TIME magazine recently listed all of us as the people of the year for 2006. Blogging and its influences have profoundly effected the established news oligarchy in our nation. As a result, we should all give ourselves a round of applause. 2006 featured a lot of interesting news items. Katie Couric took the anchor desk at CBS. Glenn Beck saw his show expand to an evening show on CNN. Anne Coulter continues to spark near riots and elicits negative media coverage due to her outlandish style. Rush Limbaugh and Howard Stern continued to do their thing and both maintain they are on top of the whole heap. We also saw talk of Air America's demise, though the number of liberal stations has certainly improved from what it once was years ago.


Questions for debate:

1.)Who would you pick as the most influential media personality of the year? What factors do you base this on?

2.)Who would pick as the media personality who lost the most influence or who isn't up to par as they once were?

The second question is a little easier, I think. Rush Limbaugh's influence went way down, for several reasons, in recent years. The flap about Michael J. Fox only added to his woes, I think.

(Contrast this with Ann Coulter, who can make the most outrageous, insane, evil statements -- just "joking" of course -- and keep selling huge numbers of books. Her influence certainly hasn't gone down.)

On the left, Air America's people went from "very little influence" to "even less influence," so that doesn't really count. Howard Stern may have gone down a little; at least, I don't hear as much about him as I used to.

The whole Katie Couric thing has little to do with politics, and more to do with celebrity news and gossip. (What do most people know about Couric? She's a pleasant person, is pretty, and wears short skirts to show off her nice legs. Someone like Coulter may be also known for short skirts, but is much better known for verbal vitriol.)

(I'll admit here that I have no idea who Glenn Beck is.)

The biggest jump in influence, from my limited point of view, would be the folks at The Daily Report, who have gained a reputation for insightful reporting and commentary within their comic format.

1.)Who would you pick as the most influential media personality of the year? What factors do you base this on?

Good question, but this is an easy answer. The two most influential media personalities are Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert. Both FOX and CNN have blasted them. Clearly, truth seeping into American media is not appreciated by Rupert Murdoch or Ted Turner.

Tim Russert's star has risen considerably. With his coverage of the election and well researched questions, he is one of the most respected journalist.

2.)Who would pick as the media personality who lost the most influence or who isn't up to par as they once were?

Not that all of these people have diminished because of events that happened this year, but Dan Rather comes to mind right away. I think more people are realizing FOX is full of it. Limbaugh lost a lot of credibility by getting caught up in his drug scandal. Howard Stern is not as influential on XM Radio. Katie Couric is not as visible anymore. either.

Your poll missed John Stewart and Steven Colbert- much, much much more credible and effective than anyone listed- my second choice would be bloggers.

Add me to the Stewart/Colbert list. I can't imagine any other media personaility coming even close to what these guys do on a daily basis.

I completely forgot about those two, though the case for their selection is pretty compelling. Their emerging importance is clear as evidenced by the edgy encounter of Stewart on Crossfire back in April. A little tension between old and new eh?

I voted other. Three people who seem to command immense respect, almost reverence, among their colleagues are Tim Russert, the semi-retired Tom Brokaw and Andrea Mitchell.

My personal favorites include Eugene Robinson, Norah O'Donnnell, Campbell Brown, David Gergen, John Harwood, Craig Crawford and Michelle Caruso Cabrera of CNBC.

Due to extreme bias, I voted for we who blog, by dawg. It is getting near impossible to pull the wool through the last century's media outlets, thus knocking some big fat cats off the counter.

I respect what the people who make The Daily Show and Colbert's Report do to make it click, but I don't watch them right on spot. I use the Internet to catch the major parts of the shows, as I have very little spare time right now. Whatever there is goes to reading rather than watching. But, maybe today being a holiday, tomorrow too, I'll catch up on the Internet.

The Internet! The Internet! Not simply a bunch of tubes any longer (pipes, as techies would say). The Internet is, and always will be, about content. It really isn't, without content, anything but a big huge TCP/IP running mostly on Ethernet these days, and that content has to be people.

It has taken a long time, but it's here to stay. There will be attempts to shut down influential sites, so voters beware. Meanwhile, nail the powers to the wall with their lying eyes (yesh, what a mixed metaphor).

Just read a tech report on how the television and Internet are combining in the year 2007. Some of this is already going on, but the plans are for full marriage of the two, interconnecting inside the house through wireless LAN. So you can have your big-screen TV in the family room pulling the game off the Internet via a central box hooked up to your broadband. The box could have an array of RAID-5 disk drives or one big monster drive, internal backup and disaster recovery management via Web services of this sort, and for your home office use, minimalistic terminals with wireless LAN. The inexpensive terminals could become televisions with a mouse click. Add telephony over IP in the mix, and there you go. One of my fellow contractors is using voice over IP right now, and we can always hear him.

The world is about to change again. I know there are some issues to hammer out, such as truely reliable and consistent broadband and the security/reliability of wireless LANs. Another is price, as none of this is going to be cheap. It will be though, as demand drives supply and prices come down.

Meanwhile, the old television networks will morph into something else, as they have started to do now with downloadable story episodes. Advertising will have to change too, as has been going on, but now faster than ever.

All this change is being driven by demand, and that demand comes from us. We are influencing not only politics but economics and the nature of the workplace. I'll be this eventually impacts every facet of life.

Add my vote to Colbert / Stewart. While they occassionally miss covering some stories, I think that there's even more room to grow for their genius reinterpretations of the news. While I read standard News every day via AP/Reuters and NPR, when I want opinion I go to them.

I honestly believe Stewart is a fantastic moderate and when he's angry, there's usually a very very good reason for it. The line Colbert balances is intense and fragile, and cuts to the heart of the issues which sometimes can only be examined honestly through parody.

Piling on with Colbert/Stewart throwing pinches from the middle left with consistency and in all directions they see fit from there.

Questions for debate:

1.)Who would you pick as the most influential media personality of the year? What factors do you base this on?

2.)Who would pick as the media personality who lost the most influence or who isn't up to par as they once were?
[/quote]

1. Howard Stern. He raised Sirius from the dead to seriously compete with XM.

2. Rush Limbaugh. His act has grown tired.

Chris Matthews. Apparently Chris is brutally tough on anyone who is in charge, ever since the Democrats swept Congress he has been tearing them to shreds...Finally someone who is in fact fair and balanced. I watch his show every night, making it the only non-Comedy Central news/talk show I watch routinely with the exception of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume. This marks the first time I've complimented anyone on MSNBC.

It goes without saying that Stephen Colbert and Jon Stewart are high on my list as well.

CP

See- learn something new every day- I had no idea that Chris Mathews was doing that- it was like shootin' fish in a barrel, without the humor, until recently I guess? The republicans have just shown themselves to be so incredibly inept and corrupt, that the comedy writes itself- are the dems helping a poor old comic out here and making it easy already? - I haven't caught a real big gaff in the news yet.

Apparently, you're one of the few watching Chris Matthews. Here are the recent ratings as posted on the Drudge Report:

CABLE NEWS RACE
THURS, JAN 4, 2007
VIEWERS

FOXNEWS O'REILLY 2,505,000
FNC HANNITY/COLMES 1,802,000
FNC SHEP SMITH 1,374,000
FNC HUME 1,258,000
FNC GRETA 1,194,000
CNN KING 1,014,000
CNN COOPER 835,000
CNN DOBBS 814,000
CNNHN GRACE 676,000
MSNBC OLBERMANN 665,000
MSNBC SCARBOROUGH 648,000 CNN ZAHN 643,000
CNNHN BECK 467,000
MSNBC MATTHEWS 424,000

Matthews is dead last in viewers and O'Reilly continues to trounce the competition and keep Fox News well on top of CNN and the last place MSNBC.

That's a shame- I haven't personally seen CM myself in some time, in fact, I don't even have cable anymore- waste of money IMHO- but, I trust CP's taste in news, since he and I seem to have pretty consistantly the same taste and views- and if he is lambasting the dems already- I have nuttin' but respec' for the man LOL

Lap dog republicans like those on top- you have to pretty much be a moron to take anything like O'rielly day after day and watch it as a serious news/political forum.

I would rather have someone like John Stewart that does nothing but ferret out stupidity, that I respect. I never have like ANY show that just confirms my own beliefs- or does nothing but harp on one side of the issues- like Hannity or O'Rielly- I want something that attempts to view both sides, and isn't afraid to lambaste thier own side when they are being stupid.

Howard Stern.

He's made satellite radio a reality and will no doubt cause XM to merge with Sirius. He's making FM completely irrelevant and anything that hurts Clear Channel is a good thing. God willing we'll see the abolition of the FCC in his lifetime as well. They're as useless a commission as there has ever been. Everything they were charged with doing technology took care of without their help and they lost 2 Billion dollars.

I choose Howard Stern for influencing everything in media.

I agree to a point, Howard was instrumental in pushing the radio envelope and to encourage listeners to switch to satellite radio (I'm an XM subscriber myself).
I like Howard, but I think that move has largely pushed him into oblivion. He's no longer cutting edge. He no longer draws the ire of the FCC, or the mass admiration of fans. He still has his faithful followers, but he is no longer a 'must have' guest, or the fodder for other radio shows and entertainment/gossip programs.

I'm still thinking of who my choice would be, but I'm leaning strongly towards Jon Stewart.

Good point DTOM- Howard Stern created the "shock jock" Genre- every single city in the US has some morning show that basically uses Howard Stern's formula to this day- at one point, he truly was the most important and influential media personality in the country- NOT because of the numbers listening- though it was very large at his Zenith- but because ALL media took his example and ran with it- Rush simply did what Howard did, but only went more "niche" with his audience, seeking out the "angry white male"- though, Morton Downey Jr also should get a nod on this one- but, really, in format, Howard Stern ranks up there with Edward R Murrow (sp) in terms of influence on the format of media.

Oh- and slightly off topic there DTOM- love the new avatar


"the correct answer is mormon, ooo, so sorry- mormon was the correct answer"

Not to sound obnoxious, Lordhelmet, but what's your point? Being the most popular and being good are two different things. In my opinion Chris Matthews is fairest and most balanced media personality on television. He knocked the Republican Party when they were in charge and he is doing the same to the Dems...Whether or not people would rather listen to Bill O'Reilly is irrelevant.

CP

I rarely miss Hardball and when I do, I usually record it.

I don't think Matthews is perfectly balanced, but he's the closest I can find. Because I pride myself on not being a partisan hack, I watch Fox as much as I watch MSNBC and CNN just like I read Daily Kos, The Huffington Post, and Democratic Underground as much as I read Lucianne.com, freerepublic.com, michellemalkin.com, blah blah, blah.

Chris Matthews holds both sides' feet to the fire and challenges their talking points. I think he's pretty fair and at times, pretty tough.

He's still not as relevant as Stewart or Cobert though. He doesn't point out the absurdity that exists today in politics like they do.

I agree with CruisingRam, ConservPat, DaytonRocker about Hardball going after both sides equally all though for awhile he was getting soft on both sides but he must have seen how OLBERMANN was hitting hard and the old Chris came back like he used to, which I am glad to finally see back.

For shows I watch usually on cable Hardball, Countdown, Lou Dobbs, C-Span Washington Journal, C-Span/C-Span2 in general, Daily Show/ Corbert, Democracy Now (on occasion), Meet the Press, This Week, Now, John McLaughlin's One on One, and the Chris Mattews show on Sunday. Blogs Huffington, DailyKos, Andrew Sullivan, No Quarter, Unclaimed Territory, Balkinization as well as many others.

edited to add: forgot this little tidbit

Lowly MSNBC improved ratings in 2006

.)Who would you pick as the most influential media personality of the year? What factors do you base this on?
O’Rilley
2.)Who would pick as the media personality who lost the most influence or who isn't up to par as they once were?
katie

Colbert/Stewart, as they give political info to the younger generationin a humerous way.

High marks for Stewart , Colbert –( except when Stewart has Al on). They are to the point and funny – rare in TV news.

I also like Mr. Hume, Hannity and Colmes and Smith (at times) - Grtta turns me off.

Who would you pick as the most influential media personality of the year? What factors do you base this on?

I would put Keith Olbermann and Countdown in a dead heat with the Stewart stable. Stewart/Colbert has already been roundly hailed here, so I won't dwell on their contributions to public discourse.

Olbermann's move from sportscasting to news reporting to increasingly blunt commentary has been a canny one and he seems to be attracting a fairly diverse audience. His unabashed opinions (which have been just as harsh on the Democrats on occasion - especially of late) have stimulated a lot of discussion this past year - in fact, for a while there, it seemed that every one of his Special Comments was spawning a thread here. He is one of the few unapologetic liberal voices on cable news (as well as one of the more independent) and he has no qualms about calling spades spades. His researchers also seems to be avid internet surfers, often getting details of their stories though online sources rather than just wire services, which usually give his reports a bit of an edge - and a few more facts.

In terms of "influence", I think he was one of the few giving voice to the opposition in the lead-up to the 2006 election. To a large degree, he became the spokesman for all those who wished there were such a thing as a Democrat with a spine - and gave many opponents to the single-party government their rallying points.

He's been attracting some decent guests, as well, and covers enough sports news, celebrity gossip, and esoterica to keep his show from being too stridently political.

Plus he's been drawing a much larger audience over the past year - always a reasonable sign of "effectiveness". O'Reilly still attracts a larger audience in the 8pm slot, but according to MediaBistro, Olbermann's show posted the largest gains in total viewers for the first quarter of 2007 over last year. Bill O'Reilly's gains were up 5%, Olbermann's gains were up 76%. Paula Zahn dropped 10%, giving Olbermann the second-largest audience. To an extent, I think Olbermann has also been responsible for O'Reilly's loss of credibility - certainly more so than most of O'Reilly's other nemeses.

And for fairness/balance, I would put Joe Scarborough ahead of the macho-worshiping Matthews. But I think MSNBC has to be given a bit of credit overall for being the most fair/balanced cable news network in general. Fox has a predictable - and fairly consistent - corporate Republican slant and CNN has a predictable - and fairly consistent - superficial, ineffectual Democratic slant. MSNBC at least has a genuine mix of relatively independent points of view: Mathews, Carlson, Olbermann, and Scarborough (plus their daft crime documentaries) make for a pretty diverse mix - with more points of view and a broader range of issues - than you'll find on the other networks. And Olbermann, again, seems to have brought a lot more attention to that mix.

Who would pick as the media personality who lost the most influence or who isn't up to par as they once were?

I would say it's a three-way tie between Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, and Al Franken. The first two have not only been beset with personal scandal and numerous "misstatements" (and "misgyrations"), but their critics have also been more persistent, more vocal, and better researched: they're not getting away with as much as they used to. Franken, on the other hand, has voluntarily lowered his profile - and no one has much noticed.

Not to disagree with your personal preferences but your statement about OReilly is clearly a little off the mark. He is still number one buy a large margin.- below as posted by lorlhelmet. IMO Franken never had a following. I agree on Rush.


CABLE NEWS RACE
THURS, JAN 4, 2007
VIEWERS

FOXNEWS O'REILLY 2,505,000
FNC HANNITY/COLMES 1,802,000
FNC SHEP SMITH 1,374,000
FNC HUME 1,258,000
FNC GRETA 1,194,000
CNN KING 1,014,000
CNN COOPER 835,000
CNN DOBBS 814,000
CNNHN GRACE 676,000
MSNBC OLBERMANN 665,000
MSNBC SCARBOROUGH 648,000 CNN ZAHN 643,000
CNNHN BECK 467,000
MSNBC MATTHEWS 424,000

What you didn't tell us Ted is that lordhelmet didn't provide a link to this info. He only told us that he got it off the Drudge Report. I understand. Drudge brings forward about the same mind set that posts POS poll results.

Cable doesn’t tell the whole story. The networks still count.



http://www.mediabistro.com/fishbowlDC/taki...60407_60192.asp

Meet the Press is, in my opinion, the best Sunday (or for that matter any) talk show. Russert is fair and tough. It’s too bad he doesn’t sugar coat things enough for some of you. I guess not being a stand-up comic is a disadvantage on a serious news forum. If, however, one insists on living in "Mary Poppins Land," then "a spoonful of sugar helps the [news] go down."

If you don't think Russert is tough, look at his interview with Bill Richardson. I actually felt a bit sorry for the New Mexico Governor.

Meet the Press Interview with Bill Richardson

Here are some numbers from March 2007
http://insidecable.blogsome.com/2007/03/

P2+ Prime Time
FNC – 2,277,000 viewers
CNN – 870,000 viewers
MSNBC – 516,000 viewers
CNBC – 333,000 viewers
HLN – 463,000 viewers


Obviously FOX is far to big to be ignored, even compared to network news – which I agree is still important.

I am with the majority of Americans who dislike the liberal bias and have switched and will not go back. I am sure it is more to your liking.

“ The vast majority of American voters detect the presence of political bias in the mainstream news media, according to a Zogby poll released yesterday in conjunction with the George Washington University Institute for Politics, Democracy and the Internet.
Sentiment is strong: 83 percent of likely voters think bias is "alive and well." Of that number, 64 percent said the press leans left, while slightly more than a quarter -- 28 percent -- said there was a conservative bias.”

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20070315-114454-8075r.htm

Fine Ted, but this is about personalities, not organizations unless, of course, FNC means Rupert Murdoch.

I've made my case for Tim Russert, but I'll do it again.

Russert's strengths:

1. Toughness,

2. Fairness,

3. Civility. Isn’t Russert a model for .

4. A large viewing audience,

5. Straight forward presentation without a glycol-coating,

6. Variety and gravitas of guests,

7. If Charles Caleb Colton was correct in saying, “imitation is the sincerest form of flattery,” then Russert scores points here. Chris Matthews is a Tim Russert wannabe. While Russert comes off as amiable and even gentle in his toughness, Matthew comes off as mean and bullying.

8. The long history of Meet the Press has given Russert some big shoes –Lawrence Spivak for example – to fill. Russert may have eclipsed his predecessors.

9. As an added bonus, Meet the Press transcripts are available hours after the show and are archived in an easy to use format.

10. All this adds up to a one word summation - credibility.

If someone can make a stronger case for someone else, have-at-it.

The more I watch him the more I have to say Lou Dobbs is the most effective personality. While Matthews plays "hardball" whenever he feels like it, Dobbs is on all the time and seems pretty fair and tough on everyone he interviews.

CP

I don't dispute O'Reilly's audience share - just his effectiveness. Popularity does not necessarily equal influence. Even a year or two ago (well, maybe three now), O'Reilly was much more credible - hell, even I found him to be relatively "fair" - and once or twice even convincing. But he has become increasingly strident and his obsession with various chimera (like the "War on Christmas" and his whole "Progressive Secularist" bogey) seems to be progressively more driven by ratings than principles - and his series of vendettas is getting really old. But what did you find off the mark? The suggestion that he had been beset with personal scandal and numerous "misstatements"? That his critics have become more persistent, more vocal, and better researched? That he's not getting away with as much as he used to? He may still have his base, but he used to have broader appeal - and was taken a bit more seriously.

Franken hosted the flagship talk show on Air America Radio when it was launched and, while Air America never had a huge audience, The Al Franken Show in particular generated a lot of debate within the liberal community - and helped shape a lot of opinion. Five of his books have been national bestsellers - and three of them (the "political" ones) were #1 on the New York Times bestseller list. He is a frequent and well-received speaker (and talk show guest) and has garnered enormous good will through his USO performances. He's also a strong contender for a Senate seat in 2008 (okay, within 10% of Coleman). He does have a following - though you'd be right in asserting that the public at large may take little notice.

Limbaugh, well... there you are.

I agree on O’Reilly. I was a fan a year or two ago but less so today. Today I actually like Hannity and Colbert better.



I never listened much to Franken who I consider a far left loon at best. Olbermann is imo heavily left biased.

Add my vote to the "others": John Stewart, Stephen Colbert, and Keith Olbermann.

There is plenty of call for a decidedly un-Republican pundit like Keith Olbermann, as long as FOX is so "fair and balanced" with all of its right-wing punditry. Olbermann's got guts with his editorializing, and it provides a needed foil to the right-wing pontificators Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh et al. Olbermann is a scrapper, and he will not be mocked for "wimpiness" like more softly-spoken folks on the left.

I'm just wondering if Keith Olbermann would go after Democrats if they were the ones responsible for the messes of the current administration. I suspect he would. That's a good thing.

PE I only have one problem with Keith Olbermann. He didn't really go after Bush as hard, especially with the "special comments," until after Bush's poll numbers tumbled. I only wish he had gone harder when Bush was more popular. Then again much of the media gave Bush a pass. That, fortunately, is happening less often. I guess what I'm saying is that Olbermann should have kicked the dog harder while it was up rather than wait for it to be down.

Again, I think this is a plus for Russert.

George W. Bush on Meet the Press

Where was Olbermann when Russert was doing this hard interview.

Olbermann also needs to be himself, not Edward R. Murrow.

The dean of the "old news" business flailing away? Looks like Dan Rather has some interesting comments about Katie Couric-CBS in his view, is dumbing down and "tarting up" the news. Touche!?

Even though I think ol Dan was one of the most liberal biased newsmen in history I have to agree with him on this one. But perhaps he is also angry she is not quite as left biased as he was? I rarely watch.

By the way catch the ½ Hour News Hour on FOX Sunday at 10PM - it is a blast.

Put me in the Other category as well. As a huge fan of both Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert, I can't say enough good things about them. However, since they have been praised enough already, I will throw my hat in with Keith Olbermann as well as CNN's Anderson Cooper. While Cooper is not so much a political reporter, I think his reporting often contains some of the most devastatingly honest stories about the New Orleans disaster. Not to mention his coverage of the Southeast Asia tsunami. Cooper is consistently top-notch and I highly respect him as a reporter. I won't forget his grilling of Louisiana Senator Mary Landrieu (video: Anderson Cooper and Mary Landrieu). He doesn't come off as a ratings-hungry media figure who only cares about getting a paycheck. Maybe it's an act, but if so, he's one hell of an actor.

As for Olbermann, his editorials recall those of Edward R. Murrow in that he was eloquent and brutally harsh (sometimes coming off as pedantic, but I can forgive him for that). His usage of Murrow's "Good night and good luck" catchphrase acknowledges what Olbermann attempts to do. While he may not succeed as Murrow did, he does make good points which often hit hard at the truth of a story.

By the way, the media often slants to the left because rational, educated, intelligent people are generally liberal. *rimshot*


I have seen this. And whenever I think about how I miss cable, I remember it and my sorrow fades away. While I had only seen a handful of these before I ended my cable subscription, I can honestly say that I did not laugh once in a single episode. It was like watching an unfunny MadTV sketch or a bad SNL skit. Proof once again that liberals understand what makes things funny and why conservatives should not attempt comedy. Ann Coulter's attempts at it in the past should have been proof enough, but God help them, they keep trying.

This is a tad unfair - and, presumably (hopefully?), a bit tongue in cheek. You and I may not find the ½ Hour News Hour - or Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh or Dennis Miller - all that entertaining, but we're hardly their target audience. Something tells me there are a few people knocking around the board here who don't exactly find Michael Moore a laugh riot, either. De gustibus non est disputandum and all that.

I'd agree that Anderson Cooper can be an extremely effective reporter (though at times he approaches Herb Morrison's Hindenberg style - "Oh, the humanity!" - if with a bit more restraint), but I'm not sure he has much influence as a media personality - at least not on the basis of Anderson Cooper 360°. He tries hard enough, but I'd much rather see him in the field. Immediacy is what he does best (and no one looks better in the midst of a hurricane). As a studio-bound talking head, however, he's a bit tepid.

Thanks Wertx – you hit the nail on the head. Obviously if the jokes are at the expense of liberal policies, practices etc. and one is liberal, laughing at the barbs would be rare!
Thus I find Olbermann hard to listen to as his liberal bias is so strong and course Moore makes me ill – this slob liar has succeeded in taking “truth” out of the definition of “documentary”.