Political TV Balanced With Beer
55
It has been awhile since I’ve published a Hub. I’m a fiction writer, so articles are not the norm for me. However, I’ve found myself making political statements with ever increasing frequency.
Recently, I decided rather than merely flip through Cable TV channels (one through one-hundred billion) that I would flip back and forth between only two. I alternated between FOX’s Sean Hannity and MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow, giving equal time to both. During that time I found both Hannity and Maddow to be snarky political partisans.
Hannity and his guests reminded me of a group of guys and gals repeating broad, mostly unsubstantiated, viewpoints as if they were at a neighborhood bar and well into their fourth beer. Maddow, on the other hand, asked detailed questions and had ready responses to her guests backed up by ample research. Hannity seems like a barroom brawler and Maddow a policy "wonk." While like many people, I enjoy a few beers, I prefer to get my information through intelligent conversation. Perhaps, I finally understand why Fox "News" is so popular. We Americans like to knock back a few after working so hard and don’t want to have to think too much because we are just too damn tired. We can listen to simplistic talking points and half-truths or lies that fit our views because it doesn’t require extra effort. Better to let someone else pull at our heartstrings and reinforce what we think might be the truth. When the Hannitys of the world say that all government is bad, it’s much easier to comprehend than to entertain the notion that government can and should work for the people -- we are after all a community, a society, a group of people made up of individuals. We are social individuals. Good government is a group of individuals all working to make our country a better place.
As you might imagine, I watch MSNBC more than I do FOX. But at least I recognize what I am doing. I am watching for reassurance. I am watching because I want someone to reaffirm my political leanings. I recognize that they are filtering the truth, sometimes twisting it. I know why I am watching, even after four beers.
CommentsLoading...
Thank you for sizing up these two newspeople for us. You wrote: "Perhaps, I finally understand why Fox "News" is so popular. We Americans . . . don’t want to have to think too much . . . We can listen to simplistic talking points and half-truths or lies that fit our views because it doesn’t require extra effort. . . . When the Hannitys of the world say that all government is bad, it’s much easier to comprehend than to entertain the notion that government can and should work for the people -- we are after all a community, a society, a group of people made up of individuals. We are social individuals. Good government is a group of individuals all working to make our country a better place."
Who doesn't want to think too much? Certainly not me, my friend. I have not heard any half-truths or simplistic talk on Fox News, though I rarely watch Sean Hannity. I do catch Bill O'Reilly when I can. I think he is as smart as anybody in the news business, and smarter than you or me. I like Glenn Beck too, though I can see why he is controversial, throwing light upon evil as he does. Nobody likes to have their sins exposed—oddly including people who don't believe in sin.
It is not true that anybody on Fox News believes all government is bad. They are not anarchists. Sean, and I, believe in federalism. We do not want some atheist, progressive ideologue far removed from real life dictating how we should live in every hamlet of America.
The best government is the government closest to the people it governs. That would be local, followed by county, followed by states. That is still government. Just not the authoritarian government desired by progressives.
Maddow? From the before and after pictures I can only lament: look what she has done to herself.
Hannity? I am not a big fan. I used to like him years ago but methinks he has let success go to his head and he has lost the humility he once had.
Interesting points Jeff. If I remember correctly, Fox News hasn't been around for very long -- ten, eleven years or so. As you mentioned, it gave people that laid back, loose, 4-beer, blame everything else form of television that many people gravitate towards. Not long after its inception, Fox News became the voice of Bush 2's middle east invasions. All the people who had crowded around Fox News as a sort of "everyman" form of entertainment, in defiance of the somewhat snobbish CNN and MSNBC, now found themselves in a new can of worms as they were being sold a war they knew very little about. It's divisive politics and media manipulation at its finest.
I'm sort of "happy" that you are not familiar with these programs as they are an indication of political rancor and divisiveness in the US these days.
I am not familiar with either programme, but I do believe that all news serves a version of the truth. I think that we all (I include myself) choose newspapers, or TV news programmes on the basis of comfort. Well done to you for trying something new!
Thanks i scribble. She can be snarky, but immediately recognizes it and either apologizes or gives us fair warning prior to.
Like this, good insights. I really like Rachel Maddow. As you say, she really does her homework & doesn't lower herself to the level of some of her counterparts, even those on MSNBC. She's interesting without being gimmicky, and I would argue, without being snarky.
Jeff May Hub Author 17 months ago
Hi James, thanks for stopping by and giving your always insightful comments. With our rapidly expanding global community, the government closest to the people appears to be expanding, and therefore there is good reason for federal law to trump state law. One nation (under God:)... Now we can become close to our electronic neighbors across the nation, from Maine to Hawaii (where our president was born).
Progressives want progress and none would say that "authoritarian" government is progress. Opposition to “government” as you indicate is merely opposition to an ideology that your don’t like. For example, right wingers are often fond of saying that the health care bill was crammed down our throats against the will of the American people, specifically the mandate that everybody purchase health care. People/individuals should be able to choose.
However, clearly, the system was/is broken. So progressives want to fix it, too achieve some sort of progress. (Hard to imagine any Republican pushing through health care reform, not since Nixon floated some ideas.) Now, we all pay for those who have no insurance. Costs of emergency room care are "hidden" in that $500 disposable needle, and paid by the insurance companies of those who do have health insurance. If we turned away those without from the emergency rooms, we'd essentially have bodies piling up in the street. Hmm, this sounds like the topic for another hub.
Bill O'Reilly is smart enough and seems to occasionally be a voice of reason. Olbermann used to be okay too, but like Hannity, he has also let success go to his head.