Morning Joe, Brewed by Starbucks

I know it's "soft news" but I don't think it's a great precedent.

 

maybe they can sponsor a coupla edibles named after Mika Brzezenski while they're at it

 

It's about making money. When did this sanctimony in journalism develop? It wasn't there from the beginning, because Pulitzer would have taken every darn penny.

When did we get all high and mighty?

 

Where do you draw the line? How do you prevent it from affecting your coverage?

Starbucks is a major corporation that is in the news. Sure there will be a "Chinese Wall" separating the marketing agreement from the news department, but the actual hosts are practically becoming spokespersons.

And everyone will know where their bread is buttered.

MLB.com articles "aren't approved by MLB" but the next one that criticizes Bud Selig or MLB's hierarchy will be the first one.

The same thing could happen at MSNBC and it will be the perception if Starbucks gets good coverage.

In their dealings with labor and in how they deal with their competition, Starbucks is a very controversial company. Is MSNBC going to cover the Indie coffee shop that looses its lease because Starbucks pressures its landlord? Kind of hard to do when you're, "brewed by Starbucks."

 

Correct answer: Post-Watergate.

And since when was "Morning Joe" a "news" show? I know it's topically about the news, but did they start doing actual reporting when I wasn't paying attention?

 

I thought Morning Joe was brought to me by The Stupid Company.

 

The TV version is quasi-palatable because Joe reins himself in.
It's on the radio that the inner asshole comes surging out,
to assuage the knuckledraggers.

 

Um, what about PTI presented by Smirnoff Ice?

Geico SportsNite on Comcast SportsNet?

 

And ESPN's college football show is "Built by the Home Depot" or at least it was.

But ESPN or Comcast SportsNet will never have to cover -- or comment on (that one's for you, Buck) -- a news story about Smirnorff Ice or Geico.

Starbucks is in the news a lot and MSNBC has to cover them.

The sports nets have built in conflicts in that they pay rights fees to the organizations they cover, which aligns their interests, but the equivalent is not what you posted.

The equivalent would be PTI presented by Major League Baseball or even by Nike.

 

Why Nike? SportsCenter gets 'presenter' mentions infrequently.

Hell, those stupid LeBron and Kobe dolls were doing a bit on the SC set last week.

 

That was my thought. It's essentially a talk/commentary show. Yeah, it's a talk/commentary show focused on news, but it's not equivalent to Brian Williams doing the news in a General Electric blazer. Joe doesn't bill himself as a journalist and his show generally isn't focused on consumer or business commentary (where these sorts of deals might cause more problems).

I do think it's a sign of how desperate everyone (shows, companies, everybody) is becoming in this advertising market, but it's more a "state of TV" statement than a "state of journalism" one.

 

Would you care to address my question?

Why is Joe Scarborough's appearance of objectivity so important anyway? He's not trying to be a journalist. He's not trying to "cover" the news. He's certainly not doing any reporting. What does it matter if he's sponsored by any number of companies that are in the news? It's a TV panel show. Are Frappuccinos are going to make his panelists any more or less credible when they're giving their opinions? Are they going to make him any more or less credible in his commentary?

And if he doesn't mention Starbucks closing 6,000 stores because of his show's sponsorship, are we supposed to take him any more or less seriously? It's TV commentary, not objective political discourse. And certainly not journalism.