For those that watch MSNBC or who use to watch CNBC you'll know Dylan Ratigan, who use to host Fast Money and now hosts his own show on MSNBC.
Today was his last day at MSNBC and he had an interesting farewell message.
I found his words at the 6:03 mark quiet refreshing.
"...the apparent culture and system is one of destructive extraction, predatory, dualistic lying scumbags and we have all these other people who are completely the opposite of that [who] are [on] this mission centric heroic culture of collective collaboration and right now the power model at the top of our civilian society, top of our media, banks, politicians, models this sort of putrid dominance seeking culture and ultimately that's what we need to repair..."
Here's my take on Dylan. I like the guy, have since he was on Fast Money. He's a straight shooter.
That said, he's off on some non-profit, culture changing, entrepreneurial mission now that I think is a bit idealistic to say the least. There's nothing wrong with his decision to chart a new course, but I think he should have stuck with what he is clearly good at. He could have started his own media outlet and changed people's views that way.
Who knows, maybe that is part of his new plan (the details of which are basically non existent).
The thing with Ratigan is that he's definitely not a status-quo guy. I don't think rubbing elbows with powerful people brings him any joy. I don't think making a ton of money does either. I think he's someone who wants to have a positive impact on the world, or at least try to do so.
What's note worthy in this is how often do you see someone simply walk away from having their own show on a major network? Sure, people leave one network and go to another, but who leaves their television show for nothing? Who leaves the money, the fame, the power behind for far less money, far less fame and fare less power?
The only one that comes to mind is Cenk Ugyur of The Young Turks who was on MSNBC and left to do his own thing.
It tells you that something must really stink in the operations of the mainstream media outlets. I'm not sure if anchors are being told to report on stories in ways they aren't comfortable with or what, but clearly something is amiss for these guys to be turning their backs on what is the height of any media person's career ambitions.
I suspect the underlying motivation for these departures may rest in the belief that the media is part of the problem in the world today. Ratigan does after all list the media in his list of causes behind our societal ills, right up there with the banks and the politicians.
I think a lot of journalists today feel like they are now employees in a corporation. While this may have always been the reality, in decades past I think reporters were sheltered from that reality. The news use to be a 'loss leader' for the networks, it was the entertainment shows that made the money. The news was a 'public service' which simply happened to reside within a corporation.
Today though the news has to make the corporation money. Which means, in my opinion, a conflict of interest. For instance during the election season, the two candidates bring in more advertising revenue for EACH of the major networks than any other advertiser. So Obama and Romney will spend more money on NBC, CNBC, ABC, etc. than will Microsoft or Walmart or Nike or anyone else.
How do you ensure objectivity in reporting when your corporate profits are so tied to the very people you are reporting on?
Anyway, I'm rambling a bit at this point. All to say, it's yet another sign of how messed up the system is when people who have worked so hard to make it to the top, get there, and then say 'forget this, I'm outta here."
My hope though would be that instead of abandoning their profession all together that they would simply branch out on their own.
It will be interesting to see what Dylan does next.
Today was his last day at MSNBC and he had an interesting farewell message.
I found his words at the 6:03 mark quiet refreshing.
"...the apparent culture and system is one of destructive extraction, predatory, dualistic lying scumbags and we have all these other people who are completely the opposite of that [who] are [on] this mission centric heroic culture of collective collaboration and right now the power model at the top of our civilian society, top of our media, banks, politicians, models this sort of putrid dominance seeking culture and ultimately that's what we need to repair..."
Here's my take on Dylan. I like the guy, have since he was on Fast Money. He's a straight shooter.
That said, he's off on some non-profit, culture changing, entrepreneurial mission now that I think is a bit idealistic to say the least. There's nothing wrong with his decision to chart a new course, but I think he should have stuck with what he is clearly good at. He could have started his own media outlet and changed people's views that way.
Who knows, maybe that is part of his new plan (the details of which are basically non existent).
The thing with Ratigan is that he's definitely not a status-quo guy. I don't think rubbing elbows with powerful people brings him any joy. I don't think making a ton of money does either. I think he's someone who wants to have a positive impact on the world, or at least try to do so.
What's note worthy in this is how often do you see someone simply walk away from having their own show on a major network? Sure, people leave one network and go to another, but who leaves their television show for nothing? Who leaves the money, the fame, the power behind for far less money, far less fame and fare less power?
The only one that comes to mind is Cenk Ugyur of The Young Turks who was on MSNBC and left to do his own thing.
It tells you that something must really stink in the operations of the mainstream media outlets. I'm not sure if anchors are being told to report on stories in ways they aren't comfortable with or what, but clearly something is amiss for these guys to be turning their backs on what is the height of any media person's career ambitions.
I suspect the underlying motivation for these departures may rest in the belief that the media is part of the problem in the world today. Ratigan does after all list the media in his list of causes behind our societal ills, right up there with the banks and the politicians.
I think a lot of journalists today feel like they are now employees in a corporation. While this may have always been the reality, in decades past I think reporters were sheltered from that reality. The news use to be a 'loss leader' for the networks, it was the entertainment shows that made the money. The news was a 'public service' which simply happened to reside within a corporation.
Today though the news has to make the corporation money. Which means, in my opinion, a conflict of interest. For instance during the election season, the two candidates bring in more advertising revenue for EACH of the major networks than any other advertiser. So Obama and Romney will spend more money on NBC, CNBC, ABC, etc. than will Microsoft or Walmart or Nike or anyone else.
How do you ensure objectivity in reporting when your corporate profits are so tied to the very people you are reporting on?
Anyway, I'm rambling a bit at this point. All to say, it's yet another sign of how messed up the system is when people who have worked so hard to make it to the top, get there, and then say 'forget this, I'm outta here."
My hope though would be that instead of abandoning their profession all together that they would simply branch out on their own.
It will be interesting to see what Dylan does next.
Comments
Post a Comment