Tuesday, June 11, 2013

Why many people do not watch talk TV shows...

Having watched over three hours of TV talk shows, almost all on politics, almost all with the same guests and issues, I think it is logical that more and more people no longer watch them. I include the ones I watched, Fox News, MSNBC, and CNN.

There are three problems that frustrate me, not just the constant repetition/ the content but the “presentation” and one claim by a journalist today about journalists in the past that is simply not true.

First, can anyone explain to me why MSNBC especially, has incestuous  talkers?  There are three or four talkers with hour shows.  Yet I often see one talker have as “guests” other MSNBC talkers who then go to their own hour show and just repeat their views. Another frustration is the fact that most talkers ask a question and answer it before the guest can.  The host talks over the guests.  To complete the frustration, they waste time thanking the guest and repeating the identity and then wait for what seems forever for the guest to say, thank you or whatever.

And as was shown by the Rice issue: every show has the same guests. Do they think a guest will actually say something different on each show? And are the three or four usual guests the only people in the country who can speak on an issue? I could go a year without hearing again from certain “guests” such as ones from Huffington Report and The Nation.


Finally, I can tell the talkers of today and their “journalist/historian” guests that they are wrong when they say that there were better journalists/papers/shows in “the good ole days.” Ask any one who has worked in a cause, or better yet, read Gay Press, Gay Power (edited by Tracy Baim) and see proof that in those days the “journalists,” including those at major newspapers, magazines, etc., were ignorant, bigoted, and refused to allow any input on the issue of homosexuality from anyone in the movement.  Same was true of college professors, and other “professionals.”

4 comments:

Mary Davidson said...

Precisely why I don’t watch this type of show!

Billy Glover said...

I watch a minute (except on Sunday which I force myself to check them out) to see the point/issue of the day, about like I spend one minute reading the headings on Drudge Report. I think most of us hoped that the guests and talkers might know more than we do and let us hear different views, etc. But all I hear is the same news and views on all of each channel's shows. Rachel repeats what Donnell has said, etc. I expect Fox News people to all toe the party line, but not MSNBC.

Phil D. said...

I agree Billy. I used to enjoy NSNBC a lot. I especially liked Keith Olberman, and Ed Schultz. Now, Ed Schultz does another show on Saturdays. I like that a "out" lesbian, Rachel Maddow, is on, but can't tolerate her constant chatter and redundancy. Chris Hayes is a male version of Rachel.

Chris Matthews is in your face and talks over his guests, but he does push for a decent answer. I think the only one left on MSNBC who seems to be a real professional is Lawrence O'Donnell. But I don't even watch him anymore. At least MSNBC has facts and shows quotes and or video clips to validate their observations.

But now, no thanks, thank you mam!

You are absolutely about homosexuality being "no mention subject" with journalists from the past. They paid no attention to the issue at all.

Billy Glover said...

I find it strange that MSNBC is as bad as Fox news. I wonder about people who listen to either channel more than long enough to see what subject is being covered by each talker.

I also think you are right about the 3 or 4 talkers on MSNBC. They look alike, talk alike and all discuss the same issue each day. (Besides Hayes looking and sounding like Rachel, there is another talker who also looks like them.)

On rare occasions, which is why we keep checking in and hoping, one will actually make news and give viewers information that makes us know the real im;portant point of an issue. O'Donnell did this when he pinted out that the IRS has illegally changed the law about how much effort non-profits can do politically--it says NO politics, yet the IRS has said they just have to primarily do good works.

None of the tea party groups should be tax-exempt.