MSNBC in HD, If You're Lucky

MSNBC began broadcasting in high definition this week. I can tell by some spruced up sets, and some modified graphics. But that's all I have to go on, because Cox Communications here in Las Vegas is not offering the HD version in the valley.

I wrote a letter to them yesterday, asking about it:

"MSNBC debuted as an HDTV channel today (June 29, 2009). Can we expect it to be added to the Las Vegas HDTV channel lineup? If so, when? Thank you. "

I got this reply:

"Dear James:

At this time, there are no plans to carry this channel in the Las Vegas market. However, we are always evaluating our line-up in an effort to maintain customer satisfaction and bring the best value to our subscribers.

We value your feedback and work very hard to offer a variety of channels to meet the needs of our customers. We have forwarded your request to our Marketing Department for review.
Please note that there are many factors we consider when choosing to add or delete programming. These factors include programming costs, programming ratings, customer requests and the effect the addition or subtraction will have on the remaining line-up."

I was dissatisfied with this answer, so I followed up with this:

"If you don't mind my asking, why are FOX News and CNN carried in HDTV, but MSNBC will not be? And why are the other news channels grouped together, while MSNBC is way up the dial? I'm curious. And I watch a lot more MSNBC than I do the other channels. Please count my vote for MSNBC in HD. Thank you. "

The response doesn't quite gel with the first answer, in my opinion. See what you think.

"Dear James:

Thank you for your reply and we apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused you.

Please be advised that we are only stating that the MSNBC/HD channel is not yet available to the Cox Las Vegas System at this time. As soon as the MSNBC/HD programming content is made available, we will provide a release date for addition of the requested channel.

Cox is not responsible for channel designations. The channel designations are the responsiblity [sic] of the Network and other government agencies. "

I have to wonder, when I visit sites like TVNewser or the "FOX Fan" site, Johnny Dollar's Place, if the ratings comparisons between CNN, MSNBC and FOX "News" are apples-to apples-to apples. How many other cable outfits have MSNBC segregated like Las Vegas' Cox Cable does? How many are not providing the HD feed? Maybe all the gloating about FOX's ratings are a bit overblown?

FOX "News" or Think Progress Responsible for Doctored Photo?

I posted a piece linked to Think Progress a few posts ago, regarding a photoshop job on The O'Reilly Factor. Shortly after that, at Johnny Dollar's Place, a "FOX Fan" site, Johnny claimed that it was Think Progress itself who was guilty of photo manipulation.

What is the real story? Hard to say. I dabbled in video editing way back before it was mainstream, so I don't know. Could different screen grabs from different equipment make both screen grabs genuine? Maybe. To me, it looks like the one on JDP is still manipulated, stretched vertically, washed out. The one from TP looks even more stretched, and darker. Deliberate trickery? By either, both or neither? Hell if I know.

So here are the images, I report you decide. Heh.

Think Progress's screen grab vs. real image of Jeff Zucker:


Think Progress' screen grab:



Johnny Dollar's screen grab:

Keith Olberman Nails Right Wing Critics

A couple of days ago, Keith Olbermann issued one of his most scathing "Special Comments" on MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann. Liberals were ecstatic, and left-wing talk radio has been sampling it ever since. Especially the command to President Bush: "Shut the hell up!"

Predictably, right-wing bloggers first made fun of the performance, then dissected it, and then--as they often do--completely misinterpreted it. I read some of their comments over the weekend, and was as confused by their response as Olbermann was. Here, he sets the record straight, while simultaneously skewering his critics. Need a band-aid, Johnny?

"Democrat" vs. "Democratic" and Why it Matters

Image of Kobayashi Maru from AmbrosiaSW

I found myself embroiled in a heated discussion on a conservative web site over the last two days. Why I feel the need to inject myself into a no-win situation is something of a mystery even to me. Perhaps it is my own Kobayashi Maru?

I was visiting Johnny Dollar's Place, a bad habit that I indulge every couple of weeks or so. One of the more recent posts was about Rachel Maddow, the MSNBC/Air America Radio personality. I like Rachel a great deal, and wondered what poo was being flung in her direction. At issue was a statement she made on (I believe it was) Race for the White House with David Gregory. She talked about the tendency for conservatives to misstate the name of the Democratic Party by saying Democrat Party. She flubbed the source of the usage of the phrase by attributing it to FOX "News" Democratic debates. She wasn't wrong about what they do, she was wrong about when they did it.

The allegation at Johnny Dollar was that Rachel was lying--a bold statement for a site that is essentially a shrine to a propaganda outlet. But I didn't jump in to decry that slur, I was simply trying to outline the hows and whys of the right's use of "Democrat" as an adjective. The point was being ignored, misunderstood or denied. I thought I could lend a hand, while also being snarky. Bad move.

Here's what happens whenever I get engaged in these types of arguments. I tend to write rather informally and colloquially--with a heavy dose of snark. So, while I think I've made my point, I often come back to read responses attacking my post--but for things that have nothing or little to do with the point I was arguing. For instance, in my post I used the phrase "all the time." This is a common figure of speech that most people know means "a lot." Respondents at JDP jump all over that sort of thing.

They also often demand that you provide sources and links to back up each and every sentence of your comment. While very few comment boards are made up of a series of attributed, footnoted, linked "proofs," I am usually asked to do so. If I provide just that, the source is usually slammed, or deemed insufficient. If I decline to do so, my argument is rejected. It is quite simply impossible to win an argument in this situation, even if you are absolutely, objectively correct. So, after firing off five or six responses I tend to lose interest. Perhaps I should take Bart Simpson's advice: "Can't win. Don't even try." I prefer Captain Kirk's method, but I haven't figured out how to apply it to conservatives!

I suppose that is a long way to go to get to what my point actually was, as written in the headline. Sorry, I get windy. But the simple fact of the matter is, conservatives, by-and-large, incorrectly use the word "Democrat" as an adjective, when it is actually a noun. "Democrat Party," "Democrat National Convention," "Democrat Nominee. . ." The list goes on and on. The proper word in all of those constructions is of course, "Democratic."

But "democratic" is too nice of a word to use if you are in opposition to the party. Like "freedom" and "liberty," democratic is one of those words that the conservatives want to trademark and brand as their own. So they call the party by an incorrect name. It doesn't hurt that it sounds abrupt and harsh. It also tests well with the conservative base, and irritates the hell out of Democrats (note: used here in the correct context).

For an interesting dissection of this phenomenon, go to this link at The New Yorker. This piece, by the way, was discounted as a source by Johnny Dollar himself because Media Matters for America also cites it. Ummmm, OK. . .

UPDATE: The argument I was having didn't just inspire this post, it also inspired Johnny Dollar to write one. He was asking me to research transcripts, and come up with examples of FOX "News" hosts misusing "Democrat." I knew that this was futile, because no matter how many I found, it would be deemed not enough, and certainly not "all the time." Johnny has assembled a list of links himself, of MSNBC hosts using the word as an adjective. Touche. But it really only points to the pervasiveness of Frank Luntzian words into the language. The fact of the matter is, the conservatives are doing it consistently and on purpose. Unless you want to concede that Rush Limbaugh doesn't know what he's saying. . .hey, I just might go there!

Obsessive-Compulsive Blogs, Redux

I wrote a post on this blog back when I was just getting started, called "Obsessive Compulsive Blogs." In it, I highlighted two very strange (and strangely, related) blogs. One is called Johnny Dollar's Place, and the other is called Olbermann Watch. I stumbled upon the former earlier today when I was writing the previous post (What Will FOX "News" Do if Democrats Win?).

Since I wrote my original post seven months ago, and have been blogging a bit longer now, I thought it might be time to revisit this topic. My initial assessment is still valid, that some blogs and sites are so tightly focused, so strangely devoted to their topics, they fit the definition of obsessive-compulsive. Fortunately for these types of blogs, having such a tight focus ensures readership from the like-minded. My blog, for instance, has a very diffused focus and hasn't found its niche as much as I'd like--probably because it doesn't have a niche. It's too scattered.

But if the writers of the above mentioned blogs are this devoted to (a) slavish adoration of a cable broadcast channel, and (b) intense hatred for a media figure on a rival cable broadcast channel, you can bet there are readers who share that devotion. I just don't think I'll ever understand these people.

Johnny Dollar's Place is a strange place indeed, though it has become prettier recently. He still focuses obsessively on any and everything FOX "News," but has branched out enough to take swipes at FOX's rivals, and favorite targets. MSNBC and CNN fan sites may exist (though I've never found such a thing), but Johnny Dollar's Place comes off as more of a FOX "News" apologist site. Johnny plays much the same role as a creationist who simultaneously evangelizes his cause while assailing all evolutionists. One has to wonder why FOX "News" needs so much defending, and why anyone would feel so moved as to take up such a cause.

Olbermann Watch is sort of the flip-side (but surely not opposite) of JDP. Affiliated with the previously named site (or possibly run in tandem), OW's mission is to tear down and insult Keith Olbermann, his show and his guests, generally with ad hominem attacks. It uses a lot of in-joke phrases, nicknames and shorthand, to the point of being difficult to follow without reading the comments section. I actually got involved in the OW comments, albeit briefly. What started out as dispassionate commentary devolved into a pissing contest, and I lost interest (but not before being offered a guest commentary by the editor, which was admittedly pretty cool of him).

It's a very black-or-white world at OW (as well as at JDP). You love or you hate FOX or Olbermann, and you defend and agree with all that they do, or you despise and condemn it all. All or nothing.

In this world, you cannot be a Countdown with Keith Olbermann fan unless you're willing to defend and support everything he ever said or did. You are not allowed to disagree with anything on FOX "News," even if you use video and a transcript in your dissent. It's a very George W. Bush "with us or against us" mentality, and I find it quite sad. But it seems to be working--both sites eclipse Greenlee Gazette's site meter hits by wide margins*. Oh well, FOX "News" is the highest rated "news" channel on cable. It doesn't mean it's better.

Previously:

Obsessive-Compulsive Blogs

*Or rather, they did eclipse me. JDP is still doing quite well, but I cannot locate Olbermann Watch. Perhaps their server is down, or they may have just quit the game. I'll update if I find out.

UPDATE: OlbermannWatch is still there. The site must have just been down for a while.