There was a time when cable news actually broadened the national discourse, allowing such intellectually diverse figures as Pat Buchanan, Tom Braden, Robert Novak, and Michael Kinsley to match wits over the air. Today the situation is rather different — uniformity, with only token opposition, is now the rule with industry leaders MSNBC and Fox News, as Brian Stetler of the New York Times relates:
As cable news channels like MSNBC and Fox News Channel have grown highly politicized, they have become arbiters of the bounds of acceptable discourse — not always a comfortable role for those involved. A corporate allergy to controversy sometimes exists, even though controversy is what sometimes motivates channels to hire commentators and compels people to watch.
… Mr. Buchanan has always been an ardent conservative. That’s why he was hired by MSNBC in 2002, after spending the previous 20 years as host of CNN’s “Crossfire” between unsuccessful runs for president. At that time, MSNBC called itself “fiercely independent” and had no clear political tilt.
As even his ideological opponents routinely acknowledged, Buchanan was more thoughtful and less reflexively partisan than the new blow-dried breed of cable commentators. That, as much as his sins against political correctness, cost him his place with MSNBC. Note, by the way, that MSNBC is touting Michael Steele — not a journalist, but the former chairman of the RNC — as Buchanan’s de facto replacement. The two parties and the “news” channels that serve them are happy to present one another as America’s only alternatives; that’s what keeps the racket going.
tbraton 
Fran Macadam 
Ben, Okla. City 
bjk 
Don Yarish 
freemansfarm 
Jeremy 
Press Lord 
I don’t see the big deal. In the USA in the past, newspapers were often much more strictly partisan than either MSNBC or Fox. Indeed, the editors themselves were often party activists, like Horace Greeley. The fallacy, in my view, is that any newspaper, cable news outlet, whatever, can really be “balanced.” CNN supposedly tries to do this, and yet their coverage of foreign affaris is relentlessly liberal interventionist. There is no really “independent,” value-free way to present the news. The New York Times has its bias, just as does the Wall Street Journal. Same with the Washington Post and the Washington Times and New York Post. Why should TV be any different?
Folks know the slant of MSNBC and Fox, and take that into account. Moreover, most of the programming on these networks is clearly of the “opinion” variety, as opposed to straight news. And, with cable, there is no notion of “limited airwave” space that is somehow in the public domain, thereby mandating “fairness.”. Like the internet, cable TV is open to everyone and to all points of view. And that need not be limited to the those of the two major parties. There is now a network called “Current” which is further to the left than the national, Obama Democrats. Certainly, nothing is stopping the supporters of Buchanan, and his views, from creating their own cable network, just as they have created this website. Same with the Ron Paul supporters. The Ralph Nader supporters. The Tea Party. OWS. And so on.
Enough with this special pleading for Pat Buchanan. A cable TV network declined to renew his contract, as it has every right to do. There was no “blacklisting,” and Buchanan still has his syndicated column, and this website. His voice has not been silenced, nor his point of view. But MSNBC has no obligation to continue his employment. If Fox doesn’t want him either, he can start his own cable TV network, if being on cable TV is so important to him. MSNBC and Fox simply believe that their viewers prefet a certain idealogical consistency, much like the editors at the National Review and Mother Jones do viz a viz their readers. I don’t see the problem.