Dull and useless
: At lunch with Jay Rosen the other day (aren't you jealous?), he and I agreed that the import of FoxNews and Bill O'Reilly is complicated. People who look at Fox and say it's just America right-turn signal are missing so much more.
Fox changed the very business of TV news (by getting rid of expensive produced pieces and the producers who produce them and by going to live discussion, which is not only cheaper but livelier).
Fox brought opinion to news and, via the ratings, we see that the audience embraces that because it's simply more compelling and, in some ways, it's more honest to reveal your perspective as you report the news. (The great irony is, of course, that Fox and O'Reilly deny their perspective when asked, but in every other way are in-your-face upfront about it; there's a touch of Kafka to this story).
And, Jay writes, Fox and Bill O'Reilly bring something new to the alleged art of anchoring:
He brings forcefully to the surface and makes explicit what had been buried for so long in the journalist’s presentation of self: a political identity in the one who brings us the news— proudly so.
Proudly political, you say? Yeah, and it’s no insult. Whatever else may be said about him, O’Reilly is someone who speaks his mind, and takes positions. A guy who, as a commentator himself and questioner of others, stands up for certain values in American life that (he thinks) don’t get defended enough. O’Reilly is the anti-anchorman because he dispenses with the broadcast professional’s cool demeaner, something Jennings, Brokaw, Rather, Bernard Shaw, Jim Lehrer, Judy Woodruff and countless others have never done.
I agree. As I thought about it, I saw that all their video forebears -- Cronkite, Huntley, Brinkley, and the BBC, too -- tried their very best to make themselves -- and, thus, news -- dull. That was their high journalistic and moral calling. TV was getting dissed by print; they needed to give TV respectablity; they did it with stentorian tone and a fake unpersonality. And, frankly, that strategy worked. TV got respect (well, some is better than none).
But it was ripe for the pricking. So along came O'Reilly, who did a tabloid show with pride and volume and then brought his same caffeine to cable news.
And the audience responds. They watch his shows. They buy his books. And it's not just because of what he says. It's how he says it. It's who he is, too.
When O'Reilly appeared on Howard Stern's show a few weeks ago (see it on E!
tonight), he said that Stern paved the way for O'Reilly and others because he opened up the airwaves to saying what you think. It was right and good that he gave Stern credit.
After O'Reilly left, the Stern crew agreed that they liked O'Reilly but he also almost scared them. The guy is strung as tight as a mandolin. And just as in
Private Parts, people said they watched Stern for hours to see what he'd say next, so do people watch O'Reilly to see what will make him snap. And he snaps because he
cares. The previous generations of anchors didn't seem to
care.
As Jay Rosen says, this is a new style of news: "resentment news." Howard Beale presaged it in
Network. Bill O'Reilly lives it on FoxNews.
Beale and O'Reilly care. They get mad. And here's the important connection: So do we. We care. We get mad. We want to hear from people who are human, like us.
Some say this is the death of news. The same thinking said TV was the death of news.
I say it's just what news needs. It makes news compelling, worth changing the channel for, worth talking about the next day, worth arguing about, worth reading up on so you can argue. It's a good thing.
Dull news is not smart news. Useless news is not important news. There is nothing wrong with news being compelling and useful.
Go read
Rosen's spot-on analysis of O'Reilly. It is a complicated story.
cx65 free skins
: Some of my earlier posts on the importance of O'Reilly and FoxNews here, here, and here. cx65 free skins
: Update: See also this Bill O'Reilly column on anchors and opinions from last June:
But the new era of instant information rendered Brinkley and many other broadcast veterans almost powerless. No longer is the American public a captive audience, and no longer will the folks settle for an expressionless recitation of the news. With the advent of the Internet and round-the-clock cable news, the audience quickly knows the basic facts of a story. But often, along with those facts come instant spin and contradiction. Informational fog develops, leaving busy Americans in need of context.
They want to know how the journalists they trust feel about things important to their lives. The news consumer is almost desperate for someone to define the truth.
Thus, the good old days when the Brinkleys and Cronkites could simply introduce stories in measured tones are coming to an end. The audience for dispassionate news is shrinking, and the demand for passionate reporting and analysis is on the rise....
Amen, brother Bill. I've been preaching that story for sometime. But O'Reilly says this is more than a response to the audience's desire, it's an obligation of a business dedicated to informing the public:
Jennings, Dan Rather and Tom Brokaw know a lot more than they're telling you. They understand the issues and know who the charlatans are. These three men should be commentators, not news readers. They have insights far beyond most Americans. For the good of the country, they should share them.
Two things hold them back. First, it is risky to do news analysis. You are bound to tick off some powerful people....
Second, the network suits would get nervous. Newspaper columnists are expected to offend people. TV types are not. They are basically diplomats, and some are even a calming influence. Can you imagine Jennings pointing his finger demanding that President Bush come clean about weapons of mass destruction? Can you picture Brokaw pounding his desk and chiding Sen. Hillary Clinton for writing a book full of propaganda? It is hard to imagine, but wouldn't you like to see it?
Just about anybody can be taught to read the news. Why are brilliant men like Jennings, Rather and Brokaw wasting their time chucking headlines at us? The country needs clarity and honest insights.
: More... I've been thinking how I would review O'Reilly today, if I were still a TV critic for
one of these.
I'm sure that I would have ended up writing two reviews. The first would not have been positive. His high-strung, angry tone grated me when my folks visited and put FoxNews on the TV (and pumped up the volume).
But as I said of Howard Stern in TV Guide, to my surprise, he is best taken in large, not small doses.
I watched a lot more of O'Reilly after September 11th and through the war. And I came to understand that he is, as I said above, a guy who
cares. I have to respect that. I see a guy who is more reasonable than his tone would always indicate. I see a smart guy who does argue well. And I see an audience who clearly responds to him. You can't just dismiss O'Reilly, for if you do, you dismiss his audience with him and that would be a mistake.
When I was a critic, I did occasionally write reconsiderations. I didn't like
Friends much when it first came out (seeing it as diluted
Seinfeld). But I kept watching. And once it was a hit, I went back and considered it again with an open mind and concluded I was wrong; its charm grew on me and I said so. (The producers sent me a nice thank-you note, surprised that a critic would change his mind.)
I still wish O'Reilly didn't seem so thin-skinned, for thin-skinned people make me nervous (and you'd think that someone who dishes it out could take it). I still don't agree with O'Reilly about a lot of things he says. But I also am smart enough to know when I disagree with him. He doesn't insult my intelligence by withholding his opinions; he knows that we out here have our opinions, too.
I now understand and appreciate what he's trying to do and I think that TV needs more O'Reillys of all sorts of stripes -- not arguing with each other but arguing their points of view with passion, humanity, intelligence, and reporting behind them. TV news would be better off for it and so would its audience.
cx65 free skins
10-4, good buddy
: Glenn Reynolds agrees with John Markoff. Blogs are like CB radio. Here's how:
Like CB, they may well vanish from public attention, if not from the actual world (plenty of CB radios still get sold, after all). And they'll probably be replaced, or absorbed by, new technology within a few years. But they're popular right now because people want to get around Big Media's stranglehold on news and information, just as CBs were popular with people who wanted to get around Jimmy Carter's speed limits. And, like Jimmy Carter, Big Media folks seem largely clueless about what's going on.
cx65 free skins
...
: To prove that, earlier that same day, I happened upon a scene: A New York parking cop giving a ticket to a U.S. Postal Service truck. It struck me as rather dumb: One arm of our government tickets another arm of our goverment to get our money and pay for a lot of bureacrats in the process. It wasn't worth bringing my camera out of my bag but then I remembered: I have my super-duper camera-phone. And it has the further advantage of being quite unobtrusive; the ticket lady wouldn't even notice me taking the picture. 