PDA

View Full Version : 60 Minutes, how you disappoint me



wheelchairman
09-30-2007, 08:26 PM
I was rather shocked that this show is *still* Emmy award winning when I listened to it earlier today.

Let's back up. I bought an ipod (yeah my cock is ENORMOUS) nano the other day. And I thought I might try a podcast. Since I don't pay for tv, I get no tv channels whatsoever (damn you scandalous Danish license system!). Meaning I also miss out on the news (I do get a weekly newspaper, and there are free ones all over the trains that I read on a daily basis.)

However I still sometimes feel like I'm not getting the whole picture, so here I can get a podcast with 60 minutes. Another angle into the news that I don't have. So I downloaded it and thought I would give it a listen. It starts off with an interview with the President of Iran, Ahmine..Ahmineha...Ahminedij..., the President of Iran.

The start of the interview was already terrible. The journalist was hostile, and the entire interview had a feel of hostility (or partisan hackery) as opposed to being a means to recieve and present information. And being able to interview the President of Iran SHOULD be an interesting interview.

It was a mockery of journalism. It was through and through an opportunity to strengthen American sabre rattling against Iran (also mentioned was the likelihood of war with Iran and the rest of the world...ha-what?) And I finally had enough when the journalist read up what George Bush thought of the President of Iran (which was surprisingly unflattering and truly undiplomatic.)

The whole thing reeked of unprofessional journalism. It was truly sad. I used to joke that the Daily Show was the only good medium left in America as far as journalism goes, but now I'm not sure if I was wrong.

Ugh.

Little_Miss_1565
09-30-2007, 08:34 PM
Yeah, well, 60 Mins is known for being boring and for old people. This is American 60 Minutes, right? I guess they must have been trying to spice it up, and failing. I think it's dumb for any of the American press to interview the Iranian president--either they might be seen as going too easy on him, or they go the other way and be openly hostile. No one wins, least of all the public.

Jakebert
09-30-2007, 08:37 PM
The start of the interview was already terrible. The journalist was hostile, and the entire interview had a feel of hostility (or partisan hackery) as opposed to being a means to recieve and present information. And being able to interview the President of Iran SHOULD be an interesting interview.

It was a mockery of journalism. It was through and through an opportunity to strengthen American sabre rattling against Iran (also mentioned was the likelihood of war with Iran and the rest of the world...ha-what?) And I finally had enough when the journalist read up what George Bush thought of the President of Iran (which was surprisingly unflattering and truly undiplomatic.)

The whole thing reeked of unprofessional journalism. It was truly sad. I used to joke that the Daily Show was the only good medium left in America as far as journalism goes, but now I'm not sure if I was wrong.

Ugh.

That's what 95% of all interview shows in America are right now. It involves a host pulling a Venom and trying to substitute hostility and aggression for intelligence. The only ones I find worth watching/listening to anymore are Meet the Press, and as much as I hate to admit it, The Daily Show. Stewart does amazingly intelligent, interesting interviews when he really want to. I wish he'd do it more often than he does, though.

Little_Miss_1565
09-30-2007, 08:44 PM
Why should anyone hate to admit that the Daily Show produces good interviews?

Jakebert
09-30-2007, 08:45 PM
Because I really dislike being grouped with those people that get their news from the Daily Show.

Little_Miss_1565
09-30-2007, 08:46 PM
Why? It's quality. I also get my news from Anderson Cooper, but that's because he's a gray fox.

wheelchairman
09-30-2007, 08:46 PM
Yeah, well, 60 Mins is known for being boring and for old people. This is American 60 Minutes, right? I guess they must have been trying to spice it up, and failing. I think it's dumb for any of the American press to interview the Iranian president--either they might be seen as going too easy on him, or they go the other way and be openly hostile. No one wins, least of all the public.
American 60 minutes (the only one I believe.) There is something fundamentally wrong with a media that can't properly interview a politician of another country. Asking hard questions is one thing, European media can figure it out it seems. It shouldn't be a matter of being too hard or too soft, the significantly more relevant issue is information recieved, how it's dissected, and then re-represented. The interviewer should not be a mouth piece of the partisan system, it's media like this that has shot the American media into zones of complete worthlessness. And that's wildly depressing.

Little_Miss_1565
09-30-2007, 08:50 PM
Unfortunately, the news media in America is a multibillion dollar enterprise because it's treated as just another form of entertainment. 60 Minutes got it's reputation of being old and stodgy because it resisted that for so long. But the chase for the almighty advertising dollar seems to have done and end run around it. Not many Americans, unfortunately, would watch an interview with the Iranian president to hear what he has to say--they would watch if they felt their anger and resentment were being expressed by proxy.

Jakebert
09-30-2007, 08:52 PM
The saddest part of it is how it's effected the rest of the political system in America. These angry, loud pundits try to reduce every single issue down into a simple black-or-white issue, and soon the American people start thinking that every issue is like that. Of course that rubs off on politicians and no sense of nuance or grey area is seen in the issues, so no compromises are made and nothing gets done.

Little_Miss_1565
09-30-2007, 08:55 PM
It's kind of a chicken or egg question, isn't it? Did the media make the pols stupid or did the pols make the media stupid? Or is there just that much stupid to go around?

Jakebert
09-30-2007, 08:57 PM
I think it was like that before the media dumbed itself down, but I think the media made it worse than it was.

wheelchairman
09-30-2007, 09:08 PM
I always figured that the control came from the top. The simplification of the media and political issues naturally would come from politicians.

Or to sound like an old Marxist, that those business interests which have heavily invested in political parties and the current system would reform and bend the media to represent and preserve the current system. What we eventually get is status quo all the time, everywhere.

Mota Boy
10-01-2007, 05:08 AM
Had the interview been anything less than openly hostile, 60 Minutes would've been put through the ringer by the right-wing media. Hell, there's already a bill in Congress to deny any federal funding to Columbia just for letting Ahmanawildandcrazyguy speak.

On the flip side, however, the leader of Iran is almost never interviewed while facing direct criticism, and he is an asshole. I haven't heard the interview though, so I'm just playing devil's advocate.

And by the way, Meet the Press remains a damn good, objective news show. Not coincidentally, it's on PBS, so it doesn't respond to ratings.


I also get my news from Anderson Cooper, but that's because he's a gray fox.
You misspelled a word there.

Little_Miss_1565
10-01-2007, 08:36 AM
You misspelled a word there.

Oh hi, blow me pls? :P

HeadAroundU
10-01-2007, 10:01 AM
Why? It's quality. I also get my news from Anderson Cooper, but that's because he's a gray fox.
He is hot and charismatic. OMG <3

wheelchairman
10-01-2007, 10:21 AM
Had the interview been anything less than openly hostile, 60 Minutes would've been put through the ringer by the right-wing media. Hell, there's already a bill in Congress to deny any federal funding to Columbia just for letting Ahmanawildandcrazyguy speak.

On the flip side, however, the leader of Iran is almost never interviewed while facing direct criticism, and he is an asshole. I haven't heard the interview though, so I'm just playing devil's advocate.



The leader of Iran also has other crimes on his head other than being impervious to criticism. There are better ways to do an interview.

Moreover those are still shallow grounds to surrender journalistic integrity upon me.

Andy
10-01-2007, 11:20 AM
the President of Iran, Ahmine..Ahmineha...Ahminedij..., the President of Iran.


I don't know 60 Minutes so I can't properly contribute to this thread, but I felt compulsed to honour that line.

T-6005
10-01-2007, 12:54 PM
I enjoyed reading this before heading off to school this morning.

The idea of a channel advertising news and information aligning itself with a political viewpoint is something I find to be highly unethical. News and information should be as fair and impartial as possible, otherwise they end up turning into another arm of partisan propaganda, which in turn obviously leads to fewer news that takes the big picture into account.

I realize that it can be difficult to always be impartial to what you are reporting, and arguably sometimes what you need is a reasonable bit of subjectivity from each side to make up the big picture - but isn't that the job of the media in the first place? To be passive, reporting in the fact and telling us about the subjectivity of each entity involved in what's going on, rather than actively becoming one of the subjective?

I hate to have gone a little Captain Obvious there, but what I was trying to allude to is the problem of having actively politically charged "news" posing as a source of absolute fact. It's transcended the passivity of journalism and taken the leap into propaganda.

wheelchairman
10-01-2007, 02:16 PM
It's transcended the passivity of journalism and taken the leap into propaganda.

Eloquently said, that was what I had been struggling to put into words.

KyleW
10-01-2007, 02:27 PM
Why? It's quality. I also get my news from Anderson Cooper, but that's because he's a gray fox.

:O He was on a tv show that was on over here in England, dammit I forget the name. He was awesome, I saw this place called Cooper Amusements when I was on holiday and it reminded me of him, he is truly legendary!

Jakebert
10-01-2007, 02:35 PM
I honestly don't think that most of the media is biased towards one side or the other. There are a lot of independant outlets that favor one side, Fox, NY Times, ect. but usually there isn't really much of a propaganda problem. The problem is that they go to such lengths to get ratings that they leave out certain things, magnify other pointless things that seem shocking, and ignore important stories for celebrity gossip and other trash like that.

You could call that a bias, but it's not a bias towards a political affiliation as much as it's a bias towards a profit. I do think in focusing so much on that, that the media has done a horrible job in the past few years. During the "Bush is God!" period after 9/11, them failing to ask hard questions in fear of declining ratings helped lead us into a war, and right now their inability to stop kissing Clinton's ass may lead us into a presidency where no one knows what the president actually stands for because her entire platform consists of "I'm Hilary Clinton. My husband was president once".

There are a lot of programs and channels that try to show both sides and give the whole picture. There's a pretty good radio show called "Beyond the Beltway" which gives a convservative and a liberal each equal, uninterrupted time to make their points rather than feature them arguing like rats like most shows do. And, as I said before, I still really think Meet the Press has done a fantastic job compared to everything else in the media.

The big problem, I think anyway, is the massive amount of people who will call anything they see in the news that would conflict with their worldview propaganda. Both the left and right do it, even though the right has been much more successfull at convincing people that a liberal media exists.

wheelchairman
10-01-2007, 03:22 PM
I would say that TV media, in particular the larger news networks, have a right-wing bias. There are a few exceptions mentioned in this thread of course, but otherwise what you see on tv (besides perhaps local news) definitely seems to have a large right-wing bias. Of course I spent my formative political years in the aftermath of 9/11 and that was something. But I have yet to see evidence to the contrary with the exception of European media.

Now newspapers definitely are more diverse, but as is traditional in newspapers they have an analytical aspect that will eventually lead to a bias based on the analysis involved. But even the better biased newspapers can be forgiven. (The Economist for example are proponents of classical liberalism yet they remain to be thoroughly informative.)

TV sucks.

T-6005
10-01-2007, 03:50 PM
TV sucks.
Eloquently said, that was what I had been struggling to put into words.