They interview people about public affairs, and they discuss public affairs. That requires them to stay informed and interact with potential guests. By my book, what they do is a kind of journalism. People act like "journalist" is some kind of honorific, but it isn't. Literary folk often use "journalist" as a put-down. What it really is is a bland job description.
Bland. Good word. Morning Joe is a great example of “bland.” It’s aimed to make you feel like the coffee mug she holds: warm and fuzzy. Same with the Billy Joel lead-ins. (That’s another indicator that it’s not a “legitimate” news program, for myself. What music do they use between the commercial breaks? It’s a Clear Channel playlist.) They barely cover the Israeli war but they will provide an in-depth interview with Richard Gere. I allowed myself to be entertained by the show for the last three or four years; it was probably just what I needed after experiencing some personal trauma. But if memory serves, the basic tenants of journalism are: who, what, why, when, where and how, while sticking to the facts as much as possible. In my estimation, Morning Joe is pretty tepid in these areas. The other day, it was clear that Micah (sp?) was the only person on the show who knew the price of butter! LOL! It was pretty funny.
Here’s a better example - a formal news example. As Morning Joe has discussed and criticized Donald Trump’s tariff idea, did they ever explore the why? Billionaires love tariffs over income taxes. Why? Because wealthy Americans already own everything they need; as such, they are mot likely to be terribly impacted by tariffs, as opposed to income taxes. Trump already owns a refrigerator; a television; a car; a boat; a chainsaw; a snowblower, etc. Trump doesn’t need to buy all the things the average American needs. He already owns them. This would’ve been some pretty basic critical analysis by Morning Joe as to why Trump loves tariffs and they never offered it up.
They stand for nothing, which is exactly why it’s been so easy for them to flip-flop after they lost the election. They never stood for anything to begin with. It was all an act.
Yep. Just like you’re in a coffee shop. No investigative reporting or deep critical analysis. And let’s not forget that their statistics expert with all the charts is a millionaire who committed a Wall Street crime for which she had to pay out a hefty fee. That’s their expert - he’s a felon.
Remember when Joe made the ignorant statement that Democrats were masters at winning elections about a month before they got pummeled? Nearly everyone on that program is a millionaire and can’t relate to how most people live. I’m not full of beans.
I have no problem with Joe and Mika interviewing Trump. When the whole contretemps began, I said, "Wait, let's see the video. It's important that Trump answers question." Apparently, though, there was no video (or audio, for that matter). It was not an interview. It was a request for mercy, to be taken off the shit list. That is not journalism. Reviving a social relationship has no valid purpose. There was no article, no book, no tape - whoever may have benefitted from the meeting, it was not viewers looking for news.
What a terrific, clear-eyed piece. I guess we're living in different days. Nobody gave me shit for interviewing Jimmy Hoffa and a few other unsavory characters. They were newsmakers -- and it used to be the news business.
MSM has been dying for years and this election may be the final blow. No one under 70 is watching anymore and those that are are less and less relevant. I listen (to podcasts), I read Substack, I listen to books. I do not read a physical paper or waste time with talking heads. NPR insults our intelligence. Stop caring about this crap and start learning again.
Thompson absolutely knew what Hitler was in 1931. The only thing she didn't know was whether he'd acquire total control of Germany, and she guessed that one wrong. But Hitler's vileness was already on full display in Mein Kampf (published six years before her interview) and in his public statements. The fuhrer was not one to hide his light under a bushel. Anybody with a pulse could tell he was evil.
Except he wasn't the ruler yet. We've had Trump's ruling "sample" already, not a book (which I don't believe he could write, nor read). It's the difference in interviewing Charlie Manson BEFORE he committed his crimes, not after.
What is there to gain from "interviewing" Trump now? If you ask a "tough" question, that's probably the last interview. If you ask a "softball" question, its FoxNews propaganda.
Good grief.
They are morning talk show hosts who present a feel good news program to America. They’re not political journalists.
They interview people about public affairs, and they discuss public affairs. That requires them to stay informed and interact with potential guests. By my book, what they do is a kind of journalism. People act like "journalist" is some kind of honorific, but it isn't. Literary folk often use "journalist" as a put-down. What it really is is a bland job description.
Thank you.
Yeah.
Bland. Good word. Morning Joe is a great example of “bland.” It’s aimed to make you feel like the coffee mug she holds: warm and fuzzy. Same with the Billy Joel lead-ins. (That’s another indicator that it’s not a “legitimate” news program, for myself. What music do they use between the commercial breaks? It’s a Clear Channel playlist.) They barely cover the Israeli war but they will provide an in-depth interview with Richard Gere. I allowed myself to be entertained by the show for the last three or four years; it was probably just what I needed after experiencing some personal trauma. But if memory serves, the basic tenants of journalism are: who, what, why, when, where and how, while sticking to the facts as much as possible. In my estimation, Morning Joe is pretty tepid in these areas. The other day, it was clear that Micah (sp?) was the only person on the show who knew the price of butter! LOL! It was pretty funny.
Here’s a better example - a formal news example. As Morning Joe has discussed and criticized Donald Trump’s tariff idea, did they ever explore the why? Billionaires love tariffs over income taxes. Why? Because wealthy Americans already own everything they need; as such, they are mot likely to be terribly impacted by tariffs, as opposed to income taxes. Trump already owns a refrigerator; a television; a car; a boat; a chainsaw; a snowblower, etc. Trump doesn’t need to buy all the things the average American needs. He already owns them. This would’ve been some pretty basic critical analysis by Morning Joe as to why Trump loves tariffs and they never offered it up.
Funny, they mostly talk about politics.
They stand for nothing, which is exactly why it’s been so easy for them to flip-flop after they lost the election. They never stood for anything to begin with. It was all an act.
Yep. Just like you’re in a coffee shop. No investigative reporting or deep critical analysis. And let’s not forget that their statistics expert with all the charts is a millionaire who committed a Wall Street crime for which she had to pay out a hefty fee. That’s their expert - he’s a felon.
You're full of beans.
Remember when Joe made the ignorant statement that Democrats were masters at winning elections about a month before they got pummeled? Nearly everyone on that program is a millionaire and can’t relate to how most people live. I’m not full of beans.
A really fine column. And surprisingly (to me) you changed my mind.
Thank you, Judy! That means a lot.
I understand what you’re saying. I have some sympathy for that point of view, except Trump initially rejected Joe&Mika in Jan of 17.
If Trump hadn’t I wonder if they would have frequented Mar a Lago, been more sympathetic to his ignorance&venom.
Mika gave the always lean to the right Joe a more centrist veneer.
I’m not sure Joe&Mika can be labeled a hard journalist??
I’m skeptical of their motives
I have no problem with Joe and Mika interviewing Trump. When the whole contretemps began, I said, "Wait, let's see the video. It's important that Trump answers question." Apparently, though, there was no video (or audio, for that matter). It was not an interview. It was a request for mercy, to be taken off the shit list. That is not journalism. Reviving a social relationship has no valid purpose. There was no article, no book, no tape - whoever may have benefitted from the meeting, it was not viewers looking for news.
Oh, is that why they went to MAL -- to try to talk into coming on their show???
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.
What a terrific, clear-eyed piece. I guess we're living in different days. Nobody gave me shit for interviewing Jimmy Hoffa and a few other unsavory characters. They were newsmakers -- and it used to be the news business.
MSM has been dying for years and this election may be the final blow. No one under 70 is watching anymore and those that are are less and less relevant. I listen (to podcasts), I read Substack, I listen to books. I do not read a physical paper or waste time with talking heads. NPR insults our intelligence. Stop caring about this crap and start learning again.
NPR got gutted back in the late 80s as a result of Reagan’s funding cuts to programs accessed by public radio.
NPR has never been the same since.
I was in college when NPR started going down hill; they started inserting green advertising from the oil and gas industry.
The Dorothy Thompson analogy only works if we DIDN’T know what Trump is.
We do. If she interviewed Hitler in say 1940, then maybe.
Thompson absolutely knew what Hitler was in 1931. The only thing she didn't know was whether he'd acquire total control of Germany, and she guessed that one wrong. But Hitler's vileness was already on full display in Mein Kampf (published six years before her interview) and in his public statements. The fuhrer was not one to hide his light under a bushel. Anybody with a pulse could tell he was evil.
Except he wasn't the ruler yet. We've had Trump's ruling "sample" already, not a book (which I don't believe he could write, nor read). It's the difference in interviewing Charlie Manson BEFORE he committed his crimes, not after.
What is there to gain from "interviewing" Trump now? If you ask a "tough" question, that's probably the last interview. If you ask a "softball" question, its FoxNews propaganda.