Media in the Modern Age
Like everything else in our reality, media is ever evolving. The question is whether it is evolving in the right direction. That question could not be clearer following Marjorie Taylor Greene’s interview on 60 Minutes. Someone somewhere along the line said that the fourth estate’s job was to call balls and strikes. However, after decades of accusations that the mainstream media is liberal, mainstream media decided their job was to make sure there were an equal number of walks and strikeouts. It sounds the same and sometimes looks the same, but in a world where one side of the ideological divide has allegedly gone insane, calling both pitchers the same doesn’t do the same thing when one is throwing pitches against the backstop and into the dirt.
The decision to interview a MTG cannot be an easy one. On the one hand, she is a leader within the modern GOP. It is difficult to ignore someone with as much clout and sway as she has in the modern GOP. Yet, the modern GOP has become something beyond a mainstream political party these days. She is anything but mainstream. So, it begs the question of whether someone like her deserves to be thrust into the mainstream. One could argue that it introduces an important current figure to an audience that might not be familiar with her. If done correctly one could claim that showing her warts and all could be a public service should her star rise even more. On the other hand, you are single-handedly putting forth ideas that are far outside of the mainstream. There is an inherent danger there.
If one were to look at the best possible outcome they could compare this to the Katie Couric Sarah Palin interview. Palin was the vice presidential nominee for the GOP and seemed very charismatic. That was until the Couric interview revealed that she knew very little. The interview is attached for anyone that really wants to relive that, but Couric did very little pushback. She played matador and allowed Palin to self-destruct on her own. One could argue that Lesley Stohl was trying to do the same thing in her interview of MTG. She allowed those crazy ideas to come bubbling over with very little pushback. Democrats were called pedophiles. We know she once called school shootings false flags. Palin was revealed to be an empty suit. Was MTG revealed to be an extremist? Only time will tell.
Was it wise to give her a platform in the first place? That’s not an easy question to answer. What would have been the most effective way to handle the interview? That’s an even harder question to answer. As satisfying as it would seem to just ambush her with all of her crap over the last half decade, it is possible that such a gamut would backfire. Those that know of her have already formed an opinion. Those that haven’t might feel like ambushing her feels cruel and unnecessary. Allowing her to throw out her manifesto unchallenged doesn’t feel right either. The key was for average everyday Americans to come away seeing her for what she really is. How much faith do you have in the intellect and gumption of the average American?
The only way to deal with an attention seeking person of negotiable virtue is to NOT give them any.
1When you start arguing with yourself whether censorship is a good idea, the Deep State will come to collect your Soros Card.
2I didn’t watch but read several articles on it and the overall hour was dominated by MTG with almost no pushback. Stahl called her out on democrats are pedophiles (sort of) but let her change the subject to another fanatical right wing obsession about transgender people. To her, that means democrats harbor pedophiles, and justifies her stance. Everything else was MTG on stage.
3I guess the question Steve is whether an average apolitical person would take what she is saying at face value. When I hear someone call an entire party pedophiles or peddle conspiracy theories I’d think they were nuts, but then again I’m not apolitical. So, I really don’t know how the “undecided” would view that. Are we giving them credit for being able to discern lunacy without someone there to overtly say she is a lunatic? If so, then pushing back might actually backfire. If not, then the whole endeavor was foolish from the start.
4Points, Nick! – “modern GOP” Lordy finding a way to place those two words together takes some serious creativity. FWIW All the victim cards dropped by the former GOP have “cancel culture” in the fine print of the current iterations.
Cancel culture? Yeah. That is what the former GOP calls it when they’re not allowed to lie at will and some venues refuse to air them because all they do is lie. GOP? meh I’ll call the balls and strikes on that anachronism – they are the Qcumber Nazi Party.
5Harry Eagar says:
…the Deep State will come to collect your Soros Card.
But, but, two more punches and I get a free _____!
6Nick, one thing that you failed to mention that helped show Sarah Palin for what she truly was was the accurate parody of the Couric/Palin interview by Tina Fey on Saturday Night Live. They used Palin’s words almost verbatim and showed that she was an idiot. The only part I can remember them changing was the quote about seeing Russia from her house when what Palin had said was that you could see Russia from a spot in Alaska, which is true. Enough people saw the Tina Fey version and remembered it when it came time to vote.
7That’s true Mary. I’m assuming that SNL will riff on this interview as well, but SNL was a lot more popular back then, so it was kind of a perfect storm. However, I have to expect SNL to do something in this week’s episode, but the news about 45 might dominate the landscape.
8In order to understand the media’s incentives, and therefore its goals and objectives, and therefore its strategies and tactics, it is necessary and sufficient to study the actions and motivations of Alfred Harmsworth, 1st Viscount Northcliffe, in the autumn of 1916. Murdoch is running that playbook, with only a faint idea of what it is or why, and everyone else in the industry is imitating Murdoch, with even less idea of what to do or why.
9I’m a bit baffled by the way we use the term leader…Shes’ no leader. She may be in the public eye to some extent but she leads nothing. She’s had nothing to say other than to spew vicious, vacuous, ignorant phlegm! She’s self-centered, self aggrandizing, selfish, self grandstanding and no doubt many more self words that don’t come to mind at the moment, I suppose, because myself likely isn’t all that smart. So, there’s that.
10Alowing her to slide on all the complete foolishness she’s spewed, in, well… as long as she’s been on the scene is a very bad move. She should have walked out of that studio with her head hanging. No doubt she’s busy speading her “fame and fortune” everywhere now, with that vapid “look at me! I’m the winner” smirk on her face!
You got me there Moldy. I suppose I often show deference where none is called for.
11How much faith do I have in the average American? She was elected again from a field of about 8 or so others in her district. Two or three that seem to understand that 7 is less than 8 and actually had plans in mind for the area. All Empty could come up with was her grant for the Sheriff’s dept. and the promise that she was promised committees when she gets elected again. So I guess it was a stay tuned I might actually be able to do something next time. So they re-elected her because they believe in gazpacho and peachtree dishes and I guess they couldn’t wait for her to show the President her respect by calling him a liar and lord knows that Kyle Rittenhouse truly needs a Congressional medal of honor for killing two people—–her proposal, in case you were wondering. Faith? Not enough, sadly.
12I completely agree with the notion that media is constantly evolving and it’s important to question whether it’s evolving in the right direction. The interview with Marjorie Taylor Greene on 60 Minutes is a perfect example of how the media’s approach to reporting has changed over time. The idea that the fourth estate’s job is to call balls and strikes has been replaced with a more subjective approach that aims to provide equal coverage to both sides. However, this approach can create a false equivalency, especially in a world where one side of the ideological divide has gone off the rails. With MTG as a leader within the modern GOP, it’s understandable why the media would want to interview her, but it’s also important to consider the impact of giving a platform to someone who has spread dangerous conspiracy theories and promoted violence.
This brings me to my question: how can the media strike a balance between providing equal coverage to both sides while also being responsible and accountable for the information they disseminate? Is it
13