Learning Mode

Essays on Stuff & Things

Broken News Anchors

Speculative-ism is talking all around an issue, about it, what it may or might mean, speculating about all it's aspects, while never putting the issue in context, historically or statistically. This is MSNBC at it's best.

Tabloid-ism is a technique of delivery as well as a viscerally emotional topic – booming, grating sounds, eye-popping graphics, the gravelly voiced announcer. Of course the train wrecks and cars into crowds have to be covered. And some topics can rule as the sexual accusations against prominent men had for a few months. This is CNN's forte.

Rant-ism is... Fox News. The majority of their "news" is hate-complaining. They yell. They shout. The cry out in anger about the total destruction of the Republic by Democrats and all things "Liberal".

Who knows what goes on behind the news. Are there meetings where topics and formats are discussed? Just how do they put their shows together? (Have to look for any expose books.)

Whatever they do, it is the anchor, the host, who faces the viewers and speaks their narrative. (Though "anchor" is no longer much in use since the days of networks with a sole "anchorman".)

Let's talk about some of them.

Hugh Hewett is MSNBC's token Conservative. His narrative is his speculative opinions about whatever... No facts, no context, just a "Hey look, I know what I'm talking about, you don't," smarm.

That is the definition of Conservatism: "We are right, you are wrong, only we know what is best for America. Oh, and we are never wrong."

Rachel Maddow is the left's version of a right-wing radio host – anger, lies and insults replaced with grinningly mad smiles and waving hands at how "We got the goods!" But like them she takes hold of a "really explosive" subject and does not let go of it until it... starts to dry up in her hands. (At the end of the hour we're like, "What was her point, again?")

(The most infamous was Trump's "actual tax returns" she held up, maddeningly grinning that "We got them!", only to end with a thud and a dud. And here with a sigh and a shake of the head.)

And the Morning Joe speech-questions! Notice how he (like many others) do not simply ask questions. He makes a 3-5 minute speech about something to a guest and ends with, "Your take?" (Briefly looking down and away so smug as he does.)

Al Sharpton – though we do not watch much – does not seem to have any direction. Our take is that he is kind of confused about how he should approach things; a bit hesitant to take a stand or a side. Unfortunate, we think.

We like Joy Reid and Katy Kur, solid, calm presenters of what's known about a subject, asking guests questions to clarify things. Chuck Todd is that way too, though he always lets Republican guests spin him. Chris Hayes's confidence is a bit of fresh air.

The others we do not watch much or they are too bland to hold attention.

We save the worst for last. How can so many stomach Lawrence O'Donnell's smarmy, baseless ravings, spoken as if he were laughing at you for not being so smart as he? His month's long  s l o w l y   d e l i v e r e d   r a n t s   may not seem like rants, but only because they're  s o   s l o w  and lasts for weeks per subject. (Like how President Trump should have been impeached oh so many months ago.)

That is enough for this part. More later on the "other two".

Publisher: John Gwot Gordon Geck: Editor

Design: Stuff & Things Andova Begarin: Code