Ah, Inauguration Day!
I scampered back home from my Spanish 322 class in time to watch the swearing-in and Obama's speech live. I watched CNN's coverage, which was surprisingly simplistic. It was amazing to recall what it was like to watch cable news before the incessant crawl at the bottom of the screen or mounds of graphics. I also enjoyed their live look-ins on crowds in places like Memphis, Los Angeles, among others.
But what of the now ex-President Bush? Shouldn't he get at least a little bit of coverage on the day his term ends? The last many of us saw of him was the image of Air Force One flying off to Texas.
Fox News, however, took it the extra mile.
Out of all the cable news networks, only Fox News presented live coverage of Bush's homecoming speech from Midland, TX. Some networks were on semi-regular programming, some reporting on the inaugural parade.
"Sometimes what I did wasn't popular," Bush told supporters. "But that's OK. I always did what I thought was right."
Doesn't this just invite even more criticism of Fox News and provide evidence of right-wing bias?
Or was this the essence of "fair and balanced" reporting on an otherwise Obama-fied day? Does Obama or any candidate deserve such a monopolization of coverage without considering the outgoing president?
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
MSNBC: Your Inauguration Juggernaut?
We currently stand less than a week from Inauguration Day, and the excitement is palpable, repeat, palpable.
I remember watching the last two inaugurations on TV, flipping around the different news channels to see each one's unique coverage of this historic event.
It seems that if MSNBC has its way, however, a lot fewer people will be flipping around from channel to channel this January 20, thanks to two very intriguing agreements.
The first is between MSNBC and Screenvision, which will put the network's coverage (free of charge) in 27 theaters across the country. For us in Utah, the closest options would be Denver, Phoenix, or LA. No love for the SLC.
The second agreement is between MSNBC and Starbucks. The coffee chain agreed to broadcast MSNBC's inauguration coverage in 650 stores nationwide.
Why such a big push by the Peacock News Network? To keep up the momentum that made it cable's fastest-growing channel of 2008.
"We have to get our product out there and expose it to more people," said MSNBC president Phil Griffin.
In our class, we talked so much about questioning the motives of the major news networks. Were they providing news for the sake of informing the public, or to boost ratings and advertising revenue? At first glance, it appears that MSNBC is doing just that.
Looking at it another way, however, one must remember the historicity of this particular event. This will be an inauguration unlike any other in our history. Not only is it for an African-American, but it is for a change that many people have wanted for some time. As such, should MSNBC be lauded for its attempts to make this event as accessible as possible?
One more factoid before I sign off:
Even after repeated charges of left-wing bias throughout the campaign, there will be an interesting wrinkle in MSNBC's coverage, Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann are slated to anchor the goings-on from Washington. Hmmmmmmmmm......
The second agreement is between MSNBC and Starbucks. The coffee chain agreed to broadcast MSNBC's inauguration coverage in 650 stores nationwide.
Why such a big push by the Peacock News Network? To keep up the momentum that made it cable's fastest-growing channel of 2008.
"We have to get our product out there and expose it to more people," said MSNBC president Phil Griffin.
In our class, we talked so much about questioning the motives of the major news networks. Were they providing news for the sake of informing the public, or to boost ratings and advertising revenue? At first glance, it appears that MSNBC is doing just that.
Looking at it another way, however, one must remember the historicity of this particular event. This will be an inauguration unlike any other in our history. Not only is it for an African-American, but it is for a change that many people have wanted for some time. As such, should MSNBC be lauded for its attempts to make this event as accessible as possible?
One more factoid before I sign off:
Even after repeated charges of left-wing bias throughout the campaign, there will be an interesting wrinkle in MSNBC's coverage, Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann are slated to anchor the goings-on from Washington. Hmmmmmmmmm......
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
Jon Stewart's Explanation of Rupert Murdoch
Over the Christmas break, I wandered into a Barnes and Noble and found an intriguing book. I almost bought it, but then I remembered I'm a poor college student with little money to spare (for now).
It's called The Man who Owns The News: Inside the Secret World of Rupert Murdoch, and is written by Michael Wolff, a writer for Vanity Fair. The book delves into Murdoch's media empire, as well as his personal life.
As we discussed in our class, Murdoch's vast media empire includes The Wall Street Journal, the New York Post and the venerable Fox News. Pretty powerful guy, right?
Not if you ask Jon Stewart.
Wolff appeared on The Daily Show last night as he and Stewart discussed the book and the source of Murdoch's power.
Wolff claims that Murdoch is "is the most powerful man for the longest period in our era".
Stewart, who famously and frequently takes jabs at Fox News, says that Murdoch is not inherently powerful himself, but is merely a tool of powerful people.
"The leaders in power can always find a Rupert," Stewart said.
So, what do you think? Are Rupert Murdochs born or made? Could any of us in our class become a media mogul by sheer work and determination, or do we have to be chosen by the powers that be? Would we even want to yield that kind of power or be subject to that kind of scrutiny?
I reckon I'll have to read the book to find out for myself. In any case, it looks like another interesting ideological debate between Jon Stewart and Fox News. Let's get it on!
It's called The Man who Owns The News: Inside the Secret World of Rupert Murdoch, and is written by Michael Wolff, a writer for Vanity Fair. The book delves into Murdoch's media empire, as well as his personal life.
As we discussed in our class, Murdoch's vast media empire includes The Wall Street Journal, the New York Post and the venerable Fox News. Pretty powerful guy, right?
Not if you ask Jon Stewart.
Wolff appeared on The Daily Show last night as he and Stewart discussed the book and the source of Murdoch's power.
Wolff claims that Murdoch is "is the most powerful man for the longest period in our era".
Stewart, who famously and frequently takes jabs at Fox News, says that Murdoch is not inherently powerful himself, but is merely a tool of powerful people.
"The leaders in power can always find a Rupert," Stewart said.
So, what do you think? Are Rupert Murdochs born or made? Could any of us in our class become a media mogul by sheer work and determination, or do we have to be chosen by the powers that be? Would we even want to yield that kind of power or be subject to that kind of scrutiny?
I reckon I'll have to read the book to find out for myself. In any case, it looks like another interesting ideological debate between Jon Stewart and Fox News. Let's get it on!
Thursday, January 1, 2009
Did Kathy Griffin Say What I Think She Just Said?
Happy 2009 to everyone! I spent my last night of 2008 in my apartment with my girlfriend and one of my roommates and his girlfriend. We flipped channels around until settling for CNN's live coverage of the ball dropping in Times Square. Your hosts: Anderson Cooper and Kathy Griffin.
The unintentional comedy was through the roof, but that's not necessarily a good thing for supposedly serious journalism.
We cringed throughout the broadcast as Griffin's grinding voice seemed to be on autopilot, while poor Anderson Cooper tried in vain to keep the show from coming off the rails with his fake, patronizing laugh.
After the ball dropped, CNN stayed live for another hour to watch celebrations from the Central Time Zone, particularly from New Orleans, where correspondent Sean Callebs seemed to hate the "belligerent" revelers, some of which flipped off the camera.
The performance of hip-hop artist Lil' Wayne, which had been plugged at the beginning of the show, was full of backup exotic-looking dancers in neon outfits, thus leaving it mostly audio-only on the broadcast.
Then, hip-hop artist Coolio was interviewed in Las Vegas, proclaiming he would go down as one of the top 10 performers in the history of hip-hop.
It was also during this hour that those exiting Times Square made their dislike for Griffin a bit more vocal. CNN went to break, but not before Griffin let out this verbal blast to her hecklers. (WARNING: Griffin's remark will probably offend) For those who don't want to click the link (I don't blame you), she made a vulgar remark about what she deemed an appropriate line of work for those who ridiculed her. The exchange was conveniently left out of the replay a few hours later.
Besides the fact that CNN is due for a hefty fine, and that Kathy Griffin probably won't be back next year, why are the cable news channels allowing themselves to broadcast New Year's Eve as if they were Carson Daly or Dick Clark?
We flipped over to Fox News, who had their overnight crew partying just as hard as those in the crowd. MSNBC just played the feed for NBC's celebration hosted by Carson Daly, probably the best move among the big cable news networks.
How can this be considered journalism? Even if CNN doesn't intend for it to be journalism, why do they send a legitimate journalist to anchor their coverage?
The final verdict: Unprofessional, but unintentionally funny.
The unintentional comedy was through the roof, but that's not necessarily a good thing for supposedly serious journalism.
We cringed throughout the broadcast as Griffin's grinding voice seemed to be on autopilot, while poor Anderson Cooper tried in vain to keep the show from coming off the rails with his fake, patronizing laugh.
After the ball dropped, CNN stayed live for another hour to watch celebrations from the Central Time Zone, particularly from New Orleans, where correspondent Sean Callebs seemed to hate the "belligerent" revelers, some of which flipped off the camera.
The performance of hip-hop artist Lil' Wayne, which had been plugged at the beginning of the show, was full of backup exotic-looking dancers in neon outfits, thus leaving it mostly audio-only on the broadcast.
Then, hip-hop artist Coolio was interviewed in Las Vegas, proclaiming he would go down as one of the top 10 performers in the history of hip-hop.
It was also during this hour that those exiting Times Square made their dislike for Griffin a bit more vocal. CNN went to break, but not before Griffin let out this verbal blast to her hecklers. (WARNING: Griffin's remark will probably offend) For those who don't want to click the link (I don't blame you), she made a vulgar remark about what she deemed an appropriate line of work for those who ridiculed her. The exchange was conveniently left out of the replay a few hours later.
Besides the fact that CNN is due for a hefty fine, and that Kathy Griffin probably won't be back next year, why are the cable news channels allowing themselves to broadcast New Year's Eve as if they were Carson Daly or Dick Clark?
We flipped over to Fox News, who had their overnight crew partying just as hard as those in the crowd. MSNBC just played the feed for NBC's celebration hosted by Carson Daly, probably the best move among the big cable news networks.
How can this be considered journalism? Even if CNN doesn't intend for it to be journalism, why do they send a legitimate journalist to anchor their coverage?
The final verdict: Unprofessional, but unintentionally funny.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
