Like a lot of folks I was surprised by the apparent sacking of Keith Olbermann at MSNBC, if for no other reason than it’s unusual for marginal enterprises such as cable networks to rid themselves of their most popular commodity.
But as I read the postmortems and the sendoffs, it occurred to me that it had been some time—a long time, actually—since I had watched Keith Olbermann. Or anyone else in that boisterous, opinionated, and way-up the-remote-dial realm. I had put myself on an ersatz boycott of what used to be my favorite “news” programming and managed not to notice.
The thing is, I am the target audience for this stuff. I’m an election junkie, a defrocked journalist, a person with ironclad political beliefs and an Irish temperament. But somewhere back in the days of George W. Bush I just stopped watching.
No, it’s not W’s fault, though he and his minions sure didn’t help back when they were getting that war in Iraq going.
It’s a kind of rhetorical combat fatigue, a sense that all these years later you aren’t going to hear anything that is in any way new and different. It’s a feeling that you’d be just as well off watching Bones on Fox rather than anything else on Fox.
The malaise built slowly, if I may borrow a concept from President Carter.
The Sunday morning talk shows went first. There was a time—it was May 1992—when I could spend the better part of an afternoon with friends chewing over the job that NBC’s Tim Russert had done on Meet the Press to a dithering presidential candidate named Ross Perot.
But nowadays, no matter who is in the big chair, watching a pair of over-coached senators, one from each party, racing through the approved talking points on immigration or TARP seems a poor way to spend a Sunday.
When all the world was young I marveled at the interview prowess of Ted Koppel in his Nightline days and may have contributed to the legend by writing at least two adoring pieces about him when I was media critic at the Chicago Tribune.
As a consumer I confess I was hooked in the early 1980s when The McLaughlin Group made its bumptious debut, giggling as Jack Germond tussled with and outsmarted Robert Novak, Pat Buchanan, and Morton Kondracke.
Now it seems that, for me, the lure of the advocacy format has gone the way of caring about the Super Bowl and drinking at lunch.
Just between us, I have never watched Glenn Beck or Bill O’Reilly. Or Ed Schultz. At least not for more than a minute or two. And I’m pretty sure I don’t have to.
It’s mostly bipartisan on my end. Al Franken in the U.S. Senate? Fine. Al Franken on the radio? No, thanks. The allure of Sean Hannity is lost on me; he’s Fox and Friends’s Steve Doocy with an anger management problem.
Lawrence O’Donnell is every slick Capitol Hill VIP staffer who only talked to The New York Times and The Washington Post. While I enjoyed Stephen Colbert’s skewering of the Washington press at that 2006 White House Correspondents’ Dinner, he is, well, exhausting—and not as clever as he thinks he is.
Rachel Maddow seems to be wicked smart and sassy, or so it says here. But even her considerable charms are lost on me. I turn it on, I listen for a bit, I go away. And I think I know why.
Opinion is now a team sport. Interview shows, talk shows, panel shows are set pieces, and to some degree they always have been. I like this pundit, you like another. This one got the better of that one the other night.
What exists in cable-ville now is a set of armies storming across open ground, interrupting, smirking, and eyeball-rolling to the cheers of their partisans, left and right. Now it is a team game—my team versus your team, no quarter, army ants with all the racial and gender slots filled.
Make no mistake: I haven’t checked out. I read what’s left of the good newspapers and scour websites such as this one. And, to be honest, the social network makes sure I don’t have to miss a good rant by Maddow or, until the other day, Olbermann, if I don’t want to.
Finally, this is not an argument for civility, whatever that means. It’s part of my lifelong war on boredom. And my solution is a simple one: Bones.

So true, and yet, so eloquent. Not that either should come as a surprise. Bis, bis!
#1 Posted by Ivy Richards, CJR on Wed 26 Jan 2011 at 03:05 PM
Best one yet, Brother Daley. "I'm pretty sure I don't have to," either.
#2 Posted by tom goodwin, CJR on Wed 26 Jan 2011 at 03:17 PM
Nail on the head, as usual.
#3 Posted by Elaine Povich, CJR on Wed 26 Jan 2011 at 03:19 PM
I wish I had written this.
I would only add that I feel the same way about political speeches these days...virtually all of them.
#4 Posted by Carol Marin, CJR on Wed 26 Jan 2011 at 10:43 PM
Yeah, I'm so bored of all the talking and partisanship. Let's go back to the good old days when people could watch the Cosby show and vote for a presidential candidate based on the issue that you'd rather have a beer with him.
I agree. I don't want mirror image coverage where you get one set of yabba yabba on hannity and another set of dabba dabba on Ed's show, but Maddow, Olbermann, Chris Hayes, and others have brought substantive reporting on major issues (the gulf, the mortgage crisis, the freedom works outfits, the David Iglesias firing) that would have just passed into the ether and have been forgotten. They have been self conscious reporters who report the truth right and apologize when they get it wrong. They do respectful interviews with their guests and the content, unlike on other talker shows, leaves the viewer better informed.
And I think Maddow would dispute the equivalences you draw between her and Fox:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ppTTBD1jwc
But if you prefer Bones, that your choice. Just don't expect me to respect your choice to be another poorly informed voter.
#5 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Wed 26 Jan 2011 at 11:43 PM
An excellent piece, as usual, Steve. I once thought that I chose to not watch FOX because it's, well, FOX. I then realized I had long ago drifted away from all of them in favor of reruns of classics like Bones and enlightened myself with things written.
#6 Posted by Peter Fuller, CJR on Wed 26 Jan 2011 at 11:53 PM
Well said, Steve. I, too, have mostly lost my appetite for TV news and feel somewhat guilty about this since I'm a journalist. Reading is the way to go. And if I get behind, I grab "The Week" for a concise rundown of the week's news that I might've missed. Thanks for a great piece.
#7 Posted by Janan Hanna, CJR on Thu 27 Jan 2011 at 12:23 AM
Wow. There seems to be a lot of people blowing smoke up your bottom today, Mr. Daley. Are all your relatives coming here to comment or just the ones on your mother's side?
I won't be blowing any smoke. It takes no genius to write a trite little "I'm too cool for the fray" piece or a "when I was a boy and the blue birds sang 'God Bless America' during simple, more civil times"
Your times weren't simple, but your media was. Simple and stupid with rare exceptions:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3505348655137118430
It was that media that celebrated Reagan's stands for "human rights and democracy" while he engaged in Central American bloodletting and sponsoring the chemical warfare of Iraq. It was that media which focused on political panty sniffing while Osama Bin Laden worked within Afghanistan. It was that media which gossiped about Gore's love stories and lying while an idiot and a criminal stole an election with the help of his state governor brother and the supreme court.
Your corporate media, way back when, SUCKED. I much prefer the MSNBC media to the garbage that came before it. It has it's faults, but there's at least SOMETHING worth watching. What came before it was pure storytelling, not news.
Previous to that, the only place to get news was Democracy Now:
http://www.democracynow.org/
And that's only been since the internet.
What you wrote wasn't interesting, wasn't unique, was as cliched as it was false. An interesting article would be one that describes how the internet has changed the media by making the news cycle more people (as in audience) generated and by affecting the tone with their input. "Oh the democratized meda today.. how vulgar." that would be interesting.
You did a promo for the show "Bones".
What a waste of time.
#8 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Thu 27 Jan 2011 at 04:56 AM
Thimbles. That's a funny name.
#9 Posted by Steve Daley, CJR on Thu 27 Jan 2011 at 01:56 PM
Why is Stephen Colbert even mentioned in this bunc? He's a satirist.
#10 Posted by Nancy Stricker, CJR on Thu 27 Jan 2011 at 02:06 PM
The same people who "need" Limbaugh, Maddow, Beck, et al, are the ones who "need" Olbermann: People who don't know the differences among journalism, propaganda, and entertainment.
#11 Posted by Tom Barry, CJR on Thu 27 Jan 2011 at 04:48 PM
"Thimbles. That's a funny name."
Names are overrated. I prefer utensils that protect you from pricks.
"The same people who "need" Limbaugh, Maddow, Beck, et al, are the ones who "need" Olbermann: People who don't know the differences among journalism, propaganda, and entertainment."
The people who equate Limbaugh and Fox with Olbermann and Maddow don't know the differences between propaganda, journalism, and entertainment.
And, as for me, it would be one thing for me to say "Steroid enhanced 30 year old boys tossing around a pig skin between their legs isn't my cup of tea."
But I wouldn't write, "My god, foot ball is boring. It barely qualifies being a sport anymore. Golf takes real athleticism. Football? I'd rather be watching Jersey Shore." without people writing back, "Wow. Pretentious much?"
I may not appreciate football, but I don't denigrate it as a sport and I can tell the difference between a sport like football and sports entertainment like pro-wrestling.
MSNBC is still news. Fox and Limbaugh are news entertainment. There's a difference. I would expect people to get upset if I drew an equivalence just because both involve 300 lbs meatheads running around.
You may like your news dry and bland without spice or meaning, but some people do, especially after the failures of dry, bland, storytelling news that presented every story as discrete events, without context or meaning.
The old news doesn't work, especially when there's a news entertainment network that's more than happy to supply context and meaning derived from loopyville paranoia, patriotism, and facebook tweets.
You had your time. Your media failed miserably. You aren't in a position to feel smug about that.
#12 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Thu 27 Jan 2011 at 06:09 PM
I'm sooo bored.
Too bored to watch news about the Gulf:
http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/brian-williams-claims-media-quit-covering
So bored people like this talking:
http://www.ted.com/talks/carl_safina_the_oil_spill_s_unseen_culprits_victims.html
I'd rather watch Bones.
I'm not a bad guy, really I'm not, but I have a disgusting attitude.
#13 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Fri 28 Jan 2011 at 12:24 AM
The "lure of the advocacy format" ended for me long ago, though the Lure of Keith -- strong and reassuring during the abomination that was the invasion of and ensuing slaughter within Iraq -- hung on longest. A great post.
#14 Posted by Alan Solomon, CJR on Fri 28 Jan 2011 at 11:27 AM
The author's comments re the Sunday shows and others like them are accurate. I stopped watching a long time ago because the guests only said what they "should say".
But Keith, Rachel and to some extent Lawrence and Ed, tell us what others don't. They expose the hypocrisy, lies and duplicity of those entrusted to help us. And Keith did it with suitable outrage; "That woman is an idiot", re Palin, who is an idiot. Who else said what should be said about someone who millions think should be president!!!
Now we are back to discussing in a "professional" manner the rape and pillage of this country. I am not suggesting that rage is always appropriate; rather that the time for genteel discourse about fascism is over. It's time for the gloves to be off - whatever that means.
#15 Posted by Atypical, CJR on Fri 28 Jan 2011 at 04:27 PM
Thanks for this piece of writing, Steve. I thought I was alone almost. I grew up in normal IrishCatholic home, politics for dinner and desert. We all love the stuff. I can't watch on TV any more, just no news being broadcast and little opinion of merit. They all are full of hate - all of them. Close to zero valuable content.
Thanks
#16 Posted by Tom Gallagher, CJR on Fri 28 Jan 2011 at 05:08 PM
Tom
All full of hate? Zero valuable content?
You apparently like most of what's going on in the country then, right?
#17 Posted by Atypical, CJR on Fri 28 Jan 2011 at 05:19 PM