George Stephanopoulos, Tim Russert, and Chris Matthews are all former senior aides to successful (sort of) Democratic politicians --Bill Clinton, Mario Cuomo, and Jimmy Carter respectively. Karl Rove is easily as well read and informed as these three, and as funny as Russert can be when he's on.So which network will put its ratings ahead of its ideology and give Rove the Sunday Show that would quickly draw an audience larger than any of the other three?Part of my instinct is to be all for it. Why shouldn't the networks just fire Stephenopoulos, Russert, and Matthews, and replace them with ideological figures like Karl Rove on the right and Michael Moore on the left? The reigning ideal for the American media is a moderate Republican like John McCain or Joe Lieberman who can translate conservative positions into a kind of secular moderation. But if there is a declining force in American society, it's political moderation. Why not have people like Rove represent the positions of the right without the distorting function of the media? Put the Michael Moores, Jon Stewarts, and Arianna Huffingtons out there from the left as well.
In the final analysis though, the fictional moderation of the mainstream media may still have a claim on us. As unsatisfactory as the mainstream media is to both those on the right and people like me on the left, it still represents the primary claim to a national political culture in the United States. Because of the decline of moderate liberalism and moderate conservatism, the claim of the mainstream media to being the focal point of a national political culture has grown thin. But that claim is still real and the mainstream media still serves a useful function as a semi-legitimate meeting place for the claims of right and left.
In that context, the reason why Tim Russert have made the transition from Democratic staffer to big-time media figure is that he was willing to make "moderation" his primary reference point. So, if Karl Rove wants a Sunday talk show, he needs to start talking as if Arlen Spector really represented the "sensible middle ground" in American politics.
Otherwise, he should just stick with his guest appearances on Limbaugh.
Posts
5 comments:
So, it is alright for Russert, Stephanopolous, and Carville to remain true to their liberal roots, but Rove would have to moderate his positions. How would Michael Moore being an equivalent ideological figure to Rove? One makes mock-u-mentaries, and one has actual real life experience in politics.
jd
They are both a bit chubby, but I'm not sure that counts for qualifications. Carville though, he can out pitbull any of 'em. In fact. If he were to visit Michael Vicks place, my money would be on him. And with Kos being the new political center, they'll all have to move left to regain that moderation.
If you think Russert, Stefanopoulos, or Matthews is true to their liberal roots, check out the tide of MSM criticism on liberal blogs like Glenn Greenwald's (and Greenwald is the go-to guy for media criticism among liberal blogs). Liberals aren't any happier with the MSM than the right.
Obviously, Michael Moore has had more success as a filmmaker than Rove has had lately as a political strategist for the worst president in American history. But the obvious equivalence is that they're both powerful spokespeopel for their relative points of view.
Viewed from a kos centeic point of view, you're absolutely right. Sanity, however says different.
Using the Gleen's as a source? How about Thomas Ellers? Ellers McEllerson? He doesn't like the media because the are not as socialist as he is. Hardly makes them centrist, or right wing.
Stephanopolous et al are the political equivalents of Rove, yet you seem to need to compare him to Moore. Odd, that.
Post a Comment