Is NBC obsolete and irrelevent?

So what's going on over at NBC? And, for all the excitement, who really cares? With 300 TV channels these days, it's quite easy to simply flick the channel and watch something better.

The Today show is still the most respected morning news program, although that not because of Matt Lauers irrelevant attacks on John McCain regarding quotes from the book "Game Change." Recently, Matt had McCain on his program (you can see the exchange here), and instead of asking him relevant questions, he said, "So, is it true in that in your presidential run in 2008 your team failed to investigate Sarah Palin?"

"McCain said, "Um, Matt, that's irrelevant. That happened two years ago. Today we have two wars brewing. Could you ask a relevant questions." Okay, so that's not exactly how the q and a went, but I'm not far off.

He also wasted time asking him what he thought about Senator Reid, and McCain basically said this conversation is irrelevent. Yet he didn't, he played along. Matt said, "People are saying we can't succeed in Afghanistan." McCain said, "Ahhh, Matt, they said that about Iraq too, and we succeeded their because we had confidence and courage to stay the course."

The Today show is good for fluff news, but when it comes to substance, people wait until the evening opinion shows for that. I would have said CNN, yet people are not tuning to CNN for their news either, they are tuning to Fox opinion shows. For the news, most people tune into the new boob tube -- the Internet.

In the morning, I think people simply put up with Matt Lauers irrelevant political questions because they don't watch that show to pick up their political views, they watch it to learn the four best pieces of advice to stick to new year resolutions. They watch the Today show to learn what the seven safest toys are for 2010. They watch it to see what the latest cooking advice is.

Kieth Oberman is the highest rated show on MSNBC, and it fares no better than the third showing of Bill O'Reilly's "The O'Reilly Factor," at 4:00 in the morning. So, obviously, few click on MSNBC for any relevant news and opinion.

Besides, O'Reilly became successful because his quest is to keep an eye on the powerful in this nation to make sure they aren't screwing us. The mission of Oberman is obviously to create another Satellite for the democratic national committee (DNC) to go along with CBS, ABC and, ahem, NBC.

Another satellite for the DNC is the New York Times, and this once prestigious newspaper has seen its viewership and profits tank big time in recent years. That is because it has lost its relevance too. There was a time that what was on the front page of the Times were also the lead stories on NBC, ABC and CBS.

Thus, all the news came from New York, whether it was true or not. And, as we all know, Walter Cronkite, the once most popular man in the world, was a big time liberal. So, my mom and dad had no choice but to watch a slanted news cast.

Today, however, with the advent of now news that can come from folks like you and I, we can get the accurate news and we can get it now. We get it on the Internet. Some actually get the news splashed on their pagers or iphones via text messages.

So, the New York Times is irrelevant to the new generation. Once the old generation fades away, the New York Times and all the little newspapers that rely on it (including the three major networks) will go the way of the Rocky Mountain News.

CNN is tanking because it is sticking to the old fashion news program, which is to have slanted and biased reporters write the news, and throw it at us as though it is news. Granted, CNN has gotten better over the years. Yet, that doesn't matter. What CNN doesn't get is that people don't need CNN for the news.

Fox figured this out. Fox doesn't just rehash the same old news and b.s. of the New York Times. Fox doesn't rehash what good folks like you and I can learn on the Internet. Fox has opinion shows, and news programmers who at least try to show the news from various angles as to not offend those of opposing viewpoints.

Thus, Fox is leading the cable news race. Yes, it is true some programs on Fox seem to be slanted one way or another, yet Fox has a real and documented following of liberal Americans. This is while NBC is obviously as slanted as Walter Cronkite (of whom my parents had no choice but to watch), my generation has free roam of all those 300 cable networks -- and a remote control.

The whole purpose of Matt Lauer is to take the opportunity to trash Sarah Palin becuase she had view he doesn't agree with. The same is true of Kieth Oberman on MSNBC, and perhaps even the New York Times and CNN. People have caught on to this.

And with Conan O'brein being kicked off the tonight show after only 6 months, will the one time late night ratings winners finally be irrelevent at night too? It seems someone is making some bad decisions at NBC.

So, with the advent of news from all angles, 300 cable networks, and the remote control, it is my hypothesis that NBC and it's DNC satellites are now pretty much obsolete and irrelevant.

New & Old media folks need to be open & honest

I now firmly believe that it is impossible for any media outlet to be unbiased. So, I think it's about time for all editors and journalists to come right out and admit the following:

"I am a human being, and I have an opinion. And, sometimes my opinion effects what I write. I don't mean to do it intentionally, but it just happens."

When I was in journalism school I was tought to get opinions from every angle possible, and to keep my opinion out of the story. However, I find this is not the case in many, not all, of the journalism pieces I read.

Few media outlets admit to being bias, however we know they are. For example, CNN tends to slant its news to the left, while Fox News tends to slant its news to the right.

A wise person once said, "Never get all your news from one source."

I think the reason this person said this was because different news sources approach the news from a different angle. Quite often, intentional or not, the most recent trend is to approach the news from either the liberal or conservative perspective (i.e. CNN and Fox News).

I have no problem with this. My only wish is that more anchors would come right out and tell us what their point of view is, just so we know. It's no big deal. I just want them to be honest.

Bill O'Reilly and Lou Dobbs are the exception. They both are very open about what their opinion is. Both of them are the editorial pages for their respective media outlets.

Wolf Blitzer tries to be fair in his reporting, however he tends to lean liberal. Why can't he simply come out and say, "Hey, guys, I'm a liberal. However, I will do my best to portray the news as fairly as I can. However, I am human, and I might be prone to a slip up now and again."

I think people would respect him a whole lot more if he did that. The same is true for, say, Britt Hume of Fox News. I love to watch his round table discussions, but I am also aware that these discussion tends to lean conservative. And it's quite obvious that Hume is a conservative.

So, why doesn't he come right out and admit it. Let's just all be honest here.

When we pick up a magazine like National Review, there is no secret that the magazine is a conservative magazine. However, when we pick up a magazine like Time, we only learn through our readings that it tends to lean liberal, however it denies this truth.

Newsmax is conservative and so is the Drudge Report, no matter how many times they deny these truths. It's no big deal. Just like Newsweek and Time are liberal. They all may have one or two oposing columnists, but the basic overal lean of these magazines is obvious.

It's okay. Let's just be honest.

We are very much aware that the bottom line for these media outlets is not what they will tell us; it is not to do fair and honest reporting: it is to make a profit. That is the bottom line for any business, and journalism is not an exception.

That, folks, is why publishers, like those of the New York Times, do not want to stop their reporters from being bias in their writings, because they know they cater to a more liberal leaning audience.

I'm not saying there are no conservatives who read this paper, but many Conservatives have since departed the Times for more conservative outlets such as the Wall Street Journal. It's business as usual. It's fine.

When you have a business, it is your right to do with it whatever you want, so long as you make enough money to stay in business. If you want your media outlet to lean one way or the other that's quite all right, just be honest about it.

Rush is good for America because he entertains, and encourages people to think for themselves

Rush Limbaugh became famous not because he goes on the air and tells people how to vote, or how to think, or what to do with their lives. He became famous because he is an entertainer.

Limbaugh has even admitted many times on his program, and in his books, that if he were out there trying to get voters for the republican party, then his rating would be in the pits and, more than likely, he would have been off the air years ago.

So it only makes sense that he speaks out against George W. Bush and the republicans when they support an amnesty bill that only 20% of Americans support. If Rush’s agenda were to get as many voters for the republican party as he could, he would not be able to speak his mind on this issue.

Rush has become famous because he’s honest with his viewers on issues like this. He believes in traditional American values first, and he’s a republican only as far as the republican party supports the issues of traditional America.

Thus, when the republican party and George W. Bush want to reward people for breaking into our country, Rush speaks out against it. That’s not unlike what many of you do in your homes every day.

Which goes to show, Rush Limbaugh is not out their trying to get people to become republicans. He is not out there trying to recruit voters for the republican party. He’s speaks behind that “golden EIB microphone” speaking what he honestly believes to be true.

And, regarding most issues, he talks about things that most people believe to be true but don’t read about in their local newspapers, or watch on the evening news with Katie Couric, or on CNN with Wolf Blitzer. The American people are not stupid, and that’s why they are turning away from the elite media and toward the new media, which would include Rush.

That was one of the main problems of all the democrats who tried to create their own Rush Limbaugh programs, the majority of which were off the air within a year. Even the one that remains on the air, “Air America”, is not even close to the ratings of Rush. In fact, Air America is running in the red.

One might ask: why is this? Why has Rush done so well on talk radio while others have failed? The reason is simple: Rush entertains first, and he educates second. But he never tells us how to think; never tells us how to vote.

What he does do is take the exact words of politicians, judges, city officials, popes, pastors, writers, etc., breaks them down in a simple format, and has us listen to what they said so we can see for ourselves how goofy what they said is. In this way he is not only entertaining, he is educating.

In essence, Rush, on his show, does what the media used to do. He breaks down the news, he examines it from all angles, and comes up with a conclusion about what was said. Or, Rush might ask, is the speaker speaking from his heart, or is he simply being political? Is the speaker being honest with the American people, or is she saying something in an attempt to pull the wool over the eyes of Americans.

Basically, Rush does not go on air simply stating his opinions. He is analyzing the news that’s out there. When a politician says something stupid, or an anchor asks a bias question, he calls them on it.

As a perfect example, Rush recently talked about an interview of Jack Murtha by Chris Matthews on Matthew’s show “Hardball.”

Matthews asked, “"Hey, General Petraeus says that we're fighting the central front against Al-Qaeda in Iraq. Is that true?"

Murtha said, “This whole…war, ever since they diverted the attention away from where Al-Qaeda started, the Taliban in Afghanistan, the war in Afghanistan, where we should have stayed. Ever since that time, they were… trying to tie this in to terrorism. All of us know that… there's… terrorism all over the world.”

Up front, this looks like a fine and dandy quote. Murtha is just telling us his opinion. Whether you agree with it or not is another thing.

Now, Rush knows, as most watching that interview, that Murtha is against the war, and he knows that Murtha is going to say anything he thinks will show that the war is bad for America. But there is a problem with this question and answer sequence. Look back and see if you can see what I’m talking about.

That’s right. Matthews did not call Murtha on what Murtha said. Matthews did not say, “Hey, Murtha, where’s your proof.”

Isn't that the purpose of good journalism, to get all the news out? Thousands of Americans watched Hardball that day and didn’t catch that something was fishy about that interview, and some of those people may even have become anti-war supporters because of that.

The majority of that thousand were well educated Americans like you and me who simply don’t have time to break down the news. That’s supposed to be the job of guys like Matthews. So, you can see how these journalists are letting the American people down, and why they might turn to Limbaugh.

Likewise, there were many well educated people watching that show that day thinking, “Okay, Jack, where’s your proof. Come on Chris, ask him where his proof is.”

Um, and then Chris never asked him. So, what’s up with that?

In bringing this to light on his program, Rush is doing what the media used to do: tell both sides of the story. Only, since the media like Chris Matthews on his program that day, support the democratic party, they will not ask the hard questions to a democrat like Murtha.

Bill O’Reilly does. Bill O’Reilly would have pounded Murtha on this, even at the risk of making Murtha mad. Murtha might get so mad at O’Reilly that he’d never go back on O’Reilly. That’s why you don’t see people like Murtha, Clinton, Mrs. Clinton, Kerry, Gore going on Fox News for an interview. Or Republicans like Tom Delay. On Fox News, they’d be forced to answer the tough questions like, “Hey, Mr. Murtha, where’s your proof?”

I don’t know if Murtha was ever on the O’Reilly show or not. And I don’t know what he would have answered to this question, and Matthews is normally a pretty good interviewer, but what we learn from guys like Rush is that there’s more to the news than what you get by the elite media.

The only place you can find this out is to take the time to digest and fully analyze the news you are getting, or listen to Rush or other people who encourage you to dig deeper into the news, or, as my grandma us often, “Think for yourself.”

Consider this. If Bush is on the Chris Matthews’ show and said: “We went to war because Saddam was creating a safe haven for terrorists.”

You know Matthews would say, “Where’s your proof.”

Rush, on the other hand, simply makes us aware of Matthew’s bias. And, he asks the questions Matthews should have asked: “Where is your proof.”

The other day I read this in the newspaper: “Bush said Al Qaeda was in cahoots with Saddam.”

I thought, as many of you did, “Bush never said that. What he said was that Saddam was doing nothing to stop terrorists from hiding in his country. Since he wasn’t doing anything to stop terrorists, then he was harboring them. That’s what Bush said.

Funny thing, I listened to Rush for the first time in years after I read that, and Rush was talking about the same thing I had just figured out on my own. So, I guess you can say that Rush taught me to think for myself. Grandma would be proud.

It's not about being liberal or conservative, or republican or democrat. I don't agree with Rush on everything. I imagine most people who listen to him don't either. But Rush is one place you can go to get good, honest, traditional, friendly, optomistic, fair, and funny commentary. It's that simple.

If Matthews, if Air America, if the other reporters on CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, The New York Times, your local newspaper, were not affiliates of the Democratic National Committee, if they were not agenda driven, Rush would be out of a job.

That's the truth.