"Meet the Press," the conspicuous Sunday morning talk show, has had a regular practice, for as long as I can remember — and I've been blogging stuff from the show for 10+ years — of posting a same-day transcript. The text is up in the early afternoon, at which point I often have watched the show and written down a couple words that I can use for a search to get me to the part that I want to blog. Yesterday, I scribbled the words "ship" and "potentially," I also made a note, in my words: "blandification of the election." All day checked the MTP transcripts page, and now it's Monday morning and still no the transcript. Why?!
Yesterday was Chuck Todd's second time as host. Last week, his first time, the show was heavily larded with an interview with Barack Obama. That means yesterday's show was the first example of a normal show. Are they ashamed of it? They've put video up, including neatly captioned segments, like "James Baker: We Need People on Ground in Mideast." ("People," is that what we're calling "boots" now?) The preference for lots of little videos, with writing only in the form of captions that very briefly paraphrase what some guest supposedly said, makes me suspicious. I want to see the specific quotes, and I want to pick them apart.
Why deprive us of the words? Maybe it's just a device to make us watch an ad before we can get to the material. Maybe it's exactly what's frustrating me: They want to pick the bits they like and present them in their terms, with their paraphrase, controlling passive viewers and thwarting active commentators. Or maybe the new presentation is an effort to make Chuck Todd's MTP feel new and different, or at least not disappointingly dull.
I can't find any clip on that page that seems to include the material I wanted to blog to demonstrate my theory that Todd and MTP are downplaying the coming elections, that they've already determined the GOP is going to win big, and they're going with the message — this is my paraphrase: It doesn't really matter what happens in the 2014 elections, even if the Democrats kept the Senate it wouldn't change the do-nothingness of Congress, so a GOP victory is ho-hum, there will be nothing to see when it happens, no one should even notice at all, tomorrow is already so yesterday, and let's talk about 2016, where all the really interesting action is.
Compare that to 2006, where the Democrats did to George Bush in his 6th year what the Republicans are about to do to Barack Obama in his 6th year. That was a watershed!
The blandification of the 2014 elections is a subtle enterprise. It won't make in the clips or the captions. I need the transcript. And if and when I get it, I will comb through the text and figure out if I agree with my own intuition, the sense that I got merely watching the show, which, without the text — evanesces, even for me. So I won't — yet! — offer the conspiracy theory that Todd & Company are busily working to ease the Democratic Party through this election cycle and onto the next.
So I'll only offer this conspiracy theory: They are withholding the transcript because they are afraid of the power we get from the whole text and they prefer us as passive consumers of clipped video and minimized, manipulated paraphrase.
September 15, 2014
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
57 comments:
Or they are lazy and incompetent.
It's kind of like Chuck Todd's mother doesn't need a transcript.
I can only assume it has something to do with white supremacy and 400 years of racial animus. I could be wrong, but I doubt it.
Words are so last century. Video is where it's at.
(When I click on a link and find it's video rather than an article, I usually leave immediately. Compared to reading, watching is very tedious.)
Perhaps they are simply taking the next step in protecting the "narrative".
Four hundred years of oppression and thousands of pages and whites don't even bother reading the real history, but we are supposed to be interested in some 'missing' transcripts involving an hour of journalists and politicians? The transcripts may be missing, but the real history is already there in front of you, if you would simply take the time to give it an honest reading.
It is turtles all the way down...
I like the new program.
I don't mean MTP.
I mean Betamax 3000 robot's new internal progamming. If testing is successful, maybe they will soon come out with a whole new model, the Betacrax MC 3000.
Its turtlenecks all the way down.
If there is a conspiracy, it probably has to do with a conflation of self-interest, self-importance, ideological and political leanings, and the new technology.
They see a lot of ignorance and anger from people, don't realize their own biases (and/or refuse to acknowledge them), and so, act accordingly.
They're scribes for the nation, after all. Purveyors of important information.
Have you heard that pretentious music?
And the technology continues to undercut the authority they have.
Perhaps David Gregory did the transcripts himself.
betamax3000 said...
Four hundred years of oppression and thousands of pages and whites don't even bother reading the real history, but we are supposed to be interested in some 'missing' transcripts involving an hour of journalists and politicians?
Right on, beta; it's all there in black and white. What would that white paper even be without black type? Nothing. But do whites even mention that, that they'd just be blank pages without the contributions of black letters? They're talkin' 'bout Gutenberg and I'm talkin' 'bout 520 years of black letter oppression!
"It doesn't really matter what happens in the 2014 elections, even if the Democrats kept the Senate it wouldn't change the do-nothingness of Congress, so a GOP victory is ho-hum, ..."
They spent more than a little time discussing the proposition that winning the Senate would be bad for the Republicans.
Takes time to prepare a tidy transcript. And costs money, too—Money that may not be in the budget when you're paying the host a superstar salary.
David Dellinger of the Chicago 6, 7, or 8 said that it was ridiculous to charge people who could not agree on where to go for lunch with conspiracy, and in legal terms it is, but they all knew the idea was to go to Chicago and stir up whatever trouble they could, each in his own way.
They will be quite happy to make 2014 the "Vine" election. No details. War on Women, Racists, free stuff, dude that was two years ago.
"OK, now we gotta lo info the infoed mofos!"
Conspiracy theories and conspiracies themselves flourish as information recedes.
Beyond that, in whose interest are transcripts? They are tools of those who value accuracy and cool-headed reason. I'm actually surprised so many media outlets continue with them. Typically the interest served is that of the enterprise in question. CNN, for example, has a website to run, so it makes some sense they'd want to have letterized copies of their video content. NBC... not so much anymore.
I'm sure they've got a deal with some print publishers, but it's unclear what that is anymore either.
Lawyers always do transcripts of EVERYTHING. It is to protect the material from going down the memory hole.
But a transcript also gives weight to the words that resists their later being ridiculed and spoofed as is the #1 attack method of the Progressives. "You guys don't take what men and women say seriously, do you. That is so silly. Life is a spoof!"
Also consider that the average age of the worker bees at NBC News for MTP is probably 24 and for the editors in charge their late 20s or early 30s and my guess would be that they view a full transcript as all that important. It is so 1950s!!! Has their Twitter presence pick up instead? Instagram? That might be your answer.
What is NBC's motive for producing MTP (besides making money)? If it's to inform the public on the issues of the day, a transcript furthers that goal. I imagine that was the motive back at the founding of MTP, and remained so for a long time. Now, however, the motive is to push a political agenda. Transcripts do not further that goal and in fact can often be at odds with it. So transcripts quietly disappear.
Beta and Hoodlum.
After that I am tempted to read Cracks reply. ha ha
Beta destroyed him couple of days ago regarding denial.
"they are afraid of the power we get from the whole text"
Interesting theory, but the premise is even more so -- that MTP is essentially a fraud, because it's not journalism in any relevant sense at all, just an exercise in delivering the narrative for overtly partisan reasons. I don't watch MTP but have no doubt that the talking-heads on it are almost entirely lefty Dems. But this conspiracy theory still seems a bit over-the-top.
Because they are lefty Dems, those are the terms in which they experience what's going on and it's how they frame their reporting about it. They also seem to live in a bubble where almost everyone they interact with shares the same framework and perspective. Realistically, what are the chances that Todd, for example, doubts the 'climate change' narrative, or disagrees with the idea that 'climate deniers' are knuckle-dragging anti-science types?
If that's where they are coming from (I think it is), then you don't need conspiracy theories to explain how shows like MTP end up framing issues in a way that furthers the preferred narrative. It would take a really serious journalist, one who can recognize his own biases to the extent of understanding why someone else might sensibly disagree, to present the kind of MTP Althouse is looking for.
No one it the currently available crop of prominent talking-head types comes to mind for that role.
What startled me was the show's willingness to display a lurch to the left with the new host. MTP had already drifted reasonably far left under David Gregory, but the show yesterday would have fit well under the MSNBC logo.
Todd began with an interview of supposed presidential contender Bernie Sanders. What was the point of this? There is no chance that Sanders will even come close to winning the nomination. His campaign is little more than a vehicle to complain about how Hillary Clinton (and to a lesser extent Barack Obama) are insufficiently liberal. And sure enough, most of the segment was devoted to complaints about Obama's lack of liberal purity.
This was followed by an Andrea Mitchell piece on Hillary's first visit to Iowa this season. The entire piece was a vehicle for Mitchell to discuss Hillary's apostasies from the liberal creed with supposedly likely caucus attendees.
I found the whole show jarring.
Sunday morning talk shows are dominated by conservative white men. Virtually no labor leaders are ever invited, climate change discussion is almost non-existent. There is your real conspiracy theory.
Well, for one thing, there are no "labor leaders" left, unless it be Jimmy Hoffa of the Teamsters, and bringing him on would bring howls of outrage from the classic Kennedy crowd, who still have a lot of money and influence.
The other would be Richard Trumka, the Johnny Friendly from SEIU who now is president of the shell of the old AFL-CIO, but attracting attention by appearing on the Sunday chit-chat shows is not his style either.
Something of the same for climate change; it is not worth it to go on the Sunday shows and find that some Sharyl Attkisson or other is on the panel that week.
Read @66's comment above yours, garage.
garage mahal said...
Sunday morning talk shows are dominated by conservative white men. Virtually no labor leaders are ever invited, climate change discussion is almost non-existent. There is your real conspiracy theory.
9/15/14, 11:27 AM
Why would any of those folks want to be on the morning shows? They might have to actually justify their positions. They might actually have to debate with someone and not just answer softball questions for 30 minutes. It is a no-win for them. Their "fans" are already convinced and the "opposition" can't be bamboozled.
Everything is being dumbed down and reduced to sound bites
Our country continues on its path to a bigger more powerful socialist welfare state with less liberty and less upward mobility for the people as the liberal media cheers it on.
Compared to reading, watching is very tedious
Yes yes yes. I will not watch videos unless they are old Star Trek episodes.
Plus, of course, if you are talking about money and whiteness as being bad things ....
Well, for one thing, there are no "labor leaders" left, unless it be Jimmy Hoffa of the Teamsters, and bringing him on would bring howls of outrage from the classic Kennedy crowd, who still have a lot of money and influence.
Are you kidding me? There are thousands and thousands of labor leaders who could get invited. There hundreds of labor writers/scholars who could get invited. Why not just invite ordinary workers on? How bout a fast food worker? The media is owned and controlled by corporate America, and they want none of that getting on TV. The "liberal media" is biggest joke ever told, and so many believe it.
Bernie Freaking Sanders is too conservative for you, garage?
For now, I'll go with incompetent. There may be far more changing than just the host.
Bernie Freaking Sanders is too conservative for you, garage?
That was his first appearance on MTP. You know how many times McCain has been on?
Original Mike, the thing about liberals (as I'm sure you know) is that anybody or anything to the right of the liberal you're talking to is conservative.
BTW, anybody seen or heard anything from Jake Tapper recently?
Have they managed to revoke his White House press corps privileges?
Since 2009, John McCain has made 97 appearances on Sunday morning talk shows.
@Robert Cook,
Garage Mahal needs your assistance!
Garage, that is probably appropriate considering his importance and profile. McCain may be a duplicitous, self-important rageaholic who I don't want within 100 miles of "the button", but Bernie Sanders does not have 1/10th his relevance.
Garage can't be this simple minded. Everyone knows why Johnny Mac was the go-to Republican on MTP. The Maverick was always good for a quote about how awful his party was behaving. C'mon Man!
Indeed. John McCain is not helpful.
Doesn't Rush Limbaugh call Chuck Todd "Maynard J. Todd" because of his goatee?
Doesn't Rush Limbaugh call Chuck Todd "Maynard J. Todd" because of his goatee?
To be clear: It is "Maynard G. Krebs". The "G" stands for Walter.
garage mahal,
Sunday morning talk shows are dominated by conservative white men.
Um. This Week tends to feature Donna Brazile, Paul Krugman, or both. Neither is a "conservative white man." And the other guests do not "dominate."
garage,
Re: McCain, yes, he is massively overrepresented on Sunday morning talk shows; it's like a continuous second gig. But when does he say anything "conservative"? He's brought in mainly to talk foreign policy (at least, I don't recollect his talking about anything else), and he's a sort of moderate hawk, but that's it.
garage mahal said...
Sunday morning talk shows are dominated by conservative white men. I don't, uh, hmmm...where does one go from here?
Garage watches Fox News Sunday?
Garage watches Fox News Sunday?
Nope. But I can google.
John McCain is not conservative. He is pro-America and pro-military, but he not conservative. He will go along with any progressive plan that does not threaten America or the military. What he knows about economics, he probably learned from using the Navy BX, not exactly a free market example.
When was the last time McCain voted against his party?
They are spoon feeding Ann Althouse, after poisoning her with words.
Well, I guess Garage is simple minded. Did you hear about McCAIN-Fiengold? Johnny Mac sold out his own party on campaign finance. It was passed as Shays-Meehan, but it is certainly known as McCain-Feingold. There was a little SCOTUS ruling on this law. Maybe you heard about it.
Did you hear about McCain going all red-assed on the Iraq War? He certainly didn't bitch at the Democrats! Rumsfeld, Cheney, Abu Ghraib? He certainly had lots of nasty things to say about W! C'mon Man!
It's all the news that's fit to print....on Tumblr.
Still no transcript. I'm actually more interested in 'The View.' It will be fascinating to watch Rosie O'Donnell continue her descent into self-destruction.
She's just a bully. She will have Nicole Wallace in tears by the end of the month, and off the show by the end of the year. Rosie will be ratings poison. Maybe David Gregory will go on and flash his grinch smile.
Doesn't it seem likely related to that kerfuffle last week when Todd accused Obama of "not having said the word 'Syria'" when in fact he had just said it four times?
http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=14498
Post a Comment