Why Brian Williams is Irrelevant

Email Print posted by Cenk 10/06/2007 05:44:15 PM EST

Google Technorati del.icio.us digg reddit
I've met and interviewed Brian Williams. He's a lovely guy. Personable, funnier than expected and smart. He is also irrelevant.

There's nothing wrong with Brian Williams. He is a smooth, professional news anchor. He's not offensive, biased or fake. He plays it straight - and that's his problem.

It's not him. It's us. We're not interested in someone regurgitating the news to us and taking a half hour to do it. We don't need a professional news anchor to tell us what the news is. This isn't 1955. I've got all the news in the world at my fingertips, what do I need this guy to tell me what he thinks is important? Who cares what Brian Williams thinks is important?

In the old days, you needed these authority figures to sort out the news for you and tell you what was important and weed out the riff-raff. But these aren't the old days. I have a mind of my own. I don't need to borrow a news anchor's. And if I were to borrow one, that's not the first place I would look.

In the new media (whatever the hell that means; basically, what I'm saying is "in this day and age"), news is broken down into three subsets.

1.    The Collectors

Associated Press, New York Times, Washington Post, blogs that break stories, etc. These are our original sources. They are vital. Without these sources, there is nothing for anyone else to report.

2.    The Aggregators

Websites like Google News, digg.com, reddit.com, Huffington Post, Yahoo, AOL News and even your local paper (they aggregate the national and international stories that they do almost no original reporting on). This is where we get a majority of our information. It's quick, it's easy, and often times, it's personalized.

If you like news from a right-wing perspective, you go to Drudge. If you like news from a moderate or left-wing perspective, you go to Huffington Post. If you want it down the middle, you go to Yahoo. You want gossip, go to Perez Hilton. You want news and video from a progressive perspective, go to Crooks and Liars or Think Progress.

Everyone has their niche. Everyone has an audience they serve well.

3.    The Interpreters

Commentators that analyze the news from their (your) perspective. Fox News Channel, Keith Olbermann, Air America, Rush Limbaugh. Some blogs also fall in this category (unsurprisingly, blogs are often hybrids that cross many different boundaries).

These are people that help bring the news to you in a way you agree with. They inform you, but they also excite, enrage and impassion you. Their purpose is analysis/entertainment. Some people call this category infotainment. I prefer (my former co-host) Ben Mankiewicz's name for it - entermation.

So, where do traditional news anchors fit in here? Nowhere.

How often do television reporters break stories these days? Almost never. Most of them are actors reading the news pretending to be real reporters. I'm amused at how other TV reporters feign outrage at Katie Couric becoming the CBS prime time news anchor. Why, do you fancy yourself a journalist? Really, when is the last time you broke a story?

Most of the people on local news are former models and pretty boys with three brain cells between them. Are we supposed to be impressed? Look on TV, does it look like they are making their decisions based on looks or intelligence? Is it just a coincidence that all the pretty people wound up with the jobs on TV?

I understand there are exceptions and I actually picked Brian Williams as my example because I think he is one of the exceptions. He is an awfully bright guy who gets the news. But so what? Even he doesn't bring anything to the table. There's no value added.

Let me recount a recent conversation with my dad by way of example. He recently turned 70 and used to watch the evening news every single night. My mom would have to drag him away from it to get him to sit down for dinner.

Me: Dad, do you still watch the evening news?

Dad: No, never.

Me: Well, where do you get your news?

Dad: I already got it, online.

Me: Don't you want to see how the anchors are reporting it?

Dad: Are you kidding? I already got the news, why would I waste my time watching them retell the same stories for half an hour?

Me: So, is there anyone whose opinion you trust to bring you the news?

Dad: Yes, Keith Olbermann.

My dad was a conservative Republican who got his news the old fashioned way until about five years ago. First, he lost faith with the people who were supposed to bring him the news. One day when we were both still Republicans, he turned to me and said, "I think this Bill O'Reilly guy is full of crap."

I was really surprised by that, but my dad said he had been watching for awhile and noticed the guy kept lying and exaggerating and making a general ass out of himself.

Then he soured on Fox News Channel all together. He was still on board for the other news channels, but things did not appear to be what they were before. Then I introduced him to the internet.

He said to me recently, "But I don't understand, everything is right here, why would anyone go anywhere else for news?" That's it in nutshell. After the different websites you visit have already aggregated the news for you, why do you need the networks to re-aggregate it? You don't. It's a waste of time.

They do too little and take way too long to do it. Half an hour is an eternity and all you get is the stories they have selected in their infinite wisdom as the important ones. Useless.

And if you're looking for someone to analyze the news, you're certainly not going to turn to the evening news. They're too scared of their own shadow to dare to interpret a damn thing. God forbid someone should call them liberal (or these days, conservative) for giving even the most obvious analysis.

Now that my dad has crossed over to the progressive side (or was pushed there by George W. Bush (you couldn't get my dad to say an unkind word about George H. W. Bush; yes, there are still those kinds of conservatives/moderates/new progressives)), he gets his analysis from the Dynamic Trio - Keith Olbermann, Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert.

After The Daily Show gets done skewering the politicians, are you really going to turn over to the stodgy old news shows for their dry, insipid and out of touch "analysis." What's the point? I already have the news and I've already heard someone take it apart. Why would I want a boring, lifeless version of it reiterated to me?

That's why Charlie Gibson is the leading anchor on television and Katie Couric is in last place. Look at the demographics. Of course, the much, much older audience for broadcast news is going to prefer someone like themselves (sorry Charlie) and not some whipper-snapper like Couric telling them about light and happy news. The old guys will do better in this antiquated format all the way until they run out of audience. No young anchor is going to magically bring in a younger audience when that audience finds the program itself irrelevant.

Watch The Young Turks Here (We're in the Entermation Business)

Editor's Note: Air America would like you to know that my dad also listens to my show, and finds it brilliant. Though I do get the occasional, "You should be more funny like that Colbert guy. He is very talented." Thanks, Dad. I appreciate that.

< Is Ron Paul Really Your Man???? | WHY NO ONE SHOULD LISTEN TO RUSH LIMBAUGH >
 Display:
Why Brian Williams is Irrelevant | 14 comments (14 topical, 0 hidden)
They have all sold out (none / 0)
I refuse to call them "Main Stream" anymore. They have become the "Corporate Media" and more and more people may be waking up to that fact. They are being told how to interpret the news by their corporate heads and are so afraid of losing their BMW's that they go along. The "4th Estate" has abdicated. They can no longer be believed.
As "journalists" they should be ashamed to take the weekly bribe that is handed to them.

http://Citizens4.US

by WizardTN on 10/06/2007 09:01:51 PM EST

Democrats long for the old days! (none / 0)
“In the old days, you needed these authority figures to sort out the news for you and tell you what was important and weed out the riff-raff.”

Sorry Cenk, but you’re not quite old enough to remember what the old days were like.

In the old days America sat down in front of the television at precisely 6:30 PM to get the daily feed of information. There was no TIVO. There was no VCR or Betamax. There was no rebroadcast of the news. There were no cable news channels. There was no cable. There was no internet. There were no satellites. There was no such thing as digital. There were no chips or integrated circuits. It was an analog would with knobs and cathode tubes and Fred Flintstone crude mechanical stuff.

Back in those days, a handful of guys told us what to think in 30 minutes of daily instructions: Walter Cronkite, Chet Huntley, David Brinkley. I’m not exaggerating about them telling us what to think. When Walter Cronkite said the Vietnam War was over, that was it. Goodnight Irene. There was nothing else to say about the matter.

It’s no coincidence and no wonder that Democrats controlled America during the period 1932-1980. There was no alternative voice in the media. All we had was an english version of Pravda. Joe Stalin was called "Uncle Joe". Barry Goldwater was called "The Devil".

So today, Democrats have news outlets like MSNBC, CNN, AirAmerica, Huffington Post. God bless. Go forward. This is America. Everyone should have free speech.

But when Republicans get their news from FoxNews, for some reason it’s a bad thing? We’re not supposed to have access to alternative opinions.

by KenTX on 10/06/2007 10:16:00 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Opinion? (none / 0)
Let me preface this with .. I DO know what "news" was.
I am 64 yrs old. I have seen the same things you have. In those days there was NEWS and then there was opinion. A journalist who gave their opinion in most cases was offset by another in the same paper or on the same station giving an alternate viewpoint. Neither was coached, neither was afraid of being censured or fired of their take wasn't the same as the editor's, publisher's or anyone else.
Now, Are you going to try and convince me that FOX hasn't got every one of their so called journalists or commentators whipped into the corporate line?

Next you'l try to sell me a bridge in Brooklyn ... Right?

by WizardTN on 10/06/2007 11:05:43 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Nonsense (none / 0)

There was no alternative voice in the media. All we had was an english version of Pravda. Joe Stalin was called "Uncle Joe". Barry Goldwater was called "The Devil".

What in the hell are you talking about?

Cronkite didn't used to be considered "liberal".  The problem is that Republicans can't stand their news straight anymore.  Any time someone reports a reality that the republicans aren't comfortable with then they  are suddenly "liberal".  That's the Rush (waterboy) Limbaugh effect.

What a bunch of pussies. 

 

 

 

by bfaul on 10/06/2007 11:14:22 PM EST

[ Parent ]
short memory syndrome (none / 0)
KenTX may excuse MSNBC and CNN, I don't. They are suddenly finding their way back to the center? Maybe, but that just goes to reinforce what I have said. It is all about the corporate bottom line, ratings and money. They are all to willing to not only sell their advertizing but to pander to what the sponsors and owners want for fear of losing a dime.
To me that spells "prostitution" of the business of reporting the news. They will spin it the way they perceive the bottom line outcome.
The FCC has allowed the control of the newspapers and airways to become controlled by the money at the top.
Our politicians (on both sides) have allowed this to happen.
Anyone that can not see the agenda here is blind.

http://Citizens4.US

by WizardTN on 10/06/2007 11:35:13 PM EST

[ Parent ]
bfaul is correct (none / 0)
"Cronkite didn't used to be considered "liberal"." 

Bfaul is absolutely correct. There was a time when Walter Cronkite was considered mainstream and middle of the road.

The problem is that in his heart, Cronkite is about as leftist as a person can possibly be.

It would be like living in a country where Rush Limbaugh was defined as "Mr Middle America", and having no alternative voices in the media offering di fferent perspectives.

That's what life was like back in the 1960s and 1970s.

by KenTX on 10/08/2007 04:45:07 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Are you kidding me? (none / 0)

I'm supposed to accept as truth a site called "profiles in bias" that lists not a single biased conservative commentater? 

It's the truth itself that has a "liberal bias".  

Mark Foley wants to play rumpy-pumpy with male interns - liberal biased press reports it.

Bush approval ratings hover at the bottom of the meter - liberal biased polls.

Then the liberal press acts as thought Bush may have gone off his rocker simply because he wants to turn our port security over to an Arab country. (They were buddies of his!  They'd never hurt us!) 

Iraqis still slaughtering each other 4 years into the war - liberal biased press reports "only the bad stuff"

Repugs send 256th Louisiana National Guard away to Iraq during worst hurricane season in 20 years, puts political hack in charge of FEMA and takes 4 days to get help to a flooded New Orleans - liberal media makes it seem as if they are asleep at the wheel.

Rush Limbaugh reveals that he considers only Republican soldiers to be true soldiers - liberal biased media reports what he said (those dirty bastards) 

Alberto Gonzales fires judges who aren't as agressively political in their prosecutions as Rove requires - liberal media just HAS to report it.

And then the liberal media shows all those hundreds and hundreds of Bush verbal flubs - what a biased liberal bunch they are. 

And just because no WMDs whatsoever are found in Iraq they jump to the insane conclusion that maybe there were no WMDs in Iraq - how biased can you get?

Admit it.  You hate the damned truth because for most of the last 6 years the truth has made conservatives, and conservatism look inept, stupid, selfish and clueless.  It's just SO FUCKING INCONVENIENT, isn't it?  It must be hard to hate the truth, and anyone who reports it.  You have my profound sympathy.

by bfaul on 10/08/2007 05:54:13 PM EST

[ Parent ]
The Fox Effect (none / 0)
You have no doubt heard of the "Fox Effect".

The phenomenon appeared when a certain cable news network offered mirror image perspective that counter balanced news and commentary from the main stream media.

Suddenly, old fashioned "news" reporting looked like an Al Franken parody written for Saturday Night Live. The contrast was stark and dramatic.

The result was movement to the center by the Dead Tree Press and the Dinosaur Media. Propagandists like Dan Rather were finally repudiated for years of bald-faced lies. Liberal activists like Walter Cronkite were exposed as shameful old fools. Insiders like Bernie Goldberg wrote books exposing the giant lie factories.

by KenTX on 10/08/2007 06:20:52 PM EST

[ Parent ]
This is the way that it is (none / 0)
The difference between Walter Cronkite and Faux News is the fact that Cronkite delivered facts you made up your mind about them. Faux news delievers propaganda that conservatives want to hear and dont let facts get in the way of the talking point.

--- Truth To Power

by Leeberal on 10/07/2007 07:21:21 AM EST

[ Parent ]
I don't agree (none / 0)
NBC Nightly News is one of the last bastions of real news on television, and Brian Williams does an excellent job of presenting it, commenting on it, and providing insight on it.

by jarett on 10/07/2007 01:20:21 AM EST

I dont think so (none / 0)
The problem with NBC nightly news is they are telling me news I already know. They dont do any investigative journalism at all. It is irrelevent Cenk is right. Another thing that makes them irrelevent in my estimation is the fact that all the news outlets rolled over for Bu$h. When Wolf Blitzer was asked why CNN didnt confront Bu$h on anything he actually said they made the decision it wasnt right to disagree with the President during time of conflict. American news is viewed as un trustworthy and a bit of a joke in the rest of the world. NBC is owned by the largest defense contractor in the world  all the top execs in the company are conservative. The top execs are the ones that determine content and time and time again  they have omitted news on purpose. They are no longer the go to source for real news in my opinion.

--- Truth To Power

by Leeberal on 10/07/2007 07:18:15 AM EST

[ Parent ]
NBC (none / 0)

I don't watch leftist NBC crap masquerading as news.

by acroso on 10/08/2007 01:31:06 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Yea NBC is leftist (none / 0)
And you are mickey mouse

--- Truth To Power

by Leeberal on 10/09/2007 08:24:25 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Anchors away (none / 0)

I share your assessment on the impact of tv anchors, but I really hadn't thought about it too much.   It makes you wonder why they're paid large salaries and such a big deal is made when an anchor is changed.  I suspect the evening news will eventually be phased-out and replaced with something of more substance.

Cenk...I agree with you 100%.  Disagree with you...0% 

 

 

by redford on 10/09/2007 12:12:08 PM EST

Why Brian Williams is Irrelevant | 14 comments (14 topical, 0 hidden)
 Display: