I'm not sure I get the point of this comparison... That each network is slanted in a certain direction, and tends to report news that fits this slant?

>> ^Sarzy:

I'm not sure I get the point of this comparison... That each network is slanted in a certain direction, and tends to report news that fits this slant?


Not so much that. They're both ostensibly left-leaning. It's more about the subtle ways even a left-leaning channel like MSNBC can still wind up with some very pro-corporate editorial decisions.

I think having Countdown be wall-to-wall Occupy Wall Street night after night might be overdoing it, but I was rather ticked that on a night when there were some real developments happening there, MSNBC decided to drop everything and spend 3+ hours on talking about Steve Jobs.

Even over the next few days, the MSNBC lineup has almost been dragged into talking about OWS by other media, rather than making it their lead story night after night, and dragging other media into talking about it.

Most nights the lead stories on MSNBC and Countdown are pretty similar. With Occupy Wall Street, they haven't been.

The 3+ hours of uninterrupted talk about Steve Jobs just ticked me off. Seemed like an attempt to blackout coverage of OWS on a night when there was another wave of mass arrests happening.

Oh okay, I see. I don't know though -- MSNBC probably should have given some coverage to OWS that night, but Steve Jobs' death is pretty darn important, isn't it? I mean, 10 years from now, people are definitely going to remember Steve Jobs. I don't know if you can say the same about OWS, which essentially strikes me as the left's answer to the tea party.

this is very simple sirs, MSNBC is 1. a subsidiary of GE 2. a corporate master and 3. completely and utterly ran and funded by the same entities the ows movement rallying against.
of course they're not going to cover it.

and sarzy, i think you need to give ows a harder look. >> ^Sarzy:

Oh okay, I see. I don't know though -- MSNBC probably should have given some coverage to OWS that night, but Steve Jobs' death is pretty darn important, isn't it? I mean, 10 years from now, people are definitely going to remember Steve Jobs. I don't know if you can say the same about OWS, which essentially strikes me as the left's answer to the tea party.

>> ^Sarzy:

Oh okay, I see. I don't know though -- MSNBC probably should have given some coverage to OWS that night, but Steve Jobs' death is pretty darn important, isn't it? I mean, 10 years from now, people are definitely going to remember Steve Jobs. I don't know if you can say the same about OWS, which essentially strikes me as the left's answer to the tea party.


Sure, Steve Jobs' death is a worthwhile news story, but it's not like it was some unfolding event with minute-to-minute updates either. A single segment, possibly in each show would've been more than sufficient. If they really felt the need to pay a big tribute, come back in a couple weeks with a big 60 minute tribute show or something.

Oh, and yes, people will remember Steve Jobs's life 10 years from now, but most people will probably need to look up the date of his death 10 years from now.

And who knows how people will remember these protests. Maybe they'll just be a footnote in the history of the Lesser Depression. Or maybe it'll be a big factor in the 2012 election. Or maybe it'll be the beginning of some major shift in American politics. It'll almost certainly be the first two, and it might just be the third.

That's why I'm annoyed MSNBC blotted it out that night, and was slow to start covering it. They're giving it lots of coverage now, so I'm somewhat less ticked than I was when I originally put up this post, but still, it's the first real distinction I've seen between corporate MSNBC, and mostly independent Current in terms of their coverage.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^Sarzy:
Oh okay, I see. I don't know though -- MSNBC probably should have given some coverage to OWS that night, but Steve Jobs' death is pretty darn important, isn't it? I mean, 10 years from now, people are definitely going to remember Steve Jobs. I don't know if you can say the same about OWS, which essentially strikes me as the left's answer to the tea party.

Sure, Steve Jobs' death is a worthwhile news story, but it's not like it was some unfolding event with minute-to-minute updates either. A single segment, possibly in each show would've been more than sufficient. If they really felt the need to pay a big tribute, come back in a couple weeks with a big 60 minute tribute show or something.
Oh, and yes, people will remember Steve Jobs's life 10 years from now, but most people will probably need to look up the date of his death 10 years from now.
And who knows how people will remember these protests. Maybe they'll just be a footnote in the history of the Lesser Depression. Or maybe it'll be a big factor in the 2012 election. Or maybe it'll be the beginning of some major shift in American politics. It'll almost certainly be the first two, and it might just be the third.
That's why I'm annoyed MSNBC blotted it out that night, and was slow to start covering it. They're giving it lots of coverage now, so I'm somewhat less ticked than I was when I originally put up this post, but still, it's the first real distinction I've seen between corporate MSNBC, and mostly independent Current in terms of their coverage.


I don't know -- I think their heart is in the right place, but I guess I just question the efficacy of what the OWS people are doing on a practical level. Even if they somehow succeed in getting tighter regulations on Wall Street, is that really going to do much to to fix the whole 99 vs 1 percent income disparity? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that here in Canada, we don't have the same level of unchecked financial shenanigans as you do over there, which is why we weren't hit quite as hard by the recent downturn. But our income disparity is still pretty much as bad as what it is in the States. I don't think anything short of a massive political and cultural overhaul will fix that disparity to any meaningful degree, and obviously that's not going to happen.

But maybe I have OWS all wrong -- I'll admit that I'm not the most informed guy ever.

>> ^Sarzy:

I don't know -- I think their heart is in the right place, but I guess I just question the efficacy of what the OWS people are doing on a practical level. Even if they somehow succeed in getting tighter regulations on Wall Street, is that really going to do much to to fix the whole 99 vs 1 percent income disparity? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that here in Canada, we don't have the same level of unchecked financial shenanigans as you do over there, which is why we weren't hit quite as hard by the recent downturn. But our income disparity is still pretty much as bad as what it is in the States. I don't think anything short of a massive political and cultural overhaul will fix that disparity to any meaningful degree, and obviously that's not going to happen.
But maybe I have OWS all wrong -- I'll admit that I'm not the most informed guy ever.


Oh, I have the same doubts about how well this will work, but up until now the only public "protest" we've seen has been a bunch of grumpy old men demonstrating against having a Democrat in the White House having a black man in the Oval office government regulation of banks, taxes being too high on the top 1%, and the possibility that we might get some sort of national health care overhaul.

In other words, all the people getting mad and going out on the streets lately have been pro-disparity people.

At least now we have people protesting against the right problem. And these people aren't just protesting for a single day and going home, they're bringing their sleeping bags and parking there for the duration. That seems to me like a crucial first step towards getting anything fixed.

Maybe I'm naive to be inspired by it, but it's the first reason I've had in a while to feel hopeful about the future.

I don't disagree that the OWS movement isn't going to do a whole lot immediately as far as policy and correcting the disparity. I hung out at an OWS function in my town today and wrote what i think it's impact could/should/might/would love to see it be in a sift talk post. go read it if you're interested. i'm not whoring, i just would love to have the discussion, but im not going to have it two places. >> ^NetRunner:

>> ^Sarzy:
I don't know -- I think their heart is in the right place, but I guess I just question the efficacy of what the OWS people are doing on a practical level. Even if they somehow succeed in getting tighter regulations on Wall Street, is that really going to do much to to fix the whole 99 vs 1 percent income disparity? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that here in Canada, we don't have the same level of unchecked financial shenanigans as you do over there, which is why we weren't hit quite as hard by the recent downturn. But our income disparity is still pretty much as bad as what it is in the States. I don't think anything short of a massive political and cultural overhaul will fix that disparity to any meaningful degree, and obviously that's not going to happen.
But maybe I have OWS all wrong -- I'll admit that I'm not the most informed guy ever.

Oh, I have the same doubts about how well this will work, but up until now the only public "protest" we've seen has been a bunch of grumpy old men demonstrating against having a Democrat in the White House having a black man in the Oval office government regulation of banks, taxes being too high on the top 1%, and the possibility that we might get some sort of national health care overhaul.
In other words, all the people getting mad and going out on the streets lately have been pro-disparity people.
At least now we have people protesting against the right problem. And these people aren't just protesting for a single day and going home, they're bringing their sleeping bags and parking there for the duration. That seems to me like a crucial first step towards getting anything fixed.
Maybe I'm naive to be inspired by it, but it's the first reason I've had in a while to feel hopeful about the future.