Oh. The irony. I've a number of times over the last few days about bringing an end to partisan broadcasting. Is a call to reform in lockstep with other groups really any different?

More seriously, how would something like this be done? The era where networks could use their news departments as money sinks to prove that they were spending in the public interst has long gone. When they realize that you could make a profit with news, and that 'moral education' with cartoons counted, there simply isn't a reason to not have a wacky morning team trade jokes and do human interest stories. And simply cutting Fox and MSNBC (and frankly, the conflating of those two networks is rather 'mouse and elephant' but everyone mentions them as if they were mirror opposites...) just isn't a viable option. It would be viewed as the Big Government taking down the only Real News that dares to tell the truth against the Liberal Bias. So the same astroturf groups who gave us the Teabaggers would have them out in the streets. The fact that MSNBC got taken down to would be ignored for sake of The Movement. So, how would you go about making a 'true news' movement?

"I am sick of rabid dog media howling at the moon. Are you?"

I haven't watched any of it in several years. The only purpose I see is to get and keep people angry -- and maybe even worse: divided, hatefully divided.

I cannot envision a cure.

Senator Rockefeller is implying that the rabid dog media is destroying Americans' faith in their government. It may in part be, but I don't think that should be a consideration one way or another. Like Joseph Pulitzer said about newspapers, media should have no friends. And certainly not the government.

Anyone seriously equating MSNBC with Fox has already drunk the wingnut kool-aid ("they all do it; they are all the same").

Anyone not recognizing that all news broadcasts are inherently based on subjective opinions about which stories to cover and how to do so hasn't studied the nature of corporate journalism.

BTW, it might be nice if Rockefeller learned that the FCC has no authority to regulate, let alone "ban" cable channels.

He also claimed to be a great fan of Countdown last time he was on, getting his piece of publicity pie.

" There's a little bug inside of me which wants to get the FCC to say to Fox and to MSNBC, "Out. Off. End. Goodbye."

Seems like he's wishing, but clear regarding the scope of authorities.

His brush is too broad though. Honest analysis, based in facts that are checked and corrected when found to be in error, is still useful IMO.

Maddow, Chris Hayes, and Lawrence O'Donnell all fit that mold, although they have differing analysis, based on their respective POVs. Granted, they do some excessive beating of horses, both dead and alive, but.......

Do i have this right? This carping about how bad our right and left media is happening on a left leaning website? What have i missed? How can i even begin to take this posting seriously if it is posted here? BTW, i get more news from MSNBC than from the local and national news shows combined. If it is left leaning, all the better. i am informed and have debate point.

A self-serving load of crap from Jay Rockefeller.

I think he doesn't like either Fox (because they probably sling some outrageous mud on him, merely because he's a Dem) or MSNBC (because they correctly criticize him on policy).

I regularly watch Rachel Maddow on MSNBC. I challenge Rockefeller to point up one time Maddow has deliberately distorted a story in order to whip up fear. Of course Fox does it all the time.

Rockefeller's is the same sort of empty analysis that Jon Stewart offers- the equation of Tea Party with Code Pink, for example. On the one hand there's a basically racist movement that is flailing angrily at anything the black guy does, and on the other there is a pacifist movement that questions the propriety of military attack against defenseless countries that did not attack us.

I'm afraid the black guy subscribes to this kind of thinking, too- just find some middle ground, even though that's a middle between racist-fascists and egalitarian pacifists. Wouldn't it be proper to move toward the pacifist side?

Paulie, are you serious? Rachel Maddow is the equivalent of Glenn Beck???? That is nuts! We haven't had anything approaching objectivity from the corporate media since maybe a few brief moments with Walter Cronkite or since Edward R. Murrow destroyed Joe McCarthy with real facts. Real journalism has long ceased to exist in print or television media. The only way to get information is construct your own newscast through net sources and take the outlets with a grain of salt. Young people rightly trust the Daly Show more than cable or net news. It's all infotainment now and cultivating your own niche audience. I'm glad MSNBC is there and is a counter to all the extremist hate speech on Fox News. NPR and PBS are doing their best to copy cable news now, and hire the same political "analysts." Frankly I think Rachael Maddow is the only cable host who comes anywhere close to journalism. But I think you're living in another universe if you think journalism exists in America. And frankly Jay Rockefeller is one of the most ineffectual spokespersons in taking on the corporate media, especially Fox News.

i love that Rachel is available as a podcast on iTunes, as is Olbermann (i don't have a tv). she does real journalism, and KO isn't far behind. do they advocate strongly for a point of view? who doesn't? as KO made clear in yesterday's special comment, so did Cronkite & Murrow when the need was there. Cronkite against Vietnam, or Murrow vs McCarthy? that was partisan, kids: a political point of view spoken by a "newsman".

what KO & RM do is based on verifiable facts. what Fox does is frequently made up sht. how many times has Fox run amok with stories based on lies or a story from Drudge or their own hyper imaginations? can you find either KO or RM doing that once?

equivalent? as much a border collie and a rapid pitbull.

George Washington was furious about Philip Freneau's National Gazette. There is no new news here. If you care about the country and the first amendment, you resist efforts by our public servants to limit what people are allowed to say and what people are allowed to hear, whether you think it's drek or not.

Which came first the chicken or the egg? A media response to the blood lust in the civilian population is how they sell there advertising. Beck and Maddow are superstars because they sell confrontation and explosive opinion scripted to engage the angry extremes, who are already agnry and are just looking for talking points to regurgetate. It is an extreme sport with a glut of fans. So isn't it fair to say that media is only providing a product that people are already lined up out the door to buy into their predisposition. Media doesnt make the people, people make the media. As long as we practice extremism in our political arena's, we will have media and their brilliant writers, who will articulate how we already feel. The advitisers then line up behind them to push the plunge on the needle. We have it, like we like it. It starts with what we project.