- MENU
- HOME
- SEARCH
- WORLD
- MAIN
- AFRICA
- ASIA
- BALKANS
- EUROPE
- LATIN AMERICA
- MIDDLE EAST
- United Kingdom
- United States
- Argentina
- Australia
- Austria
- Benelux
- Brazil
- Canada
- China
- France
- Germany
- Greece
- Hungary
- India
- Indonesia
- Ireland
- Israel
- Italy
- Japan
- Korea
- Mexico
- New Zealand
- Pakistan
- Philippines
- Poland
- Russia
- South Africa
- Spain
- Taiwan
- Turkey
- USA
- BUSINESS
- WEALTH
- STOCKS
- TECH
- HEALTH
- LIFESTYLE
- ENTERTAINMENT
- SPORTS
- RSS
- iHaveNet.com
Brian Lowry
The fight over 24-hour cable news' negative impact on journalism is hardly new, but recent rounds have been fierce -- with past and present industry heavyweights trading blows.
In this corner, anchors emeritus Ted Koppel, Dan Rather and Tom Brokaw, as well as Johnny-come-lately funny guy (turned astute media critic) Jon Stewart.
In the opposite corner, participants in the new status quo, among them MSNBC's tag-team partners Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow, and funny guy (turned sharp-tongued commentator) Bill Maher.
The old guard -- including the aforementioned anchors who defined network news for a generation -- is clearly not happy with the drift of things. And not surprisingly, those currently in the opinion business aren't shy about defending themselves.
Former "Nightline" anchor Koppel ostensibly initiated the exchange, writing in a
In what has become a standard tactic, Olbermann used his own program to respond (as did rival Bill O'Reilly, in a rare show of unison), charging that Koppel's commitment to objectivity made him guilty of "pointless worship at the temple of a false god." He added, regarding press failures prior to the Iraq war, "When truth was needed, all we got were facts."
There were similar elements of this debate in Maddow's hourlong interview with
To justify around-the-clock treatment on lesser stories in a cable news cycle built for watershed events like the
Another former network stalwart,
Rather, contended during remarks at the
Unlike Koppel, Rather's assessment dealt not so much with opinion as the by-product of the bland talk-oriented even-handedness
Finally, the Daily Beast reported that Brokaw expressed misgivings that the flap over Olbermann's donations to political candidates had "badly damaged MSNBC's reputation for independence."
If there's a theme here, it's a nagging sense that the news business as constituted isn't fulfilling its mission -- a view held not only by Stewart (who took it as the impetus for his Rally to Restore Sanity) but those who led the business into this century, whose tenures overlapped with the expansion to three news channels in the mid-1990s. And while Koppel and Rather are basically on the sidelines now, they have scant reason to speak up unless it's out of genuine concern.
Another interesting wrinkle is how hard MSNBC's marquee talent pushed back in their own defense -- with Olbermann, Maddow and Maher all denouncing the "false equivalence" of lumping
As for
Although Koppel's article makes clear he's disenchanted with TV news' current direction, he appears to harbor no illusions about triggering a shift away from cable's shrill, opinion-driven culture.
Talk is cheap, he wrote, and "The transition of news from a public service to a profitable commodity is irreversible."
While contemplating Olbermann's reaction and wondering if my own naysaying could be attributable to misguided nostalgia, an urgent-looking email popped up from
"Cynthia McFadden interviews Cher on her new film, 'Burlesque,' her dating life, career and motherhood," blared the headline.
But one program couldn't do the interview justice, apparently. Portions would play on Koppel's old home, "Nightline," "Good Morning America" and "20/20." And coming soon from
Once again, I felt secure in humming a Cher song -- the one about turning back time.