Why Do We Watch These Newscasts?
69
OK, I have to admit I am a TV News junkie! Even when I disagree with a particular newscasts political slant on the news, I still watch. Kind of like the "knowing your enemy" mantra that was drilled into me years ago. And, even though I am a moderate/ Independent, I do tend to lean Left much of the time. Not always, but usually.
Still, I do enjoy watching and noting the huge differences between both of the major players in cable news politics: MSNBC and FOXNews. Why do I torture myself? Well, actually, it's not torture at all for me. I keeps me up to date on a lot of the pulse of Liberals and Conservatives. I find that by viewing the two most widely separated political points of view, I can usually gather in the facts somewhere in between.
OK, I also actually do like watching Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow, who seem to have a symbiotic relationship on the air, and whose humor manages to come through in their broadcasts. Also, Maddow does at times bring in people of extremely different points of view and does ask questions, sometimes gets controllably angry or upset, but still manages to keep the peace and hold a decent interview. Sometimes even the hosts of FOXNews do that as well, calling in people with whom the commentator strongly disagrees, and then having something of a discussion about the varied points of view.
I have a theory...
And it is this: People are accustomed to watching the news that best fits their own view of the world. People on the political Right watch primarily FOXNews. People on the political Left primary view MSNBC. People who are neither affiliated with the Right or Left tend to watch CNN, and some from each group, but mostly from the Left and Unaffiliated groups, also watch PBS.
Why is this? Simply, I believe that we want to be rewarded by another person for holding our views. After all, personal views are, well, very personal and we grow attached to them with a strong bond. Find me a person who was a raving Liberal who "converted" to a raving Conservative, or vice cerva, and I'll show you a true convert.
Like Torquemada of Spain, Grand Inquisitor of Spain, who had Jewish roots but became more Catholic than even the Pope, or like a far-Left politician during the Spanish Civil War who later became a fanatical Catholic, this does indeed happen. Heck, even Ronald Reagan was once a Democrat, but parted ways with that party in his youth.
So, do you watch news that tends to be in agreement with your own political and other views of the world? Do you see the other news programs as being either "too Liberal" or "too Conservative" for your liking? Do you listen to primarily Conservative or Liberal radio programs because you believe they are better expressing your point of view? and if so, do you think that your political point of view is correct, while others are not?
If so, then you are merely doing what I call positive reinforcement of your views. We are all under attack by people we run across on the hubs, and even in our daily lives. We know from cases such as Patti Hearst that constant exposure to a single point of view can put us in sympathy with those seeking to wash our brains. So, out of comfort, and out of, possibly, fear, and even perhaps out of the sheer joy of having our opinions confirmed, we may just be hooked on the programs which best suit our view of the "real world".
NASCAR
I use a personal experience to show that sometimes it is the company we keep that helps us shape our greater point of view. On a personal level, I care very little for NASCAR. I know a few facts about drivers, and I see commercials with NASCAR drivers promoting products. But I have never gone to any NASCAR events on my own. I did, however, go once with a friend.
Did I enjoy the event? Yes, I was even cheering on the driver my friend was backing. I was caught up in the crowd, the cheering, the sights, sounds and smells of cars racing around the track. It was, in fact, a very enjoyable evening.
But, has it made me a NASCAR fan? Not really. I have not gone back since. Maybe I consider it a little to plebeian for my tastes - a little too "red neck". (I am not a "red neck". Jeff Foxworthy proved that long ago.) But the fact that I was able to get involved and get excited about the event showed me that I, like everyone else, I believe, is susceptible to the influence of the crowd. Unless we are completely aloof from life, we do often get involved in the events going on around us.
I wonder if I would react like this at a boxing match? I did come to love bull fighting when I was in Spain, and I went often enough to view the sport. As of now I do not, however, follow them as I once did. But I could easily get back into it if I ever moved back there. But I know that here bull fighting is not a popular event, and it's even condemned, perhaps rightly so, by those who view it as simple animal cruelty inflicted by humans. But I saw it as a spectacle, an event with historic meaning, not simply some idiot out there slaughtering a bull. Just as I saw the NASCAR event as more than just a bunch of red necks out there wasting gasoline. There was pageant involved.
So perhaps, as with much of life, beauty, and truth, are in the eye of the beholder. And being in our eye, it is really in our brain, our make-up, our experiences. Maybe we simply can't help ourselves. we just gravitate toward certain things, not really knowing why, but believing completely that we are "right" in how and why we do and think certain things.
So, tell me your thoughts and expand upon my ideas presented above. Does my theory have merit, or not? Am I missing something obvious? Any and all views are welcome.
Oh, and why do we watch these newscasts? Because we want to.
Cheers!
Chef Jeff
Which News Program do You Watch the Most?
Primarily, I watch the following cable news network to get my news...
See results without votingCommentsLoading...
I think you are missing something, Jeff, as you suggest. We watch the stations you mention because truly objective newscasts do not exist anymore. If you have an interest in politics and want to see issues discussed on TV, there's not a lot of choice. PBS comes closest to objectivity. I watch some MSNBC shows because Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann tell the unvarnished truth while, if not objective, at least offer facts not found anywhere else. I watch CNN and Fox "News" less often lately because it's difficult to listen to a steady flow of people who are more interested in lining their pockets with cash than solving our many societal problems. The distortions and lies I hear on the right wing shows, on radio as well as on TV, are difficult to listen to for very long. It's not so much looking for reinforcement of our own ideas, but seeking truth and solutions. There are too many people on this earth who need help -- of all kinds -- to listen to the greedy, self-indulging talking heads on television.
Hey, A Texan! Great to hear from you! Well, they are I guess still in existence, and they do draw some of the viewers. At times they do quite well in ratings, but I do not like their "prison shows" very much. I could do with more plain old news, less about how prisoners cope in jail. Leave that to PBS and other stations. they do a much better job of journalism in that area.
Bill, I'll answer you later! Got to run back to work!
Cheers!
Chef Jeff
Jeff - great hub. I think you are right about the idea that we want to reinforce our own beliefs, it makes us more comfortable. I get most of my news from the radio, and often listen to radio people that I don't like just to hear what they have to say.
I watch the shows for laughs. Okay, not just for laughs--they do let me know what's going on through their warped views and I get some topical information that way, but I find it a fairly high form of comedy. Fox and MSNBC are both so firmly attached to their political extremes that it is amusing.
I do agree with you in the strategy of seeing both sides from an extreme perspective and landing somewhere in the middle. It tends to work that way for me, as well.
Thanks, this was an entertaining read.
Chef,
I see the cold weather up there hasn't frozen your mind. A friend moved to NH and likes it. Coming from Houston, that's a change. A moose looking in his window completed his conversion.
Is MSNBC still on the air? I thought they were going to follow Air America.
Chef - like you, I watch 'em all so I know where everyone's coming from - do the same thing with bible scholars. Best, Sis
Hey, Bill, great to read your comment. Yes, I agree that none of the three cable news channels have much unbiased news coverage. they each have their niche and it seems to work well for them. From what I have read FOXNews is still generally first in ratings, with CNN sometimes taking the #1 spot, and MSNBC rarely doing so, but usually a distant 3rd.
Still, each of these three entities has enough viewers to keep them solvent. Or, so it seems. But as for facts-only, no political spin, no political or other agenda, we are sadly lacking because we seem to enjoy a good fracas in our news, and the people we all support seem to get good money for doing what they do. Take Rush Limbaugh, for example, and you'll see someone who has found a niche, makes really good money at it for himself, his staff and his sponsors, and they all seem happy with that. The loyal listeners also support him and so it goes. Air America, as my good friend Harvey mentions above, did not have the same kind of ratings, and sponsors were reluctant to back them so I guess they are gone now. But MSNBC is still on pretty solid ground, in spite of the ratings fluctuations. Olbermann and Maddow more or less keep the ratings up there for MSNBC, and other daily programs have decent, if not spectacular ratings.
Of course Glenn Beck has been controversial since his move to FOXNews, but his ratings are still up there, and sponsors have been mostly reluctant to leave, although possibly a few have or may do so, it seems.
But my idea is that we are more or less pre-disposed to believe which ever network comes closest to telling things as we see them. I know I have a good sprinkling of Conservative and Liberal comments here, and like me, it seems that many so far do watch a variety of cable news channels. I think that is good, but I wonder if a Liberal, for example, would ever agree with anything FOXNews has to say, or their take on a story. Would a Conservative ever feel that Maddow or Olbermann "got it right"? I can say that at times I do agree with Bill O'Reilly, as for example whenhe had a story about high school girls getting tossed from the prom because they had no undergarments on. I also agreed with him when he took on a school principal on the issue of not expelling a student because of feared backlash by the football alums.
Equilibrium in the news is where we seem to be, as my good friend Wm F Torpey indicates above, not so much objectivity, but a balance between Conservative views and Liberal views. I also wonder if Liberal views, such as Air America, could ever win out, especially because many Liberals I know are not wealthy, and therefore can't support their programming as easily. Or so the story goes. Most wealthy sponsors seem to be more Conservative than Liberal. Is there any truth to that or is the merely a political "old spouse's tale"????
Anyway, thanks for the comments and I hope to see a lot more coming in. I am really curious about the validity of my theory on this, so if you have more to add, please do!
Cheers!
Chef Jeff
Jeff, I watch McNeil Lehrer Report pretty much every night and listen to NPR during the day. I check out CNN because I find Anderson Cooper's smile mischevous. I heard Diane Sawyer in her new spot for the first time yesterday. And I read magazines and books. I am Independent and lean left as you do. Here is something curious: Palin posted a refutation to ALL of Obama's points on Facebook according to a friend of mine who claims Palin now holds the majority vote in the US. I find this astonishing on many levels-- not the least that Palin has decided that Facebook is her outlet of choice. What do you make of this?
Well, Storytellersrus, in my constant evolution as a person since I started writing hubs, I have learned never to be too surprised by anything anymore.
Sarah Palin, like her or hate her, has made a name for herself. How she did that is a controversial subject to some, but just the same she is a power to be reckoned with today. Will she keep her status? Will she lose it, as may be happening among the Tea Party crowd, with her endorsement of John McCain over his more Conservative opponent in the Arizona Senatorial race? That remains to be seen.
For those that love her, truly want her to be president someday, she can do no wrong, much as amongst the true Obama fans, he does everything well. The truth lies, I believe, somewhere in between. Obama will always infuriate some people, inspire others, but it is the substance of what he does that intrigues me the most.
Sarah Palin, like many politicians, has latched on to the most convenient, easiest manner of getting her message out there. Twittering, facebook, all of these e-campaign tools, are perhaps the wave of the future. Just think of how that might change things, especially in light of the recent Supreme Court decision to allow corporations and unions to spend huge amounts of dollars on campaigning for their favorites.
Could a really grass-roots candidate for either the GOP or Dems, or maybe even someone in a third party, get enough votes via facebook or twitter? One has to wonder. Just as the telegraph once changed elections, and the telephone in its origin did as well, and the Internet when it was suddenly in so many homes, will these new tools make the difference for a candidate?
I know if I were running for office I would use any "free" method of getting my name, message and image out there. What savvy politico-type wouldn't?
Cheers!
Chef Jeff
Hey, Sis, (Angela B.), glad to hear from you! I like to watch them all as well, but I have to remember that now-a-days TV news is mostly there to make money, and the people they have on certainly do make lots of money! I wish I had a job like that! LOLOL!!! I also think that if we had just dry news, we'd all be watching something else. What do you think?
Cheers!
Chef Jeff
In regard to the "balance" between conservative and liberal views that you mention, Chef Jeff, I think the scales run heavily in favor of the conservatives. Yes, there are a few liberals on TV and radio now, but the truth is that there is more time and programs dominated by conservatives. If you watch CNBC business news, that's hour-after-hour of right wing/business propaganda. Rush Limbaugh by himself spends more hours on more stations across the country bashing liberals than all the liberal broadcasters. Perhaps conservatives listen to and watch conservatives and liberals listen to and watch liberals, but trying to find the objective news out of that is not only difficult, but darn near impossible. The closest we can get to objectivity is to listen to a number of foreign news programs. President Obama is presently making still another effort to achieve bipartisanship with Republican legislators. The truth is that it is an impossible task. Each of the GOP proposals is designed to give corporations dominance over ordinary citizens -- topped off by their Supreme Court activist justices who only this week gave corporations a larger role in elections that any single citizen. I could go through each issue one by one, but in each case conservatives seek greater corporate power over individuals.
WT, I agree that Conservatives love their talk show bashing, lol. What about the statement that Republicans fall in line and Democrats fall in love? Do you find this true?
Thanks Chef, for your observations regarding Palin's freebies. It seems, if she is having to do the Facebook thing, she isn't getting enough coverage on Fox, which might not bode well for her.
I think there's a lot of truth in the old saw about Democrats falling in love, Storytellersrus, and the Republicans certainly all fall in line. If we keep score, I'd say Republican scandals outnumber Democratic scandals by a pretty large number.
Great work, as usual.
I stopped listening to talk radio years ago, though occasionally, I give a listen. I've been doing it more and more recently in preparation for an article, or maybe something larger, we'll see. Rush Limbaugh, and other conservatives, seem to be applying psyop techniques against their audience. I see it in books, radio, newspapers, online, and on TV. Confirmation, affirmation, and isolation are used to achieve the aim of making the subject trust and rely on the controller for views. Like Patty Hearst, the subject's will is broken down and rebuilt so that they accept subjective reality as objective reality. Once the person can no longer tell the difference between what is real and fake, they can then be made to do things against their own best interests.
It's like they looked at "1984" not as warning, but as a road map to achieve control. For instance, you have a significant portion the US thinking that the Free Market is sacrosanct, but Free Trade is bad (and vice versa), who never once think about the fact that they are the SAME THING. There are people who think that the purpose of the Constitution is to limit the role of government, when the whole point of the unamended Constitution was to create new government. That's beyond doublespeak, that is doublethink! There are other examples, as I am sure you know.
Regardless, I think your conclusions are valid, though I apply more cynicism (and/or paranoia) than you, apparently.
well up till now shows with democratic views wouldn't make it. they don't stir the pot.things are logical and without confusion. therefore the ratings drop and the shows don't make it. but, in issues where nothing sounds like it will make sense, then people will listen to see " how in the world this is gonna make sense".
For example, in issues where everyone is saying we need to find and implement a remedy, republicans say, "don't touch it". huh? well thats illogical. so they listen to see if this can make sense. fox news is hostile and uncomfortable. when people are trying to help they (fox) are yelling with angry stone faces as if it's personal. the people are saying we have a whole in the roof. democrats start to try to fix it, and all, thus far, that i have seen is the conservatives saying nope. then they try another way only to get the same answer. then the democrats say " ok, what do you suggest" and they say just leave it alone and let it fix itself ha ha ha, huh?. back to fox. their attacks become almost cheap shots. from the time almost that the guest states his name, they start with the attack. it's not an informative show. it seems more like their mission is to destroy ones credibility.
Rush will tell you that he is only an entertainer.him along with beck and hannitys' view, is polemic.here is an example. bob went to toms and beat him to a pulp. polemic view is: bob went to talk to tom, and tom beat him up and injured poor bobs knuckles with his face... huh? so no matter what the dems say, they will refute it. don,t listen to them. they will mislead you!
I find this to be a thoughtful blog with a lot of good points. You remind me a bit of my husband, who calls himself an independent but admits (at least to me) that he can't remember the last time he voted for a Republican. Would that be an apt description of you as well? I'm an unapologetic liberal Dem & would only consider voting Republican if the Dem candidate were a serial killer, child molester, or possibly was caught with $90,000 in his/her freezer. But jokes aside, I do value objectivity in news reporting. This is why I'm a strong supporter of net neutrality and sign all the petitions to keep the internet free of corporate control. If you agree, maybe you could put a link in this blog where people could go to read about/support net neutrality. Anyway, I like a daily dose of CNN or any of the 3 main networks ( NBC, ABC, CBS) for straight news coverage. I watch Olberman, Maddow, & Anderson Cooper for evening entertainment when "nothing" else is on, which is frequently, in my opinion. Maddow is getting good critical reviews and may be in line for an Emmy or other editorial newscast awards, if she hasn't already gotten some. Could that be said of anyone on FOX?
Your thoughts on political brain-washing are interesting. While Patty Hearst is a famous example of classic brain-washing through mental & physical abuse and isolation, political indoctrination in the U.S., like religious indoctrination, is usually just a normal function of child rearing in the family. While we live in a free speech, freedom of religion society, more often than not, youth adopt basically the same beliefs and values as their parents and tend to retain them for life. Do you agree? Anyway, I think your theory of why people gravitate to certain newscasts is a good one. Good job on a well thought out, thought provoking article.
I scribble, I have voted for Republicans in my life, and in the recent past. I liked the Republican sheriff candidate where I used to live. I dislike primaries because you have to declare yourself either Republican or Democrat. Honestly, I see some candidates of both parties, in different offices, of course, that I could vote for. However, generally I do vote either Democrat or some other party. Recently, I have been turned off by the shift of Republicans away from the center. I can see plenty of places where both major parties could agree on issues and bills and yet they can't vote that way because of the loud voices from their bases that threaten to vote them out if they compromise.
By the way, I felt the same when the Democrats went too far to the Left back in the Eugene McCarthy days.
I like choices.
OK, got to get back to work. More to follow!
Cheers!
Chef Jeff
Hi! I really enjoyed your article. Thank you.
Good hub Chef. I would agree with your theory.
Consider the old psychobabble saying "People only make decisions designed to please themselves". When I first heard this way back when, I originally thought "empty, useless, vapid psychobabble". But over years of people watching, low and behold, it continues to prove itself true. And regarding your point about what news people watch, it seems they often choose sources that reinforce their own belief systems. After all, who wants to turn on the news, and have their entire belief system picked apart, and challenged at every level - not most people.
But the old adage proves itself in even extreme circumstances, such as alcoholism or spousal abuse. Consider the battered spouse who doesn't leave. They continue clinging to their existing belief structures, maintaining their false hopes that their partner loves them, that the torture will stop, that everything will get better and everyone will be happy.
We all live in these belief systems we've created, we have many years invested in constructing them, they're familiar to us, and provide a comfortable filter for us to perceive the world. And when they become shattered, we're essentially "psychologically homeless".
So yes Chef, I would agree with your analysis, and again, good hub!
Great post, Jeff. Every time I turn on the news I ask myself "Why?" All I want to hear is what happened today around the world. I don't want to watch a group of people arguing on a panel. But I guess when you have a 24 hour news channel, you have to come up with something to put on it. Of course, there are worse things on television...
I stopped watching the news in 04 when it finally made me realize that it was literally depressing and stressfull and very distracting, so I stopped and took the power away from them and have been better for it ever since. Choosing a side in politics is like choosing ur favorite football team, and the majority of the time its the same as your fathers, so that takes away the truth from both sides u go with what u were brought up to know, reminds me of religion. At least football has the least amount of casualties. I am both patriotic and spiritual but with a sense of humanity and sanity. So chef u asked why do we watch the news? For all them reasons, i don't watch the news. I'd encourage others to do the same. Yahoo Is my homepage ud be amazed by how well u keep up with just glances at the top stories while signing into email
Nice hub good info thanks..
I might add - philosotographer, thinking he made a choice to NOT participate in the bias and spin, is still ensnared. He says he just scans the headlines on Yahoo. But the news isn't just what they say, or how they say it, it's also what they do not say. Yahoo did not cover the Acorn scandal last year, at all. Yahoo did not cover the climategate scandal when it broke either. These events would have been an affront to the sensibilities of the audience they were trying to support.
Simply ignoring "most" of the news, and just scanning headlines from places that don't 'upset' you doesn't make you less biased. It just gives you less pieces of the biased puzzle. Perhaps so few pieces that none disagree with your preconceptions.
Sometimes what you don't know is more more important than what you do.
MNichopolis, yet my preconceptions keep me at peace in my mind. I have just been enlightened that keeping up with the news like an addiction does absolutely nothing for oneself, no one can ever say watching the news has made their lives better.
All the major news stations bicker back and forth to solve nothing, the news in my eyes accomplishes more negativity than anything.
"breaking news" "this just in" now if news could prevent things from happening, that would be worth watching. Ironically, news is blinding, not enlightening, its distracting not freeing.
you say "news isn't just what they say, or how they say it, it's also what they do not say" that's just acknowledging the fact that EVERYTHING they say is what they want us to hear, lies, facts, rumors, mirrors, vail's, smoke screens. You can't trust the source, why waste your time with "the news"
Where are you? You haven't responded to your comments lately. I hope you are okay. I am still waiting to hear if you support net neutrality.
If you are well, I would appreciate if you would check out my new hub on Blagojevich & make a comment. happy weekend!
Okay - I tend to watch more Fox than any other stations (besides local) ... then again - I get most of my information on the web as in facts and not news related stories.
Mainly because News on other stations piss my wife off and I watch what she wants to a point.
You see the American mentality has finally caught up with the political and social view that people in her country had about 30 years ago ...
She came here as a political refugee from Hungary (when it was Communist)
A Texan 2 years ago
Jeff, I have just one comment, in what world is MSNBC a "major player"? You are probably the only viewer.