Partisan Tunnel Vision?

By: Matthew Felling
Topics: In The News

(AP)

I've often thought that great minds think alike. I just never thought my mind would process and conjure up the same things as the mind behind "Xanadu."

A little less than two years ago, when the FCC started publicly considering/lofting-trial-balloons about possibly adopting an a la carte cable pricing strategy – where you could pick and choose the exact channels you wanted to subscribe to – I, in my previous existence as a think tank-er, was interviewed by Networking on the topic:

"Couldn't this continue the overly personalized media world -- with conservatives opting to not pay for MSNBC or CNN?" Matthew T. Felling, media director at the Center for Media and Public Affairs, a think tank in Washington D.C., told Networking.

Left-leaning consumers, meantime, might permanently tune out Fox News and conservative shows like "The O'Reilly Factor" and not just change the channel in angst.

Yesterday afternoon, Broadcasting & Cable reported that Robert Greenwald -- who directed "Xanadu" before he became a progressive documentary filmmaker – had uploaded a video online and started an Internet campaign pushing a la carte for that very outcome:

The video's kicker is a call for mandating a la carte cable carriage -- allowing subscribers to pick and choose among channels -- as a way to exclude Fox News. Greenwald also created an online petition to the FCC demanding a la carte.

"The best way to keep Fox out of your home is to force cable companies to offer 'a la carte' cable, where you only pay for the channels you want," the petition reads. "A la carte will lower your cable bill, prevent inappropriate programming from entering your home and will keep your money out of Fox's pockets."

There are two arguments happening here: the people who hate paying for G4TV or Lifetime Movie Network because they never watch them, and the politically-minded people who want to Make A Statement.

I agree with the former – every time I accidentally stop on the Sci-Fi channel, I want to bleach my eyeballs – but can't get behind the folks who want to 'punish' Fox or MSNBC for their content. As I wrote yesterday (and many times before), I'm not a huge fan of media tunnel vision. Ignoring the other side's political arguments leads to an intellectual form of atrophy, where you know what you know from the people who agree with you, forming some solipsistic echo that can easily get untethered from reality.

I think that a la carte is a decent idea, as far as Bravo and Oxygen and ESPN one, two, three and "The Ocho" are concerned. But I also think that a 'news tier' should be adopted, immune from the a la carte concept, so that people can always access information. Then, if the militant anti-Fox or anti-MSNBC crowd wants to, they can go ahead and block that particular channel.

Furthermore, I find it odd in principle that a documentarian – a vocation normally chosen by people committed to getting more information into the public domain – is actively campaigning for people to turn away from a news outlet.

6 Comments Have Your Say
Email Story Send to a Friend
Share This Tell Your Friends
Tweet This Tweet This
More Share It

Add a Comment


by memekiller November 11, 2007 6:32 PM EST: I guess I look at cable as the Internet, where you can say anything, even lie. And I like to be able to look up the racist sites that exist out there. But that''s not exactly right because cable doesn''t give you access to link to any station, but selects stations to offer us.

Still, I like watching those late night horror movies on televangelist TV about the horrors of abortion or whatever, but I certainly don''t want to pay for them. I do want to know what they think, or what they''re lying about.

So, I guess it''s more like subscribing to the Wall Street Journal, where to get the business news, you have to support the bald-faced lies of the editorial section.

I don''t subscribe to the Washington Post, despite the good reporting, just because they have John Solomon. I don''t think any reputable paper can have someone like Solomon (or Judith Miller) on staff. No matter what your views are, you should still operate within journalistic guidelines.

I see cable as less offensive because there is no journalistic standard for Robertson''s channel. You''re offering a cross-section for all POVs, and propagandists. Once it''s a la carte, though, I''d never be able to check in and find out what the lie of the week is.; Reply to this comment


by tomtraubert-2009 November 10, 2007 10:14 PM EST: Please tell me why you think I should be forced to pay for the right-wing propaganda station who pipes in disinformation, racist diatribes and inflammatory rhetoric 24 hours per day.

I solved the prblem by discontinuing my cable, although I miss watching CSPAN. I get their broadcasts on the web.; Reply to this comment


by jimgilliam1 November 10, 2007 6:43 PM EST: Our contention, and we believe it''s supported in our feature documentary Outfoxed and the FOX Attacks videos, is that FOX is lying and misinforming the public. It''s not that they have different opinions, it''s that they are lying to people to further a Republican agenda.

FOX even went to court (and won!) to defend their ''right'' to lie in the name of free speech. Even though corporations were never supposed to get the same rights as individuals because people have consciences and corporations don''t.

So we''ve got a very influential multi-billionaire *** up democracy by pushing out bogus information to the public. And it''s destroying our country.

Jim Gilliam
Brave New Films; Reply to this comment


by mattcat25 November 10, 2007 2:58 AM EST: Fox News isn%u2019t a problem at all. All sides should be enabled to voice their opinion and forum. The problem facing America today in dealing with the new instant media is the fascists%u2019 agenda being compelled upon the middle class. Fox News spews nothing but right wing propaganda that only facilitates the top 1% advantage.

We%u2019ve witnessed stories on Fox that completely defy any factual reasoning such as the war on Iraq. Then, Keith Olberman will devote his entire show into pointing out the absurdity aired on Fox. Then, John Stewart will make fun of either, and or, both networks along with the absurdity displayed by our law makers and President.

Thus, if Fox wouldn%u2019t air such consistent and volatile misinformation the entire cycle wouldn%u2019t be created, and the media could report on the facts instead of beating around the propaganda.; Reply to this comment


by bo234 November 9, 2007 5:43 PM EST: I find your argument puzzling. Basically it boils down to this: people shouldn''t be forced to pay for channels they don''t like, except for the channels I think they should be forced to pay for.; Reply to this comment


by memekiller November 9, 2007 5:37 PM EST: I''m with you on this one. A la carte, I''d have no choice but to block FOX because I''m supporting it if I select it. Now, I''m glad I get to go and see what''s being said... excuse me for just a moment...

ROBERT GREENWALD DIRECTED XANADU??!!!

Okay, I''m better now. You''re right, I think this is a bad idea. Use your V-Chip.

A better use of outrage would be complaining to any restaurant, etc., who pumps in FOX News on their TVs. CNN is awful, but their mission is not overtly partisan. I don''t like having partisan propoganda shoved down my throat when I''m eating. Only when I''m at home alone, and no one''s watching.; Reply to this comment