Howard Kurtz

I read this about a decade ago. My review (and the book) seem all the more relevant after this last campaign. "Talk shows have taken over the airwaves. Aggrieved, frustrated Americans have created a high-decibel, raucous, echo chamber where opinions rule, facts are ignored, and "one-sided pugnacity," specious denunciations, and "delirious gossip" determine the way we communicate with our leaders."
Howard Kurtz dissects this phenomenon and finds it wanting. "Anyone can say anything, at any show more time, without contradiction. It is raw, it is real, and it is immensely popular. The gate keepers of the elite media have been cast aside and the floodgates thrown open:' The "Open Line" of the airwaves. Debate has coarsened. Context and subtlety have been discarded. "Extremism in the pursuit of ratings is no vice." Persuasion is no longer the point. The only value that counts is audience share. "Talk is cheap. The armchair warriors defuse world crises, wipe out budget deficits, and solve the welfare mess, all before the commercial break: And it's all make-believe ... "

Kurtz insists this is "bad news for journalism, but more important, it's frequently bad for the country:' Politicians react to· the short-term quick opinions offered as analysis and become obsessed with "winning the week .... Short term maneuvering becomes more important than long-term policy." Hence the talk show candidates Alan Keyes and Pat Buchanan who have no experience and Know-Nothing. Crossfire began as a three hour verbal pissing match between Pat Buchanan and Tom Braden on a local Washington radio station. It was quite popular. Victor Gold, an Agnew speech writer called it "a form of ideological masturbation. You get your jerk liberal versus your jerk conservative." The show moved to television, where a guest was added although the visitors soon realized they were just foils for the "Braden Buchanan Act." One said, "1 felt 1 was in a barroom brawl... the only thing missing was the beer bottle over my head."

Braden soon tired of the charade and Michael Kinsley was courted to replace him - not a fair exchange, because Braden was a true leftist while Kinsley was a moderate and would often argue a liberal point of view he didn't necessarily believe in. But TV needs the cachet a print journalist could provide, so despite his misgivings, Kinsley, a Rhodes scholar, fell for the money.

The TV version was very different. They only had twenty two minutes rather than several hours, and the premise that every issue has a left and right side was spurious to begin with. The atmosphere was even more confrontational and the emphasis was on drama rather than enlightenment.

Ironically, Buchanan, the ideologue, was an articulate proponent of the far right, while Kinsley, ever the moderate, continued to portray a more centrist position - hard-core leftwing ideas rarely make it to television. Soon Buchanan was on three of the pundit shows, and that was enough to convince him he was qualified to be president.
William Kristol explains the deceptive nature of the celebrity status that television confers, "You can go through an airport and someone says, 'You were great on Crossfire' and you say, Hey, I'm famous. You can deceive yourself that you really have influence because you're on television, when all you're doing is being a pundit. You're like one of the guys on Hollywood Squares." But television is a genre that values glibness and brevity above all. "Too many dependent clauses might drive precious viewers away." Hot air becomes confused with absolute truth.

Ted Koppel, who Kurtz suggests has one of the better shows - even though he succumbed to the OJ. hysteria for the sake of ratings - summed them up: "There is a tendency to walk away from that program and say, 'Great.' But what did anyone say? It's like eating Fritos or Cheetos. It's a terrific experience while you're doing it, but there's not a lot of nutritional value .... If there is no discrimination in the public mind between what I do and what Geraldo Rivera does, then I think we're in trouble." Congratulations, Ted, you've finally awakened and smelled the coffee.

"There is something depressing, too, about the overheated and polarized nature of public debate these days. Lots of angry folks out there just want to talk back: to the media, to the authorities, to anyone who will listen. For them, talk radio [and Open Line:] is a sort of airwaves therapy, a socially acceptable way to vent their spleen or simply to feel connected to a fragmentary world ... a substitute for the conversation over the backyard fence .... For them, talk radio [is:] not about dialogue, it is simply an opportunity to rant." show less

Howard Kurtz does not offer all that much that will be new to news junkies who have been paying attention for the last year or so, but "Media Madness" is a good summary of the media hysteria that has accompanied the election of Donald Trump to the presidency for those who haven't been glued to TV news all that much. Kurtz is quick to point out that Trump brings much of the hysterical coverage upon himself...often instigating it in order to draw attention from an issue he wants to push off show more "the front page." It works well for Trump, especially well, when the talking heads on the left, in their overwhelming desire to harm Trump's image at all costs, loose track of how silly they are making themselves and their employers look. Sadly, though, there are no real winners in this war between the media and the President because all sides look bad in the long run...which looks worse is often hard to decide, and is probably in the eye of the beholder anyway.

The most interesting thing for me in the book (because I knew the basic chronology of the war before reading the book), is Kurtz's revelations about how personal some of the attacks are, often based entirely on past history between the parties, old grudges, and what are to be perceived as personal spats. Most surprising was the relationship of the "Morning Joe" couple, Joe and Mika and Donald and Ivanka Trump. According to Kurtz, Joe and Mika kissed up to Trump and his daughter in a rather shameful attempt to gain an inside advantage of having access to an old friend in the White House. When things fell apart (as was bound to happen), Joe and Mika - and Trump - behaved like elementary school children having a spat on the playground. The book can do little to tarnish Trump's image because we all know what we get with Donald Trump, but it definitely tarnishes the image of Joe and Mika, two 'journalists" readers will find it difficult ever to take seriously again.

"Media Madness" is a pretty straight forward account of politics as we have witnessed it in the last year. While it's not exactly an eye-opener, it is worth a look from anyone wanting to "catch up" on what the shrill screaming is all about. show less

Gossipy and fun and smart. A really fantastic look at the internet bubble and some of the catalysts for it; but all psuedointellectualism aside: no, seriously, it's very very gossipy. It's like the Defamer or Gawker of business journalism.

Illuminating narrative about the birth of financial journalism on the web and on TV networks such as CNBC. Dragged a bit in the middle, but very informative.