could handle anything that came up without trouble, and that there was no housing bubble. On the major issues of our time he has never been correct.
I'm no economist but I have read a few books on the topic of varying degrees of depth. I saw this crisis coming and got out of the stock market and went to a job that was far safer than the one I had (which was based on the housing industry continuing to grow).
Check out the Peter Schiff Was Right videos on Youtube for some humor on this topic.
If you watch "The Daily Show" it gives you all the reason in the world to not watch CNN. There is pretty much stupidity on there at all hours. We turned on something on CNN this morning and my wife groaned at some stupid pun and my two year old daughter walked up to her and tried to comfort saying "OK? OK?"
It was one for a minute accidentally and we encountered serious stupidity. That's somewhat impressive.
Most of CNN's programming caters to a certain age group that probably does not, by and large, know how to use a computer. You just have to watch the ads to get a feel for their target audience. Fox and MSNBC have much more diverse programming. It's been a long time since I saw anything of interest on CNN.
BBC, al-Jazeera, and the Economist, for my institutional news. Democracy Now for my outsider news. The rest are just fluff that I come across but never seek out intentionally (NYT, Harper's,New Yorker, etc.)
Unfortunately I have to think that this will only make CNN think that they lost viewers because they were covering too much 'news' and not enough commentary, opinion and soft stories. What it should be of course is a wakeup call to them to because a decent news network again.
The lack of content of the news when I look at CNN vs BBC/PBS/NYT/WSJ/NPR is appalling. They have simply forgotten how to offer a decent view of things that actually matter in the world.
At the risk of generalizing I think the type of people who watch cable news tend to want something to get upset about. They want drama, fear, shouting, and big loud opinions all presented to them in a way where they can feel smarter without actually understanding much of anything. Pretty much the same reason conservative talk radio is so popular. I suspect most normal middle America sort of people are happy getting their news from morning shows or the network news. Liberals tend to read either online or paper.
MSNBC and CNN are both lagging behind Fox News in the ratings. Fox is the second highest ranks cable network in prime time, while CNN ranks 21st and MSNBC is 25th. CNN began it’s sharp decline in ratings during the first quarter of 2010 with the main hosts loosing half their viewers in a year. This is despite recent newsworthy evens such as the earthquake in Haiti and health care reform.
It's amazing how I can watch CNN for 4-5 hours and get almost no information at all from the broadcast.
At least with Fox, I can see how somebody who's into that kind of thing can feel like they are getting information (even if it's usually wrong or overblown).
41 comments
[ 3.8 ms ] story [ 89.8 ms ] threadDoesn't sound like specialization is working well for MSNBC, to me.
Are you kidding? MSNBC is even more right wing than CNN. PBS is about it, as far as mainstream TV news goes. And even they are pretty much in the center, rather than on the left.
For some good left-wing media try Democracy Now!, Free Speech Radio News, and FAIR's Counterspin. Some college radio stations, WBAI in NYC, and Pacifica Radio afilliates are also good.
My problem with CNN and MSNBC is that both of them tried to follow Fox to the right once Fox became popular. A losing strategy if they were after Fox's right-wing audience, since they were clearly not as committed as Fox was to being further to the right than any other station on TV. They should have moved left instead, and provided a real alternative.
a) overt politics doesn't mix well with HN, and
b) left/right is a matter of perspective.
As an observer from a country where the most conservative Prime Minister since federation was still some way to the left of Obama, I'd characterise both MSNBC and CNN as occupying the centre left of the right. In contrast, my Republican father in law considers them pinko-commie bastards. Who is right?
As a consumer of news, I want/need someone to break a story that took days, weeks, or months to construct. I can voice my own post-debate opinions - I don't need theirs. I can find feel-good/feel-bad stories in my own neighborhood - I don't need theirs. I don't need Anderson Cooper to give lip service to "keeping them honest." I need journalism from which I learn something.
There is no production value in either of those categories that would build brand identity or loyalty from its consumers. Without actual journalism a news source is just a broadcast medium for press releases and there is nothing stopping consumers from tuning out or finding an interchangeable service.
There probably isn't a big enough market of people that care to sustain it, but it would be wonderful if a rainbow pot of gold could fund a 24/7 channel consisting of Frontline and This American Life caliber journalism.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/bernanke-declares-the-reces...
The NBER does not define a recession in terms of two consecutive quarters of decline in real GDP. Rather, a recession is a significant decline in economic activity spread across the economy, lasting more than a few months, normally visible in real GDP, real income, employment, industrial production, and wholesale-retail sales.
If I were the usual Atlas Shrugged-thumping Reaganite wingnut this is where I would point out that Ponzi financing is unsustainable and the size of the government must be slashed. Fortunately I am saved from that embarrassment by the fact that Berkshire Hathaway can now borrow money more cheaply than the U.S. Treasury. The bubble has popped and the economy is taking the second leg down.
You can see it in the grocery stores -- the deflationary decline is here. Wal-Mart tried heroically to raise prices for a while, but now they are back to cutting prices on basic necessities. The inventory rebuilding that stabilized GDP is finishing up.
And then there is the health care "reform" plan that is about to rip the guts out of the economy. If people are having trouble buying groceries, it will break them to be forced to buy a gold-plated health plan that covers singing chiropractors. Nor can they afford the massive penalty tax in lieu of insurance. Nor can they afford to neglect diabetes and medical treatment because of the new health care supply taxes.
And let's not even think about the energy rationing measures. The 2008-2009 leg of the recession was caused mainly by the spike in energy and metal prices. Cap-and-trade will spike energy prices just as badly, guaranteeing that the economy will plummet down again as much as it already has.
If the fed and treasury are keeping rates too low and increasing the money supply too aggressively, we should be seeing <i>in</i>flation. But we're not. That indicates to me that interest rates should be kept low and quantitative easing should be pursued until the threat of deflation recedes. You can't raise the specter of deflation and then demand that the government stops borrowing or raises interest rates -- that's contradictory. Japan in the 90s/00s and the US in the 20s/30s had a deflationary cycle precisely because they attempted austerity measures too quickly.
Also, I'm pretty sure singing chiropractors are not mentioned in the healthcare bill :). The rest of your points are similarly exaggerated or inaccurate.
EDIT: Wait. Seriously. Did you say that the 2008-2009 collapse was primarily caused by commodity prices? You never heard of a little industry called "housing"?
Japan has the largest Debt to GDP ratio in the G7. They have built every bridge to nowhere they can build. The only reason they haven't collapsed is because their culture encourages savings. Right now that country is a portrait of why Keynes was terribly mistaken about virtually everything written in his "General Theory". I'm not sure what the Keynesians would have them do now-where else can they go? I've read they've considered banning cash. I'm not sure this will have the effect they want. Eventually they will need to pay off their debt, let those banks fail, and roll back their government programs. One day they will have no choice in the matter.
Also, almost everything I've ever read about Japan (not an expert) has blamed the high savings rate for the deflationary spiral there. As far as the general idea of keynesians being wrong, they have 29-32, 32-37, 37 double dip and the Japanese situation at the turn of the century as data points in their favor.
Singing chiropractors: the singing part is an exaggeration, but not a big one. They are defining a mandatory minimum of "good" health care benefits. The specialists and pressure groups will rapidly purchase legislation requiring their favorite services be covered: the fanciest available birth control, massage, 30 therapist visits a year, and so forth. Give everything to everybody! Most people cannot afford this and will be fined harshly; many uninsured and self-insured will be much worse off.
Housing construction, manufacturing, furniture, etc. would have caused a sharp turn in the business cycle in 2008. However it was Chinese demand for energy and metals that spiked prices. Only a tiny fraction of families were in housing and affiliated industries, but every family paid thousands more a year for gasoline, heating oil, airfare, etc. That's what sent the broad economy into free fall. If we get cap-and-trade (an actual austerity measure), we will get a repeat of 2008.
I'm no economist but I have read a few books on the topic of varying degrees of depth. I saw this crisis coming and got out of the stock market and went to a job that was far safer than the one I had (which was based on the housing industry continuing to grow).
Check out the Peter Schiff Was Right videos on Youtube for some humor on this topic.
It was one for a minute accidentally and we encountered serious stupidity. That's somewhat impressive.
It was a really strange move to make all that investment to be the online leader and then threw it away.
CJR for the meta stuff.
CNN, Time, NewsWeek, etc. are just crap.
NPR is excellent infotainment, but not news.
The lack of content of the news when I look at CNN vs BBC/PBS/NYT/WSJ/NPR is appalling. They have simply forgotten how to offer a decent view of things that actually matter in the world.
MSNBC and CNN are both lagging behind Fox News in the ratings. Fox is the second highest ranks cable network in prime time, while CNN ranks 21st and MSNBC is 25th. CNN began it’s sharp decline in ratings during the first quarter of 2010 with the main hosts loosing half their viewers in a year. This is despite recent newsworthy evens such as the earthquake in Haiti and health care reform.
http://hnsummary.com/2010/03/30/cnn-lost-almost-half-of-thei...
At least with Fox, I can see how somebody who's into that kind of thing can feel like they are getting information (even if it's usually wrong or overblown).